[RonanSoleste]

They effectively already left NATO and openly support Russia already. ICC members are already under fire and some had their microsoft account banned by Trump. Trump will invade Greenland and Canada first. China is less of an priority.

[rcbdev]

> They effectively already left NATO

What the fuck are you talking about? Someone should tell Russia.

[vanviegen]

NATO works by projecting a united force. Nations unconditionally backing each other up. The USA is now clearly no longer a part of that. That's not to say that the USA will do nothing if a NATO member is attacked. It might. Or not.

[SirHumphrey]

One can only imagine what America not fighting an attack on NATO member would have on nuclear proliferation.

[RobotToaster]

We're currently in the position of the USA threatening to attack a NATO member (Denmark)

[mrguyorama]

Limiting Nuclear proliferation was already fucked.

Trump tore up Iran's "we won't do nukes" deal, doesn't matter whether you think they were genuine or not, it demonstrates we will go back on a deal so our word isn't worth anything.

Ukraine shows that the west will not actually protect you like they claim, so your only option is getting nukes to really deter people.

North Korea and Pakistan demonstrate that you can pretty much do whatever you want with just a couple nukes, the west will cower in fear over idle threats.

No country would look at any of this and conclude that they have any choice but to build nukes to protect themselves.

[everyone]

Any country without nukes, that is not currently developing them, is stupid imo.. Nukes are the only thing that can guarantee sovereignty now. Ukraine gave up their nukes.

[vanviegen]

Do you believe the existing nuclear powers will just allow any country to join their ranks without a fight?

[thuridas]

Europe is already considering to have a nuclear shield.

This is because if Trump

[ArnoVW]

No need to consider. The UK and France have nukes. France even has a two-tier response. Not enough to vitrify Russia or China five times over, but enough to make them reconsider.

[jonnybgood]

For much of NATO history, the US is NATO. The US doesn’t want it to be like that anymore because it needs to strategically shift to the other side of the world. So, the US says “What if Europe can be NATO? If we can force them to meet the GDP commitment then maybe we don’t need to worry about them too much and commit less of our own resources to this theater.” But of course people interpret this as if the US is abandoning the alliance. No, the US just has other problems to deal with in the world.

[exceptione]

That is the rationalization, but don't be surprised if the US would not confront China at all.

The main flow of capital in the US had been going to the mil.industry, but that is not the case anymore. It is mainly surveillance tech that is receiving capital. In a very unhealthy economy, this all looks eerily pre-'30s.

The US, right now, is only threatening weak countries, they don't have the industrial power to confront China, nor do they want it. This shouldn't be a surprise, some ideologues behind this maga-project belief in an America from one pole to the other. They believe in "spheres of influence", and as such China has their own sphere of influence. A sphere of influence means a kind of colony, where natural resources, people and industry are all resources to be extracted by them. It is the Russian model, it is the model of criminal mobs, it is might makes right, it is a multi-polar world.

Meanwhile, re-industrialization projects have been scrapped, partners have been scared of, and tariffs have hit the industry that was still left in America.

Monopolists are parasites on the economy, and the US is already very weakened from that. As the Japanese said, the US is still a great power, but the throne is empty. I suspect there will be skirmishes with other "great powers" over exploitable resources like Africa, Middle East, Europe, but I don't expect the current crop to go all-in on China.

[ChocolateGod]

The US has been the biggest opponent to a European (or EU) army, fearing loss of influence and control. It was very much in US interest at the time.

[vanviegen]

Yes, the US has always been the driving force behind NATO. It provides close to 40% of the combined military personnel, and an even higher portion of military spending.

No longer committing to defend other NATO countries, even if their military spending exceeds the target, is abandoning the alliance though. NATO is little else than that commitment.

[benterix]

Well, the very fact that we are even discussing it means Trump already weakened NATO as an alliance.

[wisty]

There's a left wing cooker conspiracy theory that the guy who gave Ukraine the Javalin anti tank missiles and forced NATO to increase military spending to 5% of GDP is actually a secret Russian agent.

[alimw]

You literally just used NATO for a grouping that does not include the US.

[wisty]

Can you rephrase what I said without "literally using NATO for a grouping that does not include the US"?

I didn't even mention the US lol, I think you're paranoid but please, correct me ...

I mean, I didn't phrase it as Trump being a part of NATO, but he's not actually a country.

[alimw]

Oops I guess if this is as much sense as you can make then there wasn't much point in my trying to parse your comment in the first place.

[wisty]

I didn't group NATO and the US separately. You thought I did, but I didn't and you just hadn't read properly.

I waffled a bit in my reply to not rub it in too hard.

And do you want to contribute with something other than nitpick or insult?

Do YOU think that an informed and intelligent person can conclude that Trump is secretly a Russian agent, given he was the driving force behind a massive hike in NATO spending (which Putin really hates)?

I'm not calling Trump competent, or consistent, or benevolent. You can say he has a weird crushed on Putin and is easily manipulated and corrupt.

You can even suggest a lot of the MAGA people who surround Trump are actually working for Russia, since Russia tries to influence a lot of groups and Trump's cronies (and the influencers Trump listens to) are often compromised.

But do you think Trump is actually consistently taking orders from Putin because of some kind of leverage Putin has? Because people say this constantly and it's (in my opinion) almost as embarrassing as Republicans and the Pizza conspiracy. Trump has done some things that are increadibly damaging to Russia, and blackmail doesn't work on a pathological liar with no sense of shame.

I'm sure you're smart enough to agree with pretty much all of this. But you disingenuously attack me because I'm attacking people who are on your side, even if you would privately admit they are dumb.