4 ms·

> He could maybe withdraw the US from it. realistically speaking, this destroys NATO

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
Under current circumstances, I doubt it. NATO has extremely fresh evidence of why it needs to continue to exist, and what happens if it doesn't.
- roenxi 1y ago
  WWII was pretty compelling evidence of why Britain needed a global empire, but nonetheless the empire was dissolved. There is a pretty good argument here for at a minimum reforming NATO. Some major points include that the US appears to be bluffing about having useful support to offer Eastern Europe through the NATO structure, also appears to have different defence priorities than Europe does, NATO itself failed to preserve peace and Europe looks like it has militarily atrophied to a pretty significant extent under NATO. It is not clear how the situation will ultimately be interpreted, but the US's involvement here is pushing Europe towards being the next middle east. That isn't a great outcome.
  - tim333 1y ago
    Why did Britain need a global empire? I sit here in Britain with no global empire and things seem to continue.
    - roenxi 1y ago
      Exactly. Very similar situation to NATO - there isn't any evidence it needs to exist. The premise depends on an assumption that the status quo is necessary, when in fact it is not.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    The Empire ended because WW2 was a Pyrrhic victory for the UK, that left the UK in a bad shape economically and heavily dependent on the USA. The USA didn't like the Empire, but the UK government didn't fully realise how much things had changed until the Suez Crisis. Also, WW2 happened despite the Empire, and the UK wasn't really in a good place to fight it when they did — as in "we don't have enough guns and uniforms for everyone" not ready, despite having ended the military cutbacks 5 years before the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rearmament_before_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rearmament_before_Worl..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Small_Arms_Company#Second_World_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Small_Arms_Company#..., https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-facts-about-clothes-rationing-in-britain-during-the-second-world-war https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-facts-about-clothes-rationi...
euroderf 1y ago
Timothy Garten Ashe of Oxford says that NATO needs about five years to adapt to the loss of the USA.
tim333 1y ago
I don't think it destroys NATO. Weakens it of course. But we had an trial when Trump acted like he was abandoning Ukraine when they had a go at Zelensky in the White House and cut information sharing to Ukraine. Rather than the defences collasing, European leaders made it clear they'd take over. We don't have much choice really. Western Europe + Turkey are not going to put up with Russia rolling into Western Europe or Turkey. We have nukes and more money, people and kit than Russia.
Gud 1y ago
No, but a withdrawal of it's by far most aggressive partner will make it a defence alliance again.

Under current circumstances, I doubt it. NATO has extremely fresh evidence of why it needs to continue to exist, and what happens if it doesn't.

roenxi 1y ago
WWII was pretty compelling evidence of why Britain needed a global empire, but nonetheless the empire was dissolved. There is a pretty good argument here for at a minimum reforming NATO. Some major points include that the US appears to be bluffing about having useful support to offer Eastern Europe through the NATO structure, also appears to have different defence priorities than Europe does, NATO itself failed to preserve peace and Europe looks like it has militarily atrophied to a pretty significant extent under NATO. It is not clear how the situation will ultimately be interpreted, but the US's involvement here is pushing Europe towards being the next middle east. That isn't a great outcome.
- tim333 1y ago
  Why did Britain need a global empire? I sit here in Britain with no global empire and things seem to continue.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Exactly. Very similar situation to NATO - there isn't any evidence it needs to exist. The premise depends on an assumption that the status quo is necessary, when in fact it is not.
- ben_w 1y ago
  The Empire ended because WW2 was a Pyrrhic victory for the UK, that left the UK in a bad shape economically and heavily dependent on the USA. The USA didn't like the Empire, but the UK government didn't fully realise how much things had changed until the Suez Crisis. Also, WW2 happened despite the Empire, and the UK wasn't really in a good place to fight it when they did — as in "we don't have enough guns and uniforms for everyone" not ready, despite having ended the military cutbacks 5 years before the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rearmament_before_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rearmament_before_Worl..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Small_Arms_Company#Second_World_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Small_Arms_Company#..., https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-facts-about-clothes-rationing-in-britain-during-the-second-world-war https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-facts-about-clothes-rationi...

euroderf 1y ago

Timothy Garten Ashe of Oxford says that NATO needs about five years to adapt to the loss of the USA.

tim333 1y ago

I don't think it destroys NATO. Weakens it of course. But we had an trial when Trump acted like he was abandoning Ukraine when they had a go at Zelensky in the White House and cut information sharing to Ukraine. Rather than the defences collasing, European leaders made it clear they'd take over. We don't have much choice really. Western Europe + Turkey are not going to put up with Russia rolling into Western Europe or Turkey. We have nukes and more money, people and kit than Russia.

Gud 1y ago

No, but a withdrawal of it's by far most aggressive partner will make it a defence alliance again.