While I would agree that the lack of US commitment to NATO is a stupid Trump thing, NATO without the US is still a formidable force. And if Russia can’t conquer Ukraine, they can’t attack and conquer NATO.
I hope the NATO members realize they can’t falter and show any uncertainty if Russia tests them with a provocation against a NATO member.
It’s sort of like having a big snarling guard dog that scares everyone and protects the property.
If an intruder stamps their boot and yells “get!!!” the dog is useless if it slinks away with its tail tucked.
People will always know the dog is all teeth and noise. All bluff.
NATO can’t risk being seen in that way.
Russia will prepare even bigger intrusions in NATO territory.
As I have noted elsewhere, the damage that is being done to America’s reputation as a reliable defence partner is generational, and will not be repaired for many years (and in some cases never)
You bet it would. By definition.
The US Senate officially consented to the North Atlantic Treaty by a vote of 82 to 13 and then President Truman formally signed the U.S. instrument of ratification. There was no clause saying “… but only if we feel like it.”
If a fellow NATO country is attacked, then the US MUST respond.
Now the level of response might limited to just sending some advisors, or supplying some weaponry. After all what’s the point of the whole military industrial complex if you can’t make some dosh out of it.
But the US saying “really don’t mind if we sit this one out?” is not an option, unless you formally withdraw from NATO.
I don’t think it’ll be so easy for Trump to renege on commitments to NATO. But at the very least Russia has shown itself to be a paper tiger. And the non-US parts of NATO are tooling up.
The next step should be to bring Ukraine into the fold. They have the biggest army in Europe (discounting Russia), weapons suitable for fighting a modern war and all the expertise in the world. And you only need to look at a map to see Ukraine’s strategic value.
What’s the difference if the US sent 100, 10, 1, or 0 military advisors? Not every NATO country will respond tangibly to every situation. The treaty goes as far as the members want it to.
If a threat happened and the US wanted to make a point about not getting involved, then that would be a crisis, but that’s just a different way of announcing the US is pulling out of NATO.
If the US did nothing, was quiet about it, and the other NATO countries didn’t raise a stink, then what would happen?
I think either scenario is unlikely. The US would always share intelligence and sell arms. AIUI, the current arms funding from the EU for Ukraine is for US arms.
I feel Russia will remain a greater threat to Europe than the United States for the foreseeable future. Even if America decides to go empire building, we’re more likely to look south rather than across the Atlantic.
Don’t worry. As soon as a Democrat gets elected President, the Republicans in Congress and in the Supreme Court will rush to strip him of all power.
I thought the Democrats were going to win the mid terms and send all the Republicans off to Guantanamo.
I hope the Democrats take back control of Congress and restore law enforcement in America (including arresting and trying Republicans who have committed crimes.) But I worry that the Republicans will commit the crime of stealing the 2026 and 2028 elections.
They won’t even need to. They’ll just count on Democrats not using any of the power. Like when the Supreme Court said that it’d be OK if Biden sent Seal Team Six after them, and he did nothing.
The US is obligated to respond under Article 5.
It’s a ratified international treaty that nobody thinks the US signed other than because the US considered the treaty to be in its national interests.
The US partners in “Five Eyes” i.e. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K. are now withholding some internally sensitive material from the US because:
- The US is not providing the equivalent material and
- The US is weaponising the shared information against their own allies in political, trade and military terms.
It’s called pissing in your soup.
OK, so the US is obligated to respond.
So what happens if we don’t?
Maybe the Germans close Ramstein and Euro ports are closed to US Naval vessels?
Maybe we are talking about different dimensions. If the US did not respond to a significant threat, it would undermine the trust in the US and the health of the organization.
But I don’t think there is any legal obligation. Here’s the text (bolding mine). I’m not well-versed in this so maybe I’m overlooking additional agreements.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
What is the joke?
Oh yes. The US tells the beleaguered Nation, “We can only send one advisor.”
“That’s okay, we will be sure he gets killed.”
I guess in extremis the world learns to operate with two hermit kingdoms.
I think we cannot count on this administration to care if an American military advisor - or several hundred of them - are killed. Trump would just post that only losers get killed serving their country.
The US. The US is a threat to NATO. It has threatened invasion and conquest against at least two NATO members, Canada and Denmark (via Greenland).
I could certainly see Trump taking advantage of the distraction of a Russian attack on a NATO country to conquer Canada or Greenland, or both without NATO doing anything.
Trump might attack Canada or Denmark but that doesn’t mean he’s a threat. Trump’s attack on Iran has demonstrated that nobody in the Trump circle can conduct a competent war. If Trump attacks Canada, he’ll probably end up losing New England. And then declare he won the war.
And why would NATO choose to ignore an attack on a NATO member? Doing so would just leave all the countries in the alliance in a weaker position.