Should US leave NATO?

[TT2025]

Don't forget to account, for the origin of the NATO weapons systems I suppose it is dominated by the US.. So when European NATO member buys equipment what percentage of that is channelled back to US military industrial complex? 

And really.. compare Albania's contribution to the country with largest nominal GDP on the planet is bit off.

USA is now acting as a mother in law with PMS... 🙂 

[BootmanLA]

On 3/5/2025 at 11:37 AM, Eastvillagefun said:

Just a few things to consider with NATO funding. Member contributions are calculated as a % of GDP (makes sense, right?). The target worked is 2%. The US does contribute more than that, butt not the highest. Poland and Estonia each contribute a higher percentage. Some countries are below 2%.

Also keep in mind that the US is the only country to have actually invoked Article 5, and received NATO support in a military action after an attack (in response to the 9/11 attack.)

The first part of that is incorrect.

The 2% of GDP is not for "member contributions". It's what each member of NATO is asked (with no enforcement mechanism) to spend on defense. That means if a country has a GDP of 100 billion, it's expected to spend 2 billion of that on "defense" - which includes all of its military spending. It's not a contribution made to some account at NATO.

The US looks "good" under this standard only because we spend such a large portion of our GDP on our military, most of which goes to military contractors supplying weapons and material, a substantial portion of which we can't seem to even track.

"Member contributions" are a separate assessment actually DOES pay into an account at NATO, because something has to pay for its overhead. But that is nowhere near 2% of any nation's GDP.

[BootmanLA]

On 3/4/2025 at 6:19 PM, nanana said:

One bonus question: when did Demos and RINOs decide it was prudent to jettison Washington’s advice about entangling alliances or Quincy Adams’ advice not to go overseas for monsters to destroy?”

Washington gave that advice at a time when the Atlantic Ocean isolated the United States from all of Europe, when an invading army would require weeks in ships to get to us (although Britain did come through Canada once). With the advent of ships powered other than by wind or oars, with the invention of airplanes and aircraft carriers and missiles and the like, we are no longer physically isolated from adversaries,

We operated for almost a century and a half on the premise that we didn't really need "alliances" because we had only two borders to defend and we were far stronger, economically and militarily, than either. We still got dragged into WWI because one side in that war insisted on attacking our non-military shipping.

Then we found out, in 1941, that our vaunted physical isolation didn't really protect us nearly as much as we thought given the destruction wrought at Pearl Harbor. 

And even once we established military supremacy over pretty much every other fighting force on earth, 9/11 showed us that it was still possible for enemies to inflict massive damage on us.

This isn't to say a lot of our "adventuring" wasn't a big factor in these things happening. We made a lot of enemies throwing our weight around. But the answer isn't "retreat from all alliances" but "stop trying to meddle so much in other countries' basic affairs". 

[Eastvillagefun]

30 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

The first part of that is incorrect.

The 2% of GDP is not for "member contributions". 

I'm sorry I conflated the two. It was an oversimplification on my part and you are correct in calling that out. It seems we are in agreement regardless

[Eastvillagefun]

23 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

This isn't to say a lot of our "adventuring" wasn't a big factor in these things happening. We made a lot of enemies throwing our weight around. But the answer isn't "retreat from all alliances" but "stop trying to meddle so much in other countries' basic affairs". 

I'd also point out the irony that our current isolationist administration is also leaning strength into neocolonialism. I'm sure that will end we'll and will be fine. I can't see any potential downside in that one.

[brnbk]

On 3/4/2025 at 6:57 AM, nanana said:

With US footing the bill at 70%, maybe the Europeans would be freer to pursue their war policies and pay for them themselves?

Other Nations have contributed disproportionately to world issues when they where world Powers, and the US benefited immensely from it. World War II was only won because India funded the war effort through the "British Empire" and Russia sacrificed 50 million men for defeating Nazism. WW -II helped the US build its industrial capacity and surge ahead, and neither Russia nor India where ever compensated for their war efforts. Being a World Power, comes with responsibilities and since India and Russia where the primary world powers in that era, it was natural that they did what needed to be done. 

Since the US took over as a world power eventually become a Superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union: it is only fair that it foots the bill for US defense and military goals, and world security. 

[nanana]

1 hour ago, brnbk said:

Other Nations have contributed disproportionately to world issues when they where world Powers, and the US benefited immensely from it. World War II was only won because India funded the war effort through the "British Empire" and Russia sacrificed 50 million men for defeating Nazism. WW -II helped the US build its industrial capacity and surge ahead, and neither Russia nor India where ever compensated for their war efforts. Being a World Power, comes with responsibilities and since India and Russia where the primary world powers in that era, it was natural that they did what needed to be done. 

Since the US took over as a world power eventually become a Superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union: it is only fair that it foots the bill for US defense and military goals, and world security. 

If you imagine that you are the same as a superpower and as such you are empowered to sacrifice Americas tax dollars and become a wounded vegetable that deserves a subsidy, then by all means (but with no guarantees) live your words you brave man. If you think this call to sacrifice will go far on a pleasure-seeking bareback site filled with lovers (definitely not fighters), then ask these warmonger Eurolads to put their (free-site-access) dick-money where Zelenskier’s mouth is. Or post your bank account and routing number here so we can let the IRS know that you volunteered our tax money to military-socialism up the world. 

[BlueSaphir]

Absolutely not! Stop listening to Fox News. Stop drinking that kool aid poison drink. It destroying your intelligence…

[GermanFucker]

On 3/5/2025 at 5:01 PM, viking8x6 said:

OK people, don't get your knickers in a twist!

@nanana's statement is not false per se, although it is somewhat misleading.

If you combine the military spending of all NATO countries, US spending is approximately 70% of it (over the last 10 years). BUT (and this is why it's misleading) that's ALL military spending for the countries in question, including all operations everywhere, not just in Europe or on "Europe-relevant" theaters of engagement.

If anyone wants to see the numbers, you can find them here: [think before following links] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

 

Personally, I think we (the US) spend too much. Of course, that's what the President says, too... Do I have to disinfect myself now?

 

I think you can want the same thing for different reasons.

First things first: things are complicated. For the last years the dollar has been decidedly overvalued, which is skewing the figures a bit. Also part of the equation is that the US disproportionately profits from NATO miliitary spending. Other countries buying F-35 not only makes the jets cheaper to produce for the US, but also generates US tax revenue. The decisions that to led to the current state of affairs was not just other countries "taking advantage of the US", but also the US going along with it, as it benefitted the military-industrial complex and cemented the US' role as the world's only true superpower

So it is one thing to demand more equitable load-sharing within a defensive alliance (which I think you're doing here). That is just fair. It's something different if you spew FSB propaganda and want to dismantle this alliance (because leaving NATO will not save the US money. Instead it will cost a lot more money, if the US wants to maintain a similar posture on the world stage). It's funny how the same guys who first chastized Europe for not spending enough on defense, are now decrying them as warmongers, now that the EU is upping it's defense spending to US levels.

Simple trick to spot Russian trolls and the "useful idiots" who parrot their talking points: The hypocrisy is always rife with them.

 

[NicNorth]

Here in the UK we value our relationship with the USA and our government is increasing its contribution to NATO as are other European nations though not all it’s true and this does need to be addressed.  We have also committed troops to support US military in recent years.  Putin might be on friendly terms with the US President now but he is not reliable.  NATO has generally helped to keep the peace so far  it’s worth persevering. 

Personally I’m saddened by the resort to tariffs and isolationism.  I feel we should nurture our friends not alienate them.  Free trade has generally gone hand in hand with periods of peace and prosperity.

[Sub4urcok]

Go fuck yourself, nazi sympathizer.

[viking8x6]

5 hours ago, GermanFucker said:

So it is one thing to demand more equitable load-sharing within a defensive alliance (which I think you're doing here)...

Actually I was not demanding, nor even advocating, anything. I was clarifying the actual numbers with regard to US spending "on NATO," and that the numbers reported regarding NATO spending are not spending "on NATO," simply spending by NATO countries on their own defense forces. 

Given how the US and Europe use their respective military forces, I don't think it's inappropriate that (historically) the US would be spending more. If European countries choose to devote more resources to supporting Ukraine, I would expect them to spend more, and of course very likely they will.

[PozBearWI]

To the original question, should the US leave NATO?  It doesn't really matter, we have at the words of one man.  I don't think it was in anyway a shared collective decision, but the orange one has taken us there nonetheless.  Now, should we complete the task might be the question.  With us functionally already gone, the question now is "now what?".  NATO has done pretty well for it's better part of a century controlling much of global interactions.  It has been a pretty effective check and balance.  When we look across the globe now compared to 1940; we've seen a lot of economies grow and humans prosper.  One might argue we've prospered too well.  

If our oligarch lords have their way, we will become more subservient to them.  Do we want that?  It's a pretty simple question.  Do we want a ruler, or do we want the affect of our shared voices to bring about our day to day lives?

[TaKinGDeePanal]

On 3/11/2025 at 9:04 AM, brnbk said:

Other Nations have contributed disproportionately to world issues when they where world Powers, and the US benefited immensely from it. World War II was only won because India funded the war effort through the "British Empire" and Russia sacrificed 50 million men for defeating Nazism. WW -II helped the US build its industrial capacity and surge ahead, and neither Russia nor India where ever compensated for their war efforts. Being a World Power, comes with responsibilities and since India and Russia where the primary world powers in that era, it was natural that they did what needed to be done. 

Since the US took over as a world power eventually become a Superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union: it is only fair that it foots the bill for US defense and military goals, and world security. 

Ask the Poles how they feel about the Soviet "war effort" - and Allied POWs about how they feel about the actions of the Indians who decided to align themselves with the Japanese (and were deployed as guards)  BTW, did you hear that India actually were awarded independence largely as a reward for their support?

[PrisonbaiT]

I must say i come from the smallest country of NATO, but when the USA was attact on 9/11, which i still remember as yesterday, the whole world was shocked,  because this was besides Pearl Harbour the first attack on American soil I was 2 blocs away from the twin towers and saw it all happen before my eyes. And good for the American people that they never where attact locally.  But Belgium and the UK and other nations where there to help the American Armee to stand with them in Irak and Afghanistan to find the culpits and fight together against Terrorism. Our population is a big as New York but still we did do an effort and help the US to do the right thing, but sadly Fox News does not share this info with the American people. So the real truth that passes is what Trump posts on his "Truth Social" and mostly are lies or his own truths.  Putin is smiling now because Trump is supporting his cause to wraken NATO.  Trump is fighting  his allies instead of his enemies.