I think that if the US leaves NATO, the real threat to Europe and the world is the possibility of an American/Russian axis with N. Korea as a hanger on. How the world contains the two largest nuclear arsenals might be the security challenge of the 21st century. The best thing that might come out of Trump is Europe waking up.
Without the United States, NATO would still have a lot of strength. The problem is that it would then devolve into the problem that faces all coalitions - a “you first. No, you first” syndrome. Every nation would then ask, “Why should we be the ones to spend heavily on our military when the Poles/Germans/Romanians should or could be doing it for us?” It would turn into Bystander Syndrome.
I don’t know how a no-US NATO would have fared against a USSR at its cold-war peak. But it’s got to be pointed out that Ukraine not only fought Russia to a standstill but recaptured half of what Russia captured, including 2 major cities, and is also occupying parts of Russia.
If Ukraine can do that, it’s certain that a non-US NATO could do even more. The only complicating factors are:
- A lot of Western European countries are corrupt as hell, including some NATO members. Heavily infiltrated and influenced by Russia. What they’re able to oppose is not the same as what they’re willing to oppose.
- Europe’s nuclear deterrent isn’t as strong as Russia’s. Without the US threat of an Article 5 retaliation, this may change both Europe and Russia’s assessment of how much military provocation they can get away with.
So while the military capability is there, I am not sure the political alliance could hold. I could very easily see Poland not being sure if Germany has their back, and deciding that saving Latvia isn’t worth Warsaw getting nuked. End of the alliance as we currently understand it.
England has very few aircraft, even less ships, and ammunition stocks for only a few weeks. No Mothball Fleet (and if we had, there aren’t the sailors to man them). Not even any reserve of rifles now.
I’m not sure this is really true in any practical sense. The UK and France can destroy Russia. Like, literally cause Russia as a state and society to cease to exist for the rest of foreseeable time. Their nuclear strike capability is largely in SSBNs and beyond any realistic hope of Russia to preemptively eliminate. There isn’t really any meaningful level of deterrent beyond that, and Russia is perfectly aware of their nuclear capabilities.
No joke, but China is a candidate. They are NOT Russia’s friends. When they do align it’s a matter of temporary advantage.
Fair point, I’m wrong for over-relying on land and air capabilities, and discounting the SSBN capabilities of UK and France.
So, like, if Ukraine fought Russia to a standstill, and Europe has maneuver reserves that aren’t even tapped, and Russia being as depleted is it is, and with Europe having a robust nuclear deterrent… maybe it actually it is reasonable to think Europe could manage its own defense?
I still worry about the corruption and cowardice though. The lack of courage and initiative they’ve shown toward Ukraine makes me worry those countries are so infiltrated with Russian assets and interests that they might just decide to roll over and give away Eastern Europe again. But there again, maybe the US is the real problem in that regard.
NATO without the US still has more people, more money, better training, better logistics and better technology than Russia.
I think all the NATO nations combined are only giving Ukraine about $50 billion a year in military aid and a lot of that is old equipment that has been in storage, but that has been enough to almost grind the Russian invasion to a near standstill.
Since Russia’s invasion, the United States has provided Ukraine with around $75 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid. “Other NATO allies and partners have provided over $100 billion,” the secretary general said. “So, our support is an example of true transatlantic burden-sharing, and it is making a real difference every day.”
That article is from February 2024 so over the course of 2 years the US gave Ukraine 75 billion and the rest of NATO gave 100 billion. However that is for all aid. Military, financial and humanitarian.
According to charts like this, around 60% of US aid to Ukraine is military and the other 40% is financial and humanitarian. So if the same holds for the rest of NATO, then about $107 billion in military aid given over 2 years has pretty much stopped Russia. It hasn’t defeated them, but its created a meat grinder that has destroyed about 70 years of Russian military stockpiles and destroyed much of their original standing army.
Russia cannot flat out invade Western Europe or they will be nuked. That’s just reality. France especially is not going to allot themselves to be threatened. Of course, as it stands, Russia can’t get that far by conventional means anyway - their army is very tapped out. It’s gross but true; the war has in some ways increased the security of NATO by bleeding Russia dry. It’s been to our advantage.
But they’re not looking to invade France or even Germany anyway. They’re looking to invade the Baltics next, and then likely Poland. The question is not if NATO can defend those places, but if they WILL.
I don’t think “corruption” is the issue and I don’t at all understand your claims of “cowardice.” The West is supporting Ukraine quite a lot. Ukraine has survived only because of external support. What else was it you wanted? Starting a nuclear war?
Well it appears that our Trident missiles can strike at any target within 10 feet of the submarine.
Later reports suggested the motor didn’t fire due to damp. On a submarine! Does anyone have a large supply of silica gel?
The old quip was that NATO was intended to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.
I must say, I don’t see it as likely that the European NATO powers as a whole would be keen on projecting power outside Europe, unless, perhaps, there were a sustained major threat to national security from some other outside power.
I just read Trump still wants Greenland. Four-plus or whatever years ago, when he first said it, I first thought he saw the Mercator map (Four-time Bankrupt Real Estate Fake Billionaire Magnates don’t do Globes) and thought it was big as Africa.
Trump could not find Denmark on a map. “No, that is Germany.” “No, Sweden” “No the United Kingdom”.
Greenland is of course about oil rights. Not in Greenland proper but north of it. I’m not even sure there’s definite bubbling crude in the Arctic yet if there is, it is not readily available. The USA has a decent chunk at least with Alaska. Denmark, a founding member of NATO, would otherwise have no chunk (like Norway and Sweden do) without Greenland…
So if I were Trump’s advisor:
- Find Denmark on a map
- Quit NATO
- Annex Greenland (so what if Denmark is in NATO. Are Germany and/or the UK going to war over that?)
- Profit! (well, Russia and China have big chunks too)
Uh, cite?
As Tom Lehrer sang, “We taught [the Germans] a lesson in 1918, and they’ve hardly bothered us since then…”