I do not agree with withdrawing the USA from NATO, but rather-
If nations that are in NATO are unable to maintain their monetary dues, they do not receive protection and/or are penalized for being delinquent.
Their contribution should be reassessed annually or biannually (every 2 years).
Agreed, we should leave NATO and ask for it to be disbanded, and create a new group for any and all countries that are currently stable with a couple of simple rules, peace and economic growth.
This is a very big issue for my town. We used to have several furniture factories. They have all moved overseas. Leaving empty buildings and many people out of work. People get depressed and can’t find work that will pay anything. Many of those people are on drugs and making terrible mistakes in their lives. Please help with this issue.
Start by withdrawing from the UN, them leverage that to get NATO partners to straighten up.
Was this posted by a Russian sympathizer? This has to be close to one of the stupidest suggestions I have ever seen. Trump suggesting in his first term showed his ignorance. Thankfully, the GOP passed laws protecting NATO membership from Trump.
But then again, the same bloated government we are dealing with now. KILLED KENNEDY, so there is that
No, it wasn’t posted by a Russian sympathizer. It was posted by a critical thinker.
NATO used to exist to resist Soviet expansion. Now it apparently exists to provoke WWIII.
It’s Friday night as I write this, meaning that you are likely home from your long day of toiling for the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Relax, have a few cocktails, and dream tonight of global thermonuclear incineration. Remember to check under your bed for Vladimir Putin before you tuck yourself in, RINO.
You’re funny. Not as bright as you might think you are, but still funny.
Who invaded who? Unless you have some info that the rest of the world does not, Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin has vocalized his desire to take more land which includes some NATO countries. NATO has a purpose and to this day, has served its purpose. However, Russia is testing that.
We can pretend we are avoiding a war today by not supporting Ukraine and backing out of NATO only to fight a much worse war down the road.
Pull your head out of you know where.
In a recent interview Putin states that he asked to join NATO and the US denied him multiple times. According to Putin, he has extended many olive branches and it was us who denied him.
I don’t think so. President Putin respects President Trump. I think it may yet be salvaged.
So, are you a MIC shill or a Uke? Despite repeated warnings from the Russians, the MIC sent none other than VPOTUS Harris to Ukraine to publicly invite them to join NATO. Shortly thereafter, Russia invaded. As promised.
Putin said he wants to take land in NATO countries? Post a link to him saying that, or admit you are a liar.
NATO is now the greatest threat to peace in the world, and America shouldn’t be part of it. And by the way, the United States does not have a treaty of alliance with Ukraine. The only formal security guarantee we ever made to them was that we would not nuke them if they gave up their nuclear weapons. The document is easily findable on the UN website. Read it for yourself.
If the EU needs to be defended from Russia, let them do it themselves. There is no need for the United States to get drawn into yet another Bankers’ War.
NATO reached the end of its usefulness decades ago. However, having it exist does give us a lot of leverage over Europe. That’s the only reason I’d be hesitant to get rid of it.
NATO, the right arm of the Federal Reserve, must be disbanded. We need to end it as soon as possible.
Yes, ive been saying this for years. Nato should have been disbanded when the reason for its existence lost power. It is now just a anti russia alliance. Preventing what could be a powerful alliance.
International Consequences
1. Destabilization of European Security
• Increased Vulnerability to Aggression: NATO is a cornerstone of European security, deterring potential aggressors, particularly Russia. Without the U.S., NATO’s military capabilities would be significantly weakened, making Eastern European nations like Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine more vulnerable to Russian influence or military aggression.
• Encouragement of Adversaries: Russia might view a U.S. withdrawal as an opportunity to assert its power in Eastern Europe, potentially escalating conflicts, as seen in Ukraine. China could also view a NATO without the U.S. as a weakened alliance, allowing it to push more assertively in regions like the South China Sea.
2. Shift in Global Power Dynamics
• Strengthened Russia and China: The U.S. has long been a counterbalance to Russian and Chinese ambitions. A NATO withdrawal would create a power vacuum, allowing these countries to increase their influence in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
• Loss of U.S. Influence in Europe: NATO allows the U.S. to maintain a strong influence in European political and military affairs. A withdrawal would diminish this influence, making it harder for the U.S. to collaborate on global issues like counterterrorism, cyber defense, and nuclear nonproliferation.
• Rise of Alternative Alliances: European nations might seek new alliances or strengthen existing partnerships, such as the European Union’s defense initiatives, or even form closer ties with countries like China, who may seek to fill the void left by the U.S. This shift could weaken U.S. global leadership.
3. Weakening of the Transatlantic Alliance
• Increased Burden on European Nations: Without the U.S., European NATO members would need to dramatically increase their defense spending to fill the gap, which could strain their economies and cause political friction. Countries like Germany and France might struggle to match the military capabilities that the U.S. currently provides.
• European Uncertainty and Division: European countries vary in their defense priorities and spending capabilities. A U.S. withdrawal could lead to disagreements among European nations about how to handle defense, leading to fragmentation within NATO or even the alliance’s dissolution.
4. Nuclear Security Risks
• Nuclear Deterrent Reduction: The U.S. nuclear umbrella protects many NATO allies, which deters adversaries from considering nuclear strikes. Without this protection, some European countries might feel compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons for self-defense, increasing nuclear proliferation risks.
5. Impact on Global Stability and Peacekeeping
• Reduced Peacekeeping Efforts: NATO plays a role in global peacekeeping and stabilization missions (e.g., Afghanistan, Kosovo). Without U.S. participation, these missions might be scaled back, allowing conflicts in these regions to escalate and potentially leading to increased humanitarian crises and displacement.
• Loss of Counterterrorism Cooperation: NATO provides a framework for intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation. A diminished NATO could lead to reduced coordination on issues like tracking terrorist networks, managing cybersecurity threats, and combating organized crime.
Domestic Consequences for the U.S.
1. Economic Costs and Loss of Trade Benefits
• Increased Defense Spending: If the U.S. withdrew from NATO, it would lose the collective security benefits of the alliance, potentially requiring a larger military budget to defend itself and project power independently. This could lead to increased taxes or cuts in domestic programs.
• Reduced Trade and Investment: NATO helps maintain stability in Europe, which supports trade and investment between the U.S. and Europe. Instability in Europe could disrupt these economic ties, leading to potential losses in trade revenue and investment opportunities.
2. Loss of Strategic Military Bases
• Decreased Global Reach: The U.S. currently has military bases throughout Europe, which support its global military reach. These bases allow the U.S. to respond quickly to crises in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. A NATO withdrawal could limit access to these bases, forcing the U.S. to rely more on domestic bases and making rapid deployments more difficult.
• Higher Costs for Overseas Presence: Without NATO, the U.S. would need to negotiate new, often costly, agreements to retain or replace its bases in Europe, or rely more heavily on bases in other regions, which could reduce operational efficiency.
3. Impact on Domestic Politics and Public Opinion
• Political Polarization: A NATO withdrawal would likely deepen divisions within the U.S. Many Americans and lawmakers from both parties view NATO as essential to national security. The decision could face strong opposition, causing political turmoil and potential protests.
• Isolationist vs. Internationalist Divide: A withdrawal would fuel debate between isolationist and internationalist perspectives within the U.S. Some would argue for focusing on domestic priorities, while others would be concerned about the loss of global influence and the increased risk of future conflicts.
4. Reduced Diplomatic Leverage
• Diminished Soft Power: NATO is a symbol of U.S. commitment to democracy, security, and human rights. Leaving the alliance would harm the U.S.’s image abroad, potentially making other countries less willing to work with the U.S. on global issues like climate change, human rights, and trade.
• Challenges in Forming Future Alliances: A NATO withdrawal would damage trust among allies, making it harder to form future alliances or coalitions. Other nations might fear that the U.S. could abandon them in the future, making them less likely to commit to long-term partnerships.
5. Increased Security Risks
• Less Cooperative Intelligence Sharing: NATO enables intelligence sharing among member countries. A withdrawal could hinder U.S. access to valuable intelligence on threats, such as terrorism, cyber attacks, and espionage.
• Increased Vulnerability to Cyber Threats: NATO plays a key role in cyber defense, helping allies defend against cyber attacks from adversaries. Without NATO’s support, the U.S. could face increased cyber vulnerabilities, especially from state-sponsored attacks by countries like Russia.
Long-Term Consequences
1. Risk of Greater Global Conflicts
• Higher Likelihood of Military Conflicts: Without NATO, Europe would be less secure, and the U.S. would lack a strong alliance to counter potential aggressors. This could lead to an increased likelihood of military conflicts, which might eventually draw the U.S. back into costly wars.
• Return to Multipolar Tensions: NATO’s existence has helped maintain relative peace in Europe since World War II. Its dissolution could lead to a more multipolar world with shifting alliances and power struggles, increasing the risk of large-scale conflicts similar to those of the early 20th century.
2. Shift Away from U.S.-Led Global Order
• Emergence of New Power Blocs: Without U.S. leadership in NATO, other countries might form alternative power blocs or alliances, led by countries like China or Russia. This would erode the U.S.-led liberal international order and could lead to a world where authoritarian regimes have more influence.
• Loss of Influence in Setting Global Standards: The U.S. would lose influence in shaping global standards for trade, technology, and security. China, in particular, might take advantage of this to establish norms that favor its interests and undermine democratic values.
Invocation of Article 5
• For the first time in NATO’s history, the alliance invoked Article 5, the mutual defense clause, which states that an armed attack against one member is an attack against all. This declaration underscored NATO’s solidarity with the U.S. and commitment to collective defense.
• This invocation provided the U.S. with political and practical support from its NATO allies, showing global unity against terrorism. It marked a historic moment, as Article 5 had been designed for conventional state-to-state attacks, yet NATO extended it to cover a terrorist attack.
Operation Eagle Assist
• Following the 9/11 attacks, NATO launched Operation Eagle Assist from October 2001 to May 2002. In this operation, NATO sent AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) aircraft to help monitor U.S. airspace.
• Thirteen NATO AWACS aircraft flew over 360 missions, providing critical air surveillance and freeing up U.S. resources for operations abroad. This was the first time NATO assets were used to defend North American airspace, demonstrating the alliance’s practical support in a time of crisis.
Operation Active Endeavour
• In October 2001, NATO launched Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean Sea to detect, deter, and protect against potential terrorist activity and the movement of weapons of mass destruction. This naval operation aimed to safeguard maritime security and prevent terrorists from using the Mediterranean as a transit route.
• NATO ships monitored and escorted vessels, helped improve intelligence sharing, and conducted boardings when necessary. This operation helped ensure that terrorist groups could not use maritime routes for their activities, reducing the risk of future attacks.
Deployment to Afghanistan (ISAF Mission)
• In 2003, NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, marking the alliance’s first mission outside of Europe. Although not directly part of the initial 9/11 response, the ISAF mission was a response to the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, who were linked to the 9/11 attacks.
• NATO’s leadership in Afghanistan included providing security assistance, training Afghan forces, and supporting reconstruction efforts. This long-term commitment underscored NATO’s role in the broader “War on Terror” and provided vital support to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
Intelligence Sharing and Counterterrorism Cooperation
• NATO members increased intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation with the U.S. in the wake of 9/11. By enhancing intelligence collaboration, NATO helped the U.S. and other allies identify and respond to terrorist threats more effectively.
• NATO also developed new capabilities to address terrorism, such as cyber defense, surveillance, and defense against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats. These initiatives aimed to prevent future attacks and support collective security.
Enhanced Focus on Counterterrorism within NATO
• After 9/11, NATO adapted its mission to focus more on counterterrorism. The alliance established the NATO Response Force (NRF) in 2002 to respond rapidly to emerging threats, including terrorism. NATO also developed the Counter Terrorism Policy Guidelines to coordinate and strengthen counterterrorism efforts among member states.
• NATO’s focus on counterterrorism included exercises, training, and developing new technologies to detect and counter terrorist activities, which continue to enhance its members’ ability to address terrorism threats.
Yes! Or Re-establish/create a new alliance that is inclusive of nations globally. Instead of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we could ‘rebrand’ it with a new set of peace based focuses as the ‘Global’ or ‘United Nations’ Treaty Organization.
Half of your bullet points are great arguments for the US leaving NATO. I’m guessing, however, although based on your comment I’m not certain, you favor the US remaining in NATO?
Please allow me to state my bias up front…I’m solidly in the Make America Great Again camp. If that is to be achieved, Americans need to start looking at reality the way it is, not the way it was 30 years ago.
The Soviet Union is dead. It’s been dead for 30+ years. The Russians are no longer communists bent on world domination. Russia is a huge country, but their GDP is similar to Italy or Canada (GDP by Country - Worldometer). Is Canada economically powerful enough to conquer the world? Is Italy economically powerful enough to sweep over the rest of Europe?
The US national debt, 30 years ago, was about 4.5 trillion. Today it is an aircraft carrier away from 36 trillion. (https://www.usdebtclock.org/)
Even if NATO membership were still in the best interests of the United States, which it no longer is, we can no longer afford it. It’s time to cut up the credit cards on the Europeans. America can no longer piss away a few trillion here and a few trillion there and expect to survive the economic consequences.
Finally, let me say that withdrawal from NATO would not suddenly transform our former allies into instant adversaries. Nations would and should still cooperate to pursue their common interests, such as intelligence sharing and counter terrorism efforts.
I really cannot argue with these points. The US should leave an entangling military alliance that only contributes to our debt and rising inflation.
You were correct in the assumption that I was only supporting this as an extension/creation of a multi-nation, multi-faceted global alliance of nation’s that must establish better incentive to membership expenditures.
For example, If the US were to attempt a globalist ‘rebranding’ of NATO (UN Militias) to which all members of the UN were invited to join if they met the requirements. Members would have to adhere to all alliance and international policy, or face penalties or forced removal from said new alliance.
If there couldn’t be a good comprimise on this-I would support ultimate US ‘conventional neutrality’ which would include a ban on all official/covert US military intervention, and lend leases.
The US must maintain a globalist policy of mutually assured destruction when it comes to the topic of use of nuclear weapons. This foreign policy must be maintained until there is unanimous consensus on nuclear disarmament.
Yes please let’s get out of NATO. No, adding Russia doesn’t fix anything. Article 5 puts us on the hook to respond with blood and treasure if say Montenegro is attacked. Maybe 1 out of 100 Americans would have heard of it. We don’t need a treaty to respond if it is in our national interest.
Absolutely! And kick the UN out of NYC. Disband it. Defund it!