Trump Could Abandon NATO. Could It Survive without America?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- → Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
www.youtube.co...
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
Imagine if the mainstream media in the US could honestly report on risks and current events that are taking place within the US like this.
They can. They just don't want to and/or are instructed not too. Duh
Instead it’s just DURRR BIDEN OLD
(Which, he is, but he also isn’t threatening to destroy the military alliance that is the bedrock of western liberal democracy.)
@@xyzpdq1122and that alliance is utterly unable to actually dobits job. 1 member nation shouldn't be doing the majority of the work. Listen to the vid. Majority of members need YEARS to get into a state to actualy fulfill there obligations. NATO is rife with compliance nations. I disagree with Trump but he has a solid point. NATO need to fulfill there obligations.
@greyhunter3271 yep trump is forcing them to pay thier fair share
As an American whose mainstream media is Koch owned, stories have a corporate filter/bias that prevents corporate news from acting like they are wholly neutral.
Regardless of what Trump said, every NATO should meet their obligation in terms of budget contribution.
So exactly what trump said then?
@@justinpellmann3084 Not only what Trump said, but what Obama, W, and Clinton said. This complaint has been ongoing for the past 20+ years.
I agree with Trump’s comments up until he said he would encourage Russia to attack the underpaying countries. I was kinda with him up to that point
@@adrianbartley8173 thats called motivation to follow the rules you agreed to
@@adrianbartley8173Trump says some really scary things. but neutrally speaking, it would be a very savy tactical idea.
Like sending a brigade of solders to their death distracting the enemy, while withdrawing the majority of your army for a more advantageous attack that would turn the war around.
...very shady and diabolical, but tactically a smart move
You mentioned South Korea as one of the leading arms manufacturers... Not really a surprise if you consider who their hostile neighbor is
South Korea is behind Germany, UK and even Italy in respect to exports. its the 8th largest exporter in the world.
And who's covering their ass.
And given how strong NK has been posturing lately they have to survive. Just sales from the US won’t cut it anymore.
💀
Neighbours 😂 china will feel hungry
Considering how much defense spending the US does, 2% is a fairly small ask
Most are sold to others. Much like China and russia. Those who don't make them, spend a lot more.
So when you hear that percentage think about how much goes where instead of seeing numbers. We are talking military not accounting.
Us spending is at roughly 3% and 60% of that is on nukes. Given nukes aren't exactly useful that's only about 1% on things actually used in a war.
@@why_waitI promise you the F-35 programs, our 12 billion dollar boats, the insane amount of ammo, and all the other technologies are not just nukes. Granted having a good and up to date arsenal is definitely good if your opponent is Russia.
@@why_waitUS was spending 4% & above for decades
@@why_wait1. The US has spent over 4% for decades, with it being 4.2% as recently when Trump was in office and brought up this issue in the first place. Besides that, the US has the largest economy in the world, so even if they met the minimum of 2%, it would still drastically dwarf every other NATO members defense budget.
2. Nukes aren't useful? They're the greatest deterrent in the history of mankind. Theres a reason the only countries that engage in open warfare since 1945, is when one has a nuclear monopoly over the other. Just bc they're never used in any wars, besides in Japan, since they were created doesn't mean they're "useless".
It’s worth mentioning that Article 5 has already been invoked once on September 12th 2001. All allies responded to the US call and our soldiers supported US war on terror for twenty years.
And yet we still did all the fighting, fuck nato pull the US of out of it . Not our fault Europe is a washed former image of itself.
I heard apparently Sas troops got prepped as soon as they heard news didn't even need the go ahead by command
Waste of a time that war was
@@heybeter9505 From our end, the common people, yes. Absolutely worthless. But ever since Reagan and Bush there has been a list of Middle Eastern nations the military industrial complex wishes and aims to disrupt. This is known. And every POTUS since, Republican or Democrat, has taken part in that scheme. So they got exactly what they wanted.
The war of terror failed and was a mistake. The argument trump makes is that if you're a part of the alliance then you need to pay your part as well as participate in any and all required NATO member state activities, it's all a part of it not just some parts count and some don't. Paying your part and playing your part for article 5 are BOTH to be expected, the fact that your country showed up to Afghanistan doesn't make your country exempt from paying your part. That said from what i've read on the subject i dont think 2% gdp is to be expected until 2024 sometime so when trump said it as president he might have been in the wrong, and i think from a geopolitical stand point it would still be in Americas as well as other nato states best interest to discourage and respond to russian aggression there should be consequences of not fulfilling your commitments.
10:17 It is worth noting that aside from the US the countries hitting their target spend are the ones that are also the closest to the Russian border. Almost like those who are geographically closest too and with the most recent historical memory of Russian aggression and repression know the importance of being good members of the defensive alliance.
Britiain also meets it's spending and is probably the most secure of all NATO partners with it's own nuclear deterrent and navy to defend it's waters but it still pays what has been agreed.
Greece is also #2 on spending in NATO, which I found interesting. I'm assuming it's because Turkey is also a member.
Nothing is too simple. Spending same. Sorry, long but interesting story to search on internets @warographics:
Look 1/2: Look at submarine stuff, Sweden, erhm - "it was understood usa did forays" aand politicians didn't know (also Olof Palme died, not related). So when usa (the watermark thing)-colors were ejected from sub that Swe closed in Sweden held back for a day. Now it's generally said military ok'd forays, politicians not so much.
Look 2/2: So, come closer to this day, some nato members have sold "cheap" "to-scarp" "leopard 2"'s to, say, sold to Finland, doubling Fin amount of tanks before it joined NATO. Also deal Fin+Ger, update said tanks to newest version for very cheap. Also said seller nation's defense minister had to resign...
Nothing is simple. Please do check on this if interested, I do not have knowledge of internal politics (or militaristics) of, say, Netherlands. So one may argue said 2% is KNOWN to be kind of suggested, and sometimes, when politicians can't do thing it is still done by militaries in the alliance. Even when some non-alliance nation is in the deal.
there are two points that are vital to remember for the sake of honesty.
First off, countries like poland are net-recipients of EU funding, meaning that they have more leeway with surplus funds.
secondly, Countries like germany are spending a percentage of their GDP on financial aid to ukraine, so its not just about military spending.
Lmao Germany has attacked Russian twice in the last century. Try again
I think you're forgetting something vital, Simon - regardless of whether thr US is in NATO or not, she will absolutely be willing to make bank selling war equipment to it.
I'm sure the USA might still be involved but just not as a "requirement", but more as a "does it benefit us" idea.
It does also mean that Europe would have a strong incentive to stop buying American weaponry and equipment in the future and restore their own MI complex to serve their needs. Nobody wants to be reliant on a non allied nation for their defence needs.
@balinthehater8205 the manufacturing would boost the economies.
@balinthehater8205 correct, but you also don't want to have to completely restart your MI basically from scratch, while defending your country.
Not to mention..most European citizens most likely would be upset about losing their social benefits they hold so dearly and decry against the US..as they start realizing how expensive it is to maintain a strong standing army and have to pour millions or billions of free tax money used for social benefits, into the military industry...
So i would be shocked if any European citizen would so easily give up their education and Healthcare so easily..especially when they could instead buy what they need from the US.
It’s so crazy the way the mainstream talks about a NATO-Russia conflict like it’s the logical next step.
there aren't very many dominos left to fall in that.
@@Kastrenzo74 it could have already happened several times. ruzzia keeps violating NATO airspace with missiles over Poland and Romania with several impacts and deaths to civilians. Hell they even flew combat troops on helicopters into NATO airspace over Poland in a show of force.
@@yoeriw7099it was air defense missle of the 404 country
It is something that NATO needs to prepare for but NATO will not start it Russia will
@@basedandredpille yeah no, Romania was ruzzia and that killed someone I believe, and the air incursions with both missiles and troop carrying helicopters is all ruzzia. But hey, swan lake will be playing on state TV in the not too distant future and Ukraine will still stand while whatever is left of putler will be dragged through the streets.
As a taxpayer in the US I do often find it tiresome how much tax money goes into defense spending and especially in foreign countries. I don’t feel the US can abandon them outright but it’s wrong for most of the western world to rely as heavily as it does on the US resources. I believe this reliance allows for more squandering by the government leaders both abroad and domestically and they get away with it by the old adage that the US is the defender of the free world when it’s really the taxpayer in America that’s paying the most.
The irony hurts when I see articles and posts boasting about European countries being able to manage their infrastructure and industries so much better than the US but it’s not brought up how those countries are the ones not bringing 2% to NATO.
Sure, fair point. But why don't you ever complain to for example Japan for the same reason?
@@sonneh86 Japan isn't NATO member
Because Europe is doing sooooo much better than the U.S. right now- except not really.
80% of Europe is due for economic collapse because of their age demographics. They won’t have any young people ready to work.
@@Alkriono, however Japan is a Major Non NATO ally(MNNA) which could inevitably pave the way for a spin-off alliance or broadened alliance.
@@sonneh86most people do complain about Japan. People have been complaining about the Japanese for quite sometime.
"Can only field the exceedingly goofy Admiral Kuznetsov carrier. Of which we trust is somehow managing to sink even though it's in dry dock".🤣🤣🤣
Westerners arrogance doesn’t match their paranoia of ruskies invading their beloved democracy 🤣🤣🤣
only the superior russian mind could come up with the idea of an aircraft carrier with most submarine capabilities, we are still working on the surfacing technology tho
@@Rubicola174 Yeah that thing is being held together by tow lines and pure copium.
Rest in peace Navalny. A true hero
Heartbreaking news
may the orcs cry to the sky
Apparently just "fell unconscious" while walking in the Siberian prison they had him in.. I'm assuming the "fell" means pushed, and "unconscious" means off a cliff
Putin is scared...he is very worried
not a hero, another Russian imperialist that would continiue Putin policy, look at his stance on Ukraine and other subjects, he criticized Putin for not being nacionalist enough
European people are mostly very snarky towards Americans, but as soon as you remind them of defense, they cry out for the USA to come save them. It's rather annoying and I wouldn't mind them getting the wake up call.
I agree. They always laugh at Us, but As soon as you remind them that we don’t need them, they change their tune very fast !
Exactly.
Even though France is not particularly close to Russia, I was thinking the other day that the mere whisper of the US threatening to pull out of NATO, would make France retract their Olympic shenanigans and they’d immediately attempt to make amends.
Those were some awfully bold statements they made the other day… Don’t bite the hand that protects you.
I'm Norwegian and I agree with you. Seems like if America joins a war, you're the bad guys. If you don't join a war, you're also the bad guys. Very arrogant from European leaders
10:24 Denmark raised its spending above 2%, confirmed by NATO 2 days ago.
Correct, and it is also pumping more money into it for the next ten years plus investing in domestic industry such as ammunition production
The political equivalent of knocking wood 😅
Trump is already making things great even before his election.
Thats cute. Keep worshipping your Putin lackey. @markgarrett3647
@@markgarrett3647 that spending increase was negotiated last summer.
I mean, as an American, many of us can't afford homes, barely afford groceries. Homelessness is the worst it's ever been.
Getting real tired of subsidizing other nations. I mean helping friends is great and it should be done, but not when your family is struggling.
*Edit* I'm not saying we shouldn't abide by our obligations but there needs to be a give and take, not just give.
as a russian troll you can't afford any English skills
Please understand that the issues you are facing in your society are not derived from the money spent on foreign aid. The US has the money to fix many of those problems, or at the very least make great headway in fixing them. It's the system put in place and the corruption that enable the issues you see today. If you stopped sending money out, not only would that money not be put to fixing your issues, it would also have the effect of reducing the money your country makes.
Stopping foreign aid isn't a solution for the US and would drastically have a negative impact on the country's standing in the world but also within it's borders.
Stop taking Fentanyl bro
Your entire country post world war 2 has been about allies and power projection across the globe. I don’t understand why you clowns can’t understand this. If the Americans don’t do it, Russia or China will.
Yeah, but that's not because you lack in economy or resources. It doesn't matter how much money is pumped into the US, y'all are going to keep on starving with each war that the US starts and gets involved in.
European here (specifically British)! I’m looking at a lot of comments here from Americans who are rightfully upset about other NATO members not reaching the recommended/required 2%. And I completely agree with you, especially for us Europeans with the war in Ukraine going on right now. It's outright shameful even.
But please and I urge you, don’t compromise our Atlantic relationship or go full on isolationist mode. Though you will have the choice as voters late 2024 on who will be your next president. Think about what place the US should have in the world. I ultimately think the US is a force of good in the world, despite the mocking from other Europeans and my own countrymen. US pulling away from world affairs would mean darkness and allow more sinister adversaries to get more emboldened.
Defend for Yourself. The US is not the World Police. You are an entire group of nations, an entire continent and you rely on one nation you openly mock for defense?
America being isolationist is such a joke, the country has been at peace for less than 20 years of its existence
Also it wouldn’t be isolationist by any means, it wants to “stop evil non-white Asian communist country” for DARING to threaten American hegemony
@@TheSnarkyViking Agreed. Europe is more capable of defending themselves in the first place. China is THE major threat to the US economy, NOT Russia.
we europeans need to band our own military forces and industries.
@@TheSnarkyViking USA needs NATO and other allies to deal with China.
Isn't these 2% supposed to be spent on their own defense capabilities ?
Yes
Correct. They don't have to give any money to nato, they only need to invest in their own military to show they will be capable of helping others if needed.
If Iceland has no military what are they spending their 2% on?
@@zvbxsee the recent nato spending video, he explains it
@@Qwerty-oj3qw Ok I watched it so that being the case Iceland should not be a part of NATO.
The capitol building shown is the one for Washington state, not DC
Thanks for reminding me I haven’t taken my anxiety pill this morning.
What are these pills? Asking for a friend.
@@mrmikron Paroxetine my good friend!
this is called doomscrolling my friend
@@Greenranger123 And what pills do help with that?
@@mrmikron dont do pills meditate it helps the soul
You mentioned the black sea fleet...
The black sea fleet is currently getting MAULED by a nation that HAS NO NAVY.
Just in case you were wondering about the quality of Russian sea power.
@@mr.z3664 After two years of war, a couple of Donbas small towns are worth flaunting in the comments).
I mean he literally said the Russian surface fleets wouldn’t be much of a threat so no we weren’t wondering.
A couple of thing here... Russia can fix that issue, the problem here is that would mean WW3. See, the guys behind those attacks are USA's reconnaissance aircrafts. Russia have the capabilities to destroyed or at least avoid to be hit so often by taking down those UAV
@mr.z3664 going better than the Black Seabed fleet, babe
@criscris5473 they can have a few houses and a hospital, as a treat.
Good. The US shouldn't subsidize your defense.
It's been doing this since cold war and will continue to do so. What are you going to do about it?
@@boringname3657 Vote Trump, thats what we will do, and hopefully he pulls out of NATO.
@@masterchief2402 and get fascism.... not smart
I wish someone would have warned NATO (sarcasm intended)of the importance of spending at least 2% of GDP on defense so we all would be ready in case something bad happens. If they had started building up 7-8 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Make that 75 years ago. Many have never paid their fair share. They haven't bothered to boost their own defenses, much less anticipate anyone else's need. Ain't it great to live rent free and let someone else foot your Cheeto's bill.
This is NOT a recent issue with NATO countries, this has gone on for decades.
I like how privileged your comment is. Man I didn’t know mooching off the United States for the past 70 years was an issue. Man now we’ll have to build our own army. Shame on them for not letting us mooch off them while we build up our forces… maybe you guys should just pay your share. Actually be involved in the mutual defense of NATO in a meaningful way. Instead it’s oh well the Americans will spend all their money and come and save us if we’re ever attacked. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
@@forfun6273 Yeah Nations that have been relying on US protection have basically been acting as satellite states of the US but pretending they are not. Japan comes to mind, who only started really spending on modernizing their military after Trump told them to get their act together. Despite being one of the countries with the highest GDP in the world, Japan had essentially no military because the US bases on their soil essentially meant any attacks on Japan would likely implicate the US as well. Same case for Philippines, Thailand, Australia and many other countries who have been getting a free ride for decades.
@forfun6273 Europeans have a habit of siphoning wealth from others for their own gain.
Whether that's directly through colonialism or through indirect means like not meeting their NATO obligations, it seems to be a cultural phenomenon.
I can’t tell you how much I enjoy these videos. It’s nice to hear someone just stating facts, and steering clear of political opinions. The world needs more content like this. Just tell us what’s going on and we can formulate our own opinions.
I've been following this channel for a long time, and generally enjoy Simon's commentary. However, there was a fair bit of melodrama in this one, and over-reacting to a hypothetical that has a very small chance of ever becoming reality.
The whole video is based on a false premise, that Trump will abandon NATO when all he wants is to make Western European countries pay, this video is nonsensical, what are you smoking there?
The sheep need to be told what to think and how to feel about it.
Why are they not paying for their own defence if they want to be a part of a defensive pact?
Simple. They know US are the good guys and a military superpower. They take US for granted and expects that when the shit hits the fan, just need to dangle Article 5 and the US will be there to save the day like a superhero
@@d3vilman69it's a little more complicated seeing that we dragged them into a 20 year war with a bad ending but other than that yes.
@@joeclaridy I mean with regard to the politics itself yeah it's always more complicated. But when it comes to spending 2% of tax revenue on defense, they didn't do that even well before 2001. Iraq/Afghanistan didn't affect their spending almost at all (except for the UK if I remember correctly). It hasn't even been about them thinking the US was going to help though, at least not until recently. It was mostly that no one in Europe thought that Russia was a threat anymore, and since they didn't want to use their military anywhere else they didn't think their was a point.
They all pay for a national army. They also pay for NATO membership. The US doesn’t pay extra to cover what others don’t pay. It’s not a zero sum game. It’s just less funds as a whole.
@@joeclaridy
Yes. 20 years that the Afghanistan culture could not be trained into a force to counter the taliban.
But then again, no other middle east country could fight ISIS either, showing that we need to stop defending the middle east from themselves.
I agree America keeps wasting time and money on countries that cannot carry their own water.
As an American, I’m am all in on helping our European friends if they need help. However, it seems as if they think some believe that America should be the muscle in Europe. Europe, should be the muscle in Europe! Get your shit together!
Whos gonna buy all that american shit if it's rubble and ashes over here
Even countries that do meet the 2 percent are still neglecting their military. In the UK they are always moth balling the Royal navy and RAF bases. They recently closed an RAF base in Lincolnshire that led the famous Dam busters raid during the war. It is now housing illegal migrants. What an insult to the ones who died. The previous Labour government was constantly making cut backs and the Conservative government just carried it on. Only have 2 aircraft carriers and they spend more time being fixed than on the water.
@@gordonchard6243The UK is an extreme example. Almost nothing works in that country anymore. The waiting time for an ambulance in Devon (where a lot of my family lives), for example, can be anywhere between 15 minutes to 7 hours nowadays. The train systems are all but collapsing. Oh, and don't forget that UK doesn't have enough planes to even put on those 2 carriers that you mentioned.
What a joke of a country.
@@magg93 We don't need you to buy our shit. The U.S. is one of the few countries on earth that has the resources to be entirely self-sufficient as we were before getting involved in these foreign wars and alliances.
@@tereminI bought a Jaguar and after spending more money on mechanics than I did on the car and your point became my reality
This can all be easily avoided if the members pay their share.
There is no fee for membership. Look it up. The only codicil is member countries spend 2% of their GDP on defence. NATO is not just a military alliance, it stops each nation building nuclear weapons. A world where every country has nukes is suicide for us all.
"easily avoided".
This isn't a game. Article 5 is a supposed iron clad commitment that without conditions, an attack on one nation is an attack on all.
Even just by threatening to add conditions Trump has weaknesses the strength and deterrence of Article 5, all for some clickbait headlines to pander to his ignorant MAGA base who don't understand the implications and damage to American power projection he does just by opening his mouth like this.
There is no dues, no NATO nation is delinquent because that's not a thing and never had been. The 2% target is just that, a target, a goal, nothing more.
Yet the people who clap along to this sort of power play condemn Biden for using the dollar as a weapon(which Trump also did).
It's not like America would be better off without NATO either. We have military bases in just about every single member nation and most of them spend large amounts of their military budget buying from the American military industrial complex.
What happens when comments like these compel the other NATO member states to revoke leases for American military bases and move away from buying American weapons. It will just be another case of American hegemony and influence eroding away.
Exactly. That doesn't seem like much to ask, esp. given that it is what members agreed to when they joined.
not necessarily the fair share, even just building up their own armed forces like poland does would probably be just as fine and forgivable
@@bsmithhammer and it's not even a flat fee. It's a % of their GDP. If your GDP is $100 like Greece, then it's only $2, who actually are making their commitment. There's really no excuse.
This clearly shows what happens when a country gets to comfortable relying on others for there defense
Though this can *NEVER* be threatened among allied nations in public and issues with it need to be solved in proper meetings. If you do it, like Trump did, than you actually destroy that alliance. Its promise, to act together - to stay together, does only work, if it is never put in question amongst each other and in front of a potential rival. This jeopadizes an important piece of combined defence.
@@dnocturn84 It destroys it for Europe, but not the US. The mainland enjoys many defensive advantages and can effectively stand on its own; Europe cannot due to their own irresponsible reliance on America.
@@sniperrecon676 No, it destroys it for all of them, including the US. Europe is backing the US's claim to be superpower no. 1 on our planet. And they are an essential component, for this to still be a thing. And not just in military matters, but on world trade and finances as well.
If they some day move away from the US and actually start to ally with China, than the US being superpower no. 1 is history.
@sniperrecon676 it still destroys the alliance. There is no stipulations in NATO for coming to the aide of fellow members whether they spend or don't. That means that the US would be the one not honoring the agreement and therefore unreliable as an ally. The man who can't/won't even pay his own bills thinks to hold other people accountable. It's also not only about fighting/winning a war. Other options are coming around for all manner of military equipment and munitions. With the US becoming an unreliable ally, why should they spend any money with us?
@@sniperrecon676 Yor’re wrong, if Europe falls the US will face major economic and political consequences that will undo the value of US investment after WW2. The US didn’t put the Marshall plans in action if didn’t benefit them in the long term, a benefit that eased the US to becoming the most powerful nation in the world.
It's kind of crazy that Trump saying that he'll pull out of NATO is the kick in the ass these countries need to make their contribution minimum. Not the fact the Russia is attacking a country in the East. I don't think the US should pull out of NATO, however it's kind of sad that these countries are slacking on their contributions when the threat is closer to them.
i do think west europeans does not see an immediate danger of russian agression against them whether they be in nato or not so they are slowing their spending or not increasing whatsoever but if its not the case and they indeed did think its a good idea to rely on just one country across the ocean i don't think it will make any difference if they increase their budget or not, we are all f**ked with this attitude and incompetence already. greetings from turkey.
That's inaccurate and Trump probably is playing off it intentionally. European NATO spending has been rising rapidly since Russia invaded Ukraine, in direct correlation to that event. The only countries in NATO which don't pay the RECOMMENDED (not required) 2% of GDP on military are those who wouldn't have to deal with Russia anyways: AKA those so far into Europe that they'd be protected by their neighbors for long enough to get a military up and running if they needed one. As for the ones on the border, they all pay that recommended 2% or more. Plus every country pays into the NATO common fund, a REQUIRED amount, which is their actual "bill" for being in NATO. Every country pays this and nobody is "slacking" on their actual required payments.
Spending the money more efficiently is probably as important as just upping the amount spent.
I mean, as of about a year ago Germany had "less than two days" of ammo on hand, they could start there.
@@paulie9483 the whole of the European NATO needs to just start putting in orders for off the shelf hardware from those who can deliver - as the Polish have done. Not meetings. Or posturing about trying to spend everything in their own country. Or decades long procurement cycles - see it and buy it. If Russia is showing nothing else, obsolete weapons today is much better than grandiose promises later.
@@Rory20uk 100%. If there's ammo available that fits your weapons, buy it.
It's a defensive pact, you need to protect each other. If a country's military can't pitch in because they didn't prepare along NATO's guidelines it's a big problem.
Germany and France werent making their guideline payments. Plus Germans laughed at Trump at the UN when he told them to get off of Russian energy.
@@incubi51 good thing NATO didn't intervene in Syria, NATO members did individually.
The only action NATO took regarding Syria was Operation Active Fence, that's to defend Turkish airspace AFTER Syria had been shelling Turkish towns, so that is strictly defensive. It was a lacking move even then...
Imagine countries getting mad that they weren't upholding their obligations and someone calls them out on it 😂
As someone from a postcommunist country that doesn't hit the 2% threshold, I must say I'm actually happy Trump sent our officials into panic mode. Europe needs to be able to defend itself, relying on an increasingly isolationist nation thousands of miles away doesn't seem like a good national defence strategy to me.
Especially given the increasing cultural friction between major European forces (France/Britain) and America. Americans are growing weary of their political preaching, only accelerating our isolationist behavior. Ironically, investing harder into your own military is likely to earn American sympathy.
you are of the few masculine men left in europe.
He's a wildcard and sometimes he got it right, even when he sounded crazy or like an asshole. Scaring Europe into spending on defense was my favorite random thing he did. Hey, he's probably just doing that again.
At this point if the Americans want to flush their soft power down the drain so badly we should honestly just stop counting on the charter and put our aspirations onto the Lisbon treaty. Europe can probably manage its own defence at this point and there's no reason to tie ourselves to an untrustworthy ally.
Yeah. As an American, I mostly agree with Trump on this. The U.S. does have a role on the world stage, but everyone else needs to do their part.
We shouldn't have to send American troops to help other countries if they won't help themselves.
I don’t think Trump would deny help, but I do think his remarks will cause Europe to strengthen themselves making NATO even stronger. It’s tough love I guess.
I think so too. I think it's potentially a net-positive move, at the very least I think it will strengthen the military spendings in Europe, but what is uncertain is the diplomatic consequences that Trump's words will have.
Or it could go the other way and Ukraine is forced to give up territory or worse just because of the greed of the USA.
It's not "all for one and one for all" as there are far too many NATO members slacking because they know America is required to defend them. If Trump saying what he said causes other NATO members to step up, good
The US isn’t required to defend anyone. Article 5 is NOT an obligation for anything except to… have a meeting and decide what to do.
They can quite easily just sit out without leaving. Though that comes w its own issues.
Lots of ppl still think article 5 is a mandatory dogpile clause. It isn’t, and never was.
@@Lord_Drokoth pretty sure that's article 4
@@shanemjn it’s 5 as well. It’s to decide what action to take. There is no mandatory dogpile clause at all.
Except the US provides roughly 2/3 of the nato budget
@@marcusfrakes5430 and is able to do so largely from the money made via its arms deals (as well as other international projects it heads). The USMIC is as big as it is for a reason. It’s not a charity.
If the US does wish to leave. I’m not against it. Though by doing to, it and its people must accept whatever consequences occur as a result. Or, reap the benefits depending on whatever the result is.
US influence in Europe would crash. Hard. And it benefits from that.
As an American citizen... I am ok with not paying for everyone else's defense, ESPECIALLY when the countries we are paying for have better qualities of life than we do. I don't get free health care, I don't get affordable housing, I get almost no time off work, I don't have functional and affordable public transportation, I have to own a car and have insurance on top of insurance just to survive here and on top of all that I have to pay large taxes to both the federal government and my state government... I'm not a Trump supporter, I have no intention of voting for him, but in this case, he is right. NATO members MUST begin paying their fair share if they want the help of America.
Well I hate to say it but voting for Biden or just about anybody on the left is going to guarantee that we're going to keep spending needless money and not demanding NATO keep up its share. I don't like Trump at all, couldn't stand the man, but I do support his policies and I will vote for him just because of that
Do some research on why Nato is a giant benifit even if it was free.
Free UN votes, contain Russia, bunch of political power to call upon, trade. And the only other part of the world that would take us side in a China vs US escalation.
@@WyomingchiefYou're voting for a man who "loves" Kim Jong Un. Trump said they "fell in love". Those are his exact words. He praised a dictator who regularly threatens the US with nuclear war. Tell me you think Trump understands what's best.
@@Wyomingchief def not voting for biden either haha... we deserve better choices tbh
Was hoping for better leaders than Trump and especially Biden.
Leaving NATO is quite popular in the UK too.
"Step to NATO, and you BEST be ready to deal with the whole crew..."
Simon letting his inner-Brixton show.
Simon is definately from 'Da Endz'
It’s an alliance you should do your share of the burden.
Agreed, and alliances also mean you dont leave your allies to get obliterated just bc they dont do what you want them to do. So its a double edge sword. Tbh, I do agree everyone in NATO should be putting forth their share of defense. But what is the point of a defense pact if you chose not to defend your ally when theyre attacked? Lets put this another way in different circumstances. If China attempted to invade the US, that would initiate Article 5, and all the NATO nations would be obligated to help defend us. Would it be honoring said defense pact if any nation in NATO chose not to follow article 5 just because they dont like our president? Its dishonoring the agreement EITHER way. Its a binding defense pact for a reason. And either scenario is nations chosing to bow out based on petty issues they can solve amongst themselves when their allies are under attack.
There are many points of view to this and I welcome intelligent debate over this. Its actually really interesting. Scary, but fascinating.
@@somestormchaseridjitwithwi2024 we're talking about some of the richest nations in the world, who regularly boast about their better healthcare, infrastructure, and overall quality of life. Why should the American taxpayer shell out for these countries to live in luxury, when we are unable to help homeless veterans or provide necessary services to our people? I don't agree with leaving these countries out to dry, but I definitely think American dollars are far more valuable spent on American citizens rather than the citizens and luxuries of other nations.
I feel like most did that when they sent troops to the ME for decades explicitly to help the US and no else.
they should, yes
but this doesn't mean _encouraging_ Russia to attack them. He is _encouraging_ russia to divide NATO piecemeal, which is detrimental even to those countries that do meet the spending target when Russia has a farther-advanced foothold with which to better strike at NATO
Fortunately, most of the eastern flank of NATO does meet the 2% spending target IIRC, so I don't see how/where russia could launch an attack that wouldn't trigger a US response per Trump's (self-proclaimed) rules. But still, even just the idea of doing that is very reckless and concerning. Besides, even with that sort of pressure it takes a while for the budget changes to actually pass through - will he just let Russia kill off tens of thousands of civilians in a NATO country simply because of european legislature and bureaucracy being slow?
@@steviechubbs5238 The US could pay for all of this and still easily reach the 2% goal if they wanted.
This would be a good thing so we focus on our country
Here's the thing, we have been having a perfect balance of that ever since 1949.
Its insane how long Russia has played the "Quantity is a quality on its own"
Well, it is. What we didn’t realize till they invaded Ukraine was it is their ONLY quality 😂
This takes a major toll, though, demographically. Russia’s birth rate is already well below population replacement. We’re looking at a lost Russian generation.
If Russia does win in Ukraine, it’d be a pyrrhic victory.
@@atronite 💯 correct!
@@baahcusegamer4530so far.
@@atroniteyes, it will be pyrrhic.
Bachmut fell, UA counter offensive failed, Navalny gone, and now Avdika falls. Europe better wake up from its stupor and strengthen up its defenses.
Russia has the GDP of Texas or Italy, comparably.
Russia doesn't stand a chance fighting NATO, even in the stupor or whatever.. given how poorly they do in Ukraine. But russia plays the cowards war with NATO, since they have no chance in combat.. they poison people literally and poison their minds with divisive propaganda. That is the real danger, the zombification that they have been working on for decades now. People need to wake up to that, so we don't become a big threat to ourselves.
Dude, europeans are too domesticated too care
what a great day to live in!😊
I hate to say it, it was only a matter of time with an artillery shortage.
But Ukraine could still make it a painful win for Russia.
One can win a battle and still loose a war. Especially is the win cost you more men and materials then you can afford.
It like an over withdrawal from a bank account, but the fines are what get you.
Plus, they can focus on behind the line sabotage.
Make it so Russia overextends it self, makes it harder to send needed materials, and fall back like they did during the battle of Kiev.
This is not gonna be a short war.
We need to think long term here.
@@equarg Ukraine was demographically dying before the war. Now they are losing a generation of men. Is this really the right choice?
It will last about as long as the League of Nations did without America and be about as effective
The other NATO countries did pay their full shares after Trump told them to pay up.
Does anyone else think that Trump's comment was strong encouragement to NATO countries to step up. Judging from all of the pearl clutching, it worked. The message wasn't for Russia, but for NATO.
In fsirness we should be meeting our payment requirments, it shouldn't be on thoese in America to protect everyone. Whilst bad for us here, it's more then understandable that America would want to keep the money they are having to spend on everyone who refuses to pay for themselves. We need to do better. Trump is right, and he is doing what he often does, saying crazy shite to get people talking and the issue fixed, and clearly, it's working.
Channel your inner orange man.
Its not a requirement, its a recommendation.
Again, a safe and secure Europe is beneficial, and near necessary, for American comfort and security. We are not an island.
Trump is merely a reaction to a decade of European social media acting high and mighty with its well funded social safety nets. It leaves a very bitter taste in your mouth knowing US Social Security among other things will be sacrificed to ensure the safety and luxury of Europeans who thumb their nose at us
@@paigeharrison3909 agreed, but one counter, i dont think wed be too happy sending money and military somewhere if we weren't gonna get something back, everyone should pay in for the service they receive, trump is well known for exaggerating things to get the medias, and thus the peoples attention on topics, he was an actor and TV personality for decades in the states and is doing what he knows best to get his points across to Americans. We should be meeting our targets over here, requirement or not its only fair we do so
The common American sees issues on the border, crime plaguing even its small cities, entire cities that once used to be beacons of their industrial might falling into bankruptcy, a homeless crisis and an ever growing national debt. To them, i doubt seeing money being thrown at people thousands of miles away when it could be spent trying to fix the issues at home seem very appealing. The least we could do is show that we are trying, instead of an indifferent shrug.
Smashing it as always!
eu need to integrate its militaries and defence industries.
It would also be economically beneficial for Europe because that integrated military would invest those resources in new tech and industry
Do you understand what countries are?
You think America would integrate it's military and defences with freaking el selvador and mexico?
@@JoeyP946 america didn't start out as a country
@@Xamufam I don't know how to respond to such a retarded response..
It would be nice, but more often than it should be, EU interest is mainly Germany and France "fan club". Where many things - like locations of industries, major deals - is believed to be focused around those two countries. Which doesn't sit well with other members that still have fresh memory of last century. There's also an issue that those two countries most likely would use that opportunity to earn money. Which can be seen in Poland situation, where France voiced big dissatisfaction that this country bought equipment from Korea instead of them. That is major problem, because it could create situation, where it is expected for everyone to pay either Germany or France. So situation doesn't change in any way. Instead of paying to NATO, most countries would pay to Germany or France; which already are more powerful economically than rest of them. Most of the EU that is geographically closer to Russia isn't really fond of strengthening already strong nations.
EU is more of a alliance of convenience than alliance of friends. So idea of integrating militaries and loosing autonomy to other members isn't really what most members seek. As most of the EU isn't really fond of being dictated by, what they believe is, Germany or France rule.
Simply speaking everyone in the alliance has their interest in the first place. There's no big "we are united" stance, like some Americans would perceive EU has.
@@Xamufamyeah it started out as a colony of the UK. But once we won the revolution we became the United States of America. I mean I guess our states were just united in mutual defense and stuff like that. But we still had a constitution that brought the 13 colonies together. But yeah Europe needs to do a lot more than count on America to save them.
As an American I am tired of the American military complex and its need to supply and provide for what seems like every war around the world or military actions. We need to provide for the citizens of our own country with reasonable housing,healthcare and education. My corporate government is sucking the life out of the lower and middle class through complete taxation beyond our reach. Whether it's tax on food, products, gas or personal amenities it has become overwhelming to provide for the corporate beast.
We have some of the worst public education, most expensive healthcare and affordable housing is now a tent underneath a bridge. It's time to stop funding the death of the rest of the world and look at the death in our own Nation caused by GREED!!
What about paying your obligations and then there is no need to examinate anything and article 5 stands ever strong.
It is about time Europe and UK took defense seriously again.
lmao europe will kill its self again if it tries to "defend" its self
Simon, real question, where is Russia getting CPUs? And not just CPUs, ones powerful enough for the computation required for drones and airframes.
Probably China
Former soviet states. Iran , china
From neighboring countries. If you think this is a “miss” from the people doing the trade blockades think again. “ But Moscow has used a supply network within countries not bound by these sanctions -- including Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan -- to keep Western technology flowing into Russia. Both countries are members of the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union.
Russian imports of a range of dual-use goods from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have skyrocketed since the start of the war, including electronics produced by Western technology giants such as U.S. firms Texas Instruments and Analog Devices, whose components have been recovered from Russian weapons operating in Ukraine.”
Those can be found in toys for children. Absolutely don't need to be "powerful".
They're getting a lot of them from the US. Not directly of course, but through shadow trade networks. It's something that's virtually impossible for the US to shut down.
One major thing that was missed, that South Korea wouldn't be the only country the EU would buy weapons from. The EU has a long history of accommodating America's geopolitical relationships with other countries, while at the same time keeping cordial relationships with some of the countries the U.S. isn't particularly fond of. Russia having been a prime example until it's invasion into Ukraine. Another country being China. If the U.S. is out of the picture and it is necessary, the EU would have absolutely no qualms about purchasing arms and military equipment from China.
I came to the comments looking for this. There's a key component that is linked with this situation, the EU serves as a critical link to the US's ability to remain the superpower that it is. China is taking major steps to contend with that position as we have seen in the middle east and africa. If the EU is faced with a situation like a Russian Invasion and the US doesn't step up to the plate to fulfill the position they have cultivated than survival needs kick in and EU support and reliance on the US turns to China.
I think what Donald Trump said is fair for a few reason.
Reason 1 is exploitation. EU nations are especially guilty of profiting off NATO because they're able to cut military expenses to nothing and entirely depend on US for protection. So to fail at 2% budget goes to show the malicious intent.
Reason 2 is gate syndrome. When dogs have a barrier that blocks/ protects them they become very aggressive. EU nations have bared their fangs constantly knowing if war broke out US would be involved. The result is the tensions with Rus but also the on going violence in poorer nations like Syria ect.
Reason 3 is the outdated nature of the alliance and treaties. US & EU do not share ideologies nor support fair trade with one and another. Our only common enemy simply does not exist and so leaves little cause for unity especially in current exploitation.
Bottom line is fracturing of NATO will cayse violence globally but without change then the only people of sacrifice are Americans. Hence why Trump received immense support.
European NATO members couldn't even sustain an air-war against Libya for a few weeks before they had to go running to the US begging for logistical and intel support. Poland and the UK could definitely put up a good fight. Finland definitely punches above its weight when its on the defensive. But everyone else is in cooked without American assistance.
1s1
Yeah, but so are you without us buying your stuff =D
pretty much all of eastern Europe hits its requirements. Its Germany and France that are the slouches.
And italy, but italy is worthless even with a war economy, so thats irrelevant.
Yep add Romania too so basically Finland, Romania, Poland would have too defend all of Europe. Remmeber UK and France have nukes so they aren't getting, directly, invaded
cooked against who?? They NATO without the US could still slam Russia into obvlivion
It's sort of ironic that the only time NATO invoked article 5 was after 9/11, prompting numerous European states to send troops to Afghanistan. The US, definitely the GOP sure have a short memory.
Short memory? Nah.. Sick of war, which has been going on my entire life. Yes. Enough.
@t1ct1cboom10 yeah you guys like to bully middle-easterners for decades like they're subhumans and when your allies needs you to held up a defense treaty against an old enemy you just gonna act like bịtches and worm you way out of it like a coward? Its funny how the GOP suddenly peddling anti-war bull during this administration, if the script is flipped (like in 2020 during Trump's when Soleimani got bombed) you'd be banging your wardrums like no tomorrow.
The thing is, very few countries actually followed article 5 and gave the US meaningful assistance in the war. Britain and France has always been our best allies and Canada is a decent neighbor. The only other countries that actually helped fight are Germany and Australia. While that’s a good amount of allies, I certainly don’t count 31. People have been cheating out on article 5 for as long as it’s been around.
@@t1ct1cboom10 what war are you even talking about? Btw, the US deserting its NATO allies would inevitably lead to war in Europe. FYI: The EU is the US' largest trading block. Go figure.
@@olympian543 They should have no problem meeting 2% GDP expendature.. it is a small price to pay for their protection... It is pathetic that Germany went without paying its obligations properly since THE COLD WAR... Pay your bills.
18:41 Quite possibly the understatement of the year! 😂
Joking aside, really good video Simon. Keep up the great work on this channel, you guys have been crushing it. I enjoy both the content relating to current geopolitics and the ones examining historical events. 👍🏻
It’s crazy how a simple threat of us leaving nato made everyone realize we are the only real power in nato. It’s what happens when you slack off for 60+ years
Fucking freeloaders, we spent trillions on them, I don't understand why we had even created nato, if russia were to annex europe why is our problem?
Whether or not feasible or true, Trump’s statement is a very good point. It’s also consistent with his concern that on a global level America is expected to give and contribute more than any other nation. Whether it’s defense or ecological concerns. Again, fair points that do need addressing.
Maybe nato should pull their own weight then, stop shoving it off to the USA 🇺🇸
He literally never said he would abandon nato he just wants everyone to pay their fair share for mutual defence instead of exploiting other countries.
Where’s the Americans contribution to climate change
He did when he last was in office
@nutsaboutdance
Oh, you mean like reducing our emissions per capita by 40% since 2000, something not even you Euro-parasites are capable of dreaming of?
@@nutsaboutdanceAmerica would be much greener if it focused on itself instead of Europe.
Just one thing. She asked ''If we didn't pay''. Meaning 0. He answered the question based on that. As far as i know there isn't a single NATO member who pays nothing.
Big distinction. You even had the quote written on the screen.
I've listened to the quote. From context, he clearly means nations that don't meet their funding commitment, not members that pay nothing - he was recounting a conversation he had with the head of a NATO state where this person asked if the US would still protect them if they "don't pay" (if it was a real conversation and not a lie, he must mean "hit their funding target," because no NATO member refused to pay anything during or prior to Trump's Presidency.)
@@Talisguy Let's be honest, trump wasn't talking about anything specific. He can't underestand the difference between the military budget commitments in % of GDP or NATO's budget itself, or how NATO benefits the USA nor the specialization within the members of NATO on different warfare aspects to maximize the overall cost efficiency, etc... etc...
I've yet to see any shred of evidence that he has anything more than a mainstream media "bloke at the bar" basic level of sterotyping of the whole subject.
That is, assuming he doesn't intentionnaly and actively want to weaken the USA, which I will continue to doubt just on principle.
Yeah semantics. Trump means the spending target of 2%. It's not about paying or not, it's about meeting the spending target or not
Y'all are also assuming that the conversation Trump quoted was a real conversation that actually took place.
I'm trying to think of the context that would lead up to a European Leader asking Trump that specific question, and I'm coming up a bit short.
@@Bertinator-nm9ld it's not about if the conversation happened or not, it's about the message he's conveying. Whether it happened or not, this is his opinion and for once in our lives, trump is right about one thing - Europe needs to expand their own military and production and rely less on the US, whether Trump or someone else is president
0:25 simon knocks on wood to cover up sounds coming up from the "blazement"
No. He just wanted NATO to pay the share it agreed to. 2% of GDP on defense and guess what he was right. That's pretty much what all of them are doing now that Russia has shown its teeth. Instead of cutting deals with them like Germany was for cheap gas while expecting the US to pay the bill for protection at the same time. What cheap click bait nonsense is this title? Take a reality pill
America leaving NATO reads a lot like the UK leaving the EU to me; a baffling and stupid idea.
And yet it happened.
Why should I care about Western European sovereignty?
Perhaps your opinion on why the US needs to defend those who don't care about defending themselves is not something America cares about.
@@marfman21 Who cares what you think.
@@ib7844 Right back at you bud. Here's hoping your country actually pulls it's weight so it doesn't get run over, I won't be in Europe defending your home
I'm here to feed the algorithm. Also thank you for the amazing video
Simon jinxed it with that "yet" 😭 0:12
Hey guys fun fact, it's a bit of an open question if Hawaii is included as part of article 5's common defense
It’s not an open question at all. Article 5 does not apply to Hawaii.
@@baneofbanesWhy not?
@@Bertinator-nm9ldNorth Atlantic. It's In the name
@@Bertinator-nm9ldme personally, I’m gonna go online (hey I’m already there) and look it up, rather than waiting for a internet-stranger to qualify their claims. But that’s just me 🤷♂️
@@Wild_Danimal Yeah, but I might not be the only one who has that question. So, if I ask and they post an answer here, it helps everyone.
Plus, when little are just plain wrong, there's not always anything to find online, so that's always in the back of my head when I ask these questions.
I think I did look it up afterwards, but I forget what I found, atm.
If anything it would force the European nations to come together and make them stronger.
in trump's defense he said that about countries who dont pay the required 2% gdp. as far as i know everyone that shares a border with russia satisfies that requirement
He doesn't seem to understand that he couldn't encourage Russia to attack Belgium without it going through at least one country that paid the required 2%. Trump is deeply uninformed about a lot of things, so you can't convince me that he's aware of this, but I also don't believe this conversation with an unnamed NATO head happened, especially since he doesn't draw a distinction between "not paying the 2% GDP" and "not paying anything."
BS! The orange idiot will come up with something else to renege on our treaty obligation even if all funding goals are met. He's in Putin's pocket. And if he had been President instead of Biden he would've allow zero US aid to Ukraine. You already see it in the House, which follows drumpfs orders, cutting off aid.
The problem for me is that I don't expect Trump to actually care who meets the 2% threshold and who doesn't. I think he just doesn't like NATO in general, and that's a convenient excuse to use. It's fine to want NATO to spend more on their own defense, but I don't expect that to actually change his mind if they do.
There's many reasons I'll be voting against him, in the coming election, and this is just one more of those. Sure, abandoning NATO would be more dangerous for Europe than the US, but it's not good for us either, in the grand geopolitical scheme of things. He's playing with fire.
@@Bertinator-nm9ld ill still take that unpredictability over biden
@@low_vibration Why, though?
What did Trump even do when he was in office? Aside from that one tax cut, which wasn't matched by reduced government spending like it should have been.
Usa has a patience of a chimp when it comes to wars.. man Europe needs to find more reliable partners not only military partners but trading as well...
The US has too many problems at home to continue to hold to ideals on the international stage. We must act pragmatically and ask if our allies don't hold up their obligations why should we?
As mentioned in the video, an attack from Russia would be all but guaranteed to strike a country that is actually meeting its GDP target first, because every NATO member that borders Russia or Ukraine spends at least 2% of GDP on its military. Trump couldn't encourage Russia to attack Belgium without Russia going through at least one NATO member state that was meeting its target to do so.
Also, come on. Like Trump would cut military expenditure to fix those problems at home. Even if he would, the Republican party wouldn't. They pretty explicitly do not believe in using public money to help people. One of the few times the party sided against Trump was when he tried to get an infrastructure funding bill passed, so spending tax money to make things better for ordinary people is a line that we've seen most of his congress will not cross.
Europe has already held up there obligations under NATO as the USA is the only country to ever invoke Article 5 where a former US president told a bunch of lies so that the country that actually attacked a NATO member was left and a country that had nothing to do with it(Iraq) was invaded and Europeans most definitely gave there lives for the USA and there war when they invoked the protections under NATO we lost family and loved ones holding up that obligation and gave in blood for a war that had nothing to do with us but the promise they made for collective defence.
You mean that kind of obligation?
@@FlintlockonObligations do not stop at one point.
Because doing so is in US’s best interests with regards to maintain power projection capability. Those carrier groups will have their operational times cut significantly without a reliable friendly ports to resupply and refuel from.
I agree with trump only in so far as NATO countries need to pay 2% GDP and provide security not consume security. I’m in Canada one of the biggest NATO deadbeats of all, our government refuses to pay for defence, we are at 1.3% GDP and cutting more
Canada could leave NATO tomorrow and noone would attack it EVER.Its all about geographic location.Greece isn't spending more than 3% because NATO requires it for example.
20 out of the 31 countries don't make the 2% requirement. It's a percentage, not a certain amount of money. Poland at 3.9%, US at 3.49%, and Greece at 3.01% are the highest. Luxembourg, spain, and Belgium seem to be consistent in the lowest percentages, where 1% is rarely seen. Trumpy plays hardball. He knows what it takes and gets straight to it
Most recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, enacted on December 22, 2023, prohibits the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without approval of a two-third Senate super-majority or an act of Congress. The short answer is that Article VI, paragraph 2,Of the constitution makes treaties the supreme law of the land on the same footing with acts of Congress. Trump can not do what he said. He does not even know our own constitution
During Trump administration
Poland 2.2%
US 4.2%
UK 1.9% & none of the other members met their target
The core issue of NATO is that it is an alliance of inequal partners, leading to most nations ending up feeling (rightfully) like vassal states geopolitically.
Considering its immense size and power, no one can blame the US to be the leader of NATO.
This leads to NATO being an antenna of US political strength.
One recent example is the Paris attack in 2015; when a 100 died and 500 were injured, the then US president called the french one warning him that a call upon article 5 would not be answered; obviously it was not in the mind of the french president anyway, but this wasn't the call of the US president in theory, just cementing that at the end NATO is a US toy.
Add to that for decades the insistence of the US to sabotaging the local defence industries in europe, while pushing europeans to spend their military funds on US equipment, and you end up with reluctant nations, which cannot live outside NATO, but also which don't feel the incentive to do much effort, letting the burden of having a strong military on their overlord.
The obvious exception is nations with a direct existential threat, like bordering Russia.
A really simple solution would be for them to just pay. 🤯
Pay who?
The rule is that members were originally to spend (not pay America) 2% of GDP on their own defence. After the fall of the Soviet Union that expenditure requirement was reduced to 1% of GDP. In 2014 it was decided to raise the expenditure required back to 2% *by 2024* and since this is the beginning of the year 2024 this is the first year that the target expenditure is 2% of GDP
The requirement is that a predetermined amount of money is spent by each country on their own defence, not that they buy American stuff, or allow themselves to be occupied by the American military, or that they pay the USA "protection money".
A good Salesman Create a problem even if there was no problem . Now when there is a problem, Enlarge it to Sell even more.😅 Finally, Upsell, Cross-sell and Monopolise the market.
I almost forgot to mention, offload old inventories meanwhile in Sales promotion, Sue non-paying customers over contractual obligations, and come out with loyalty programs to tie everyone together.
Hmm sounds like my old work place 😂
I wish you made longer videos, you're great
I would like to see the US take on an isolationist policy. We don't need to play World Peacekeeper and keep giving money to all these others countries. We need to work on upgrading our own infrastructure, fixing the borders; sealing them by any means necessary, and developing our own economy more by importing less and manufacturing our own products more.
Should I remind you what happened last time the US decided to be isolationist? Global trade partners started shooting each other, and stopped trading with the US, hoarding resources to make more weapons to shoot each other with. The US stock market collapsed. And america got involved because it was profitable for them to do so.
If america sees itself as a beacon of democracy and freedom, and replaced the previous global superpower great brittan via a, mostly, peaceful transition, capitalizing on the UK's weakness after fighting 2 world wars from start to finish... if america stepped down now. Who exactly would take their place. China? Russia? Neither of them can be trusted with the best interests of humanity.
100%, Im happy to support nato as long as we're not playing world police and arent playing the entire european continents sugardaddy.
Brother if you think leaving NATO gonna solve that you are in bad suprise nothing gonna change.
This dude is literally the definition of what news should be.
Every article in a treaty is binding. You can’t ignore one part of a treaty while insisting that the other parties uphold another part.
If every article is binding, how do countries get away with not spending 2% of gdp on defense?
That’s the European way. They do it constantly. The nations sign treaties then either ignore them or refuse to fulfill their obligations in full and nobody can say anything to anyone else because they’re all doing it.
@@patternpaper4940I’m not well versed on the intricacies of the North Atlantic Treaty to comment about that specifically. I’d imagine any enforcement regarding violations of provisions of the treaty are handled by some sort of council consisting of signatory members.
I’m more just pointing to the general hypocrisy of declaring one part of a treaty as completely binding while treating other parts as optional based on how it suits your needs.
@@patternpaper4940 The 2% is a recomendation(!) agreed upon a few years ago. It's actually NOT part of the NATO treaty. Using "Trumpian" language, "It's NOT in the contract."
@@ryanhubbard1885 That’s literally what the Europeans are doing. They’re acting like the 2 percent agreement isn’t binding, but article 5 is.
if ya don’t pay your electric bill, ya don’t electricity. don’t pay your bills, don’t expect to get what you have to pay for 🤷♂️😂
Isn't a more accurate quote "If you don't meet your treaty obligations on military spending the US is not going to pull your slack any more"?
No. ”If you dont meet spending requirements the US will encourage a dictator to invade your nation so that it will no longer exist” is closer
If anything by trump forcing nato members to pay there fair share it would strengthen nato not weaken it. If members of this organization are going to receive the benefit of mutual defense everyone should pay for it. It’s like having an insurance policy if you do not pay your premiums and you have a loss you are not covered so it’s important to see it as a priority to pay to mitigate the risk
The US already benefits from having it's finger in every Nato ally in the world. Who buys their weapons? Who gives them intel and adheres to their geopolitical and economical decisions? The US de-facto rules the western world, evident by how it's encouraging several countries to buy their fossil fuels as opposed to the much more cheap Russian one which is in many European countries interest, especially in Winter.
Seems they don't enjoy the boons of that though and want to cede it to Russia and China. If they think what happens across the ocean does not affect them (on both coasts), they'll have a reality check coming.
BS! The orange idiot will come up with something else to renege on our treaty obligation even if all funding goals are met. He's in Putin's pocket. And if he had been President instead of Biden he would've allow zero US aid to Ukraine. You already see it in the House, which follows drumpfs orders, cutting off aid.
He just wants the other member countries to meet the military funding levels they are contractually committed to. Not unreasonable.
Exactly. Idk why everyone is acting like that so ridiculous. We have a standing military thats larger than all of Europe AND Russia combined in terms of equipment and investment. And those countries can't even be bothered to have a decently updated military. 2% for these countries shouldn't be an issue. It just shows that they don't see it as important, because they think the US will save them
NATO doesn't "contractually obligate" any member to spend a certain amount, the 2% is a recommendation.
@@Luthies well... pretty sure Trump considers it more than a recommendation... and so does the majority of the US. Pay your bills.
BS! The orange idiot will come up with something else to renege on our treaty obligation even if all funding goals are met. He's in Putin's pocket. And if he had been President instead of Biden he would've allow zero US aid to Ukraine. You already see it in the House, which follows drumpfs orders, cutting off aid.
@mr.z3664 and Trump doesn't make up the rules for NATO. No matter how much his clan wants to think he does
I like presidents who DON'T shit their pants
I like presidents who don't forget when their sons died.
Not Trump then.
Or forget that he did.😂
I like presidents who know where their sons actually died
Trump has been wearing a diaper for years.
Trump = Quisling
Eyes of traitors
It’s funny how everyone complains about America being the world police but when someone says we don’t want to do it anymore everyone pipes up with “you can’t do that” and “trumps an idiot”
Personally I think the u.s. SHOULD leave nato and grant assistance on a case by case basis.
This is the best. I’m tired of my country paying for the worlds defense
It benefits us. There are more benefits than cash.
What was the US doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? That were just invasions with a million deaths. It had nothing to do with defence
He never said he would, only that he wouldn't protect those who don't meet the 2% gdp obligation of NATO. Which frankly should be an issue that has bipartisan support.
You know people die during invasions right? Trump encouraging Russia to invade NATO countries is completely immoral.
I don't think we should promote war crimes if someone doesn't order those extra Abrams tanks
Hi Simon! Can you look at doing an episode that expands on South Korea’s military industries supporting the west as a weapons supplier. It’s my impression that the US military suppliers only want to do high tech weapons solutions instead of the core rapidly expended weapons for frontline use. The US military industry looks to also have capacity constraints to support smoldering battles/skirmishes across the globe. Is there a lower cost weapons supply chain (like South Korea) for the collective west that can economically support its remilitarization efforts and maximize the value of their tax revenues and future borrowings?
I suspect that Turkey is more likely to be the state that doesn't respond to an attack on a NATO member.
I don’t think so. A country that may pose a big threat to the EU is also a big threat to Turkey.
@@nullx7 Until Turkey decides that Russia is not a threat, but an ally. Who is building Turkey's nuclear reactors? What country is the biggest military threat, Russia or Greece? What country is providing a lot of cheap natural gas? And how often has Turkey consistently swung one way or the other? They've been against Western Europe, against Russia, and sat it out, and then been pro-West, and then both aided Urkraine and simultaneously sat it out.
@@richdobbs6595 The construction of a nuclear power plant by Russia in Turkey does not mean that the two countries are allies. If Turkey had purchased fighter jets from Russia, then we could say that Turkey views Russia as an ally. Greece, in comparison to Russia, is much smaller and weaker, and could never pose as significant a threat to Turkey as Russia does.
As for the issue of cheap natural gas, Russia is actually acting in its own interests. It’s true that Russia made significant contributions to Turkey, especially during Erdogan’s election period, but this is because Putin prefers not to see a leader in Turkey who leans more towards the West.
By the way, I agree that Turkey does not see Russia as an enemy as much as before. Let's imagine that Russia invaded Europe. Do you think Russia would still sympathize with Turkey?
@@nullx7Not really. Turkey wants to destroy Europe.
@@richdobbs6595 Who is fighting against Russia in Syria, Libya and Caucuses for over a decade? Which Nato country hit a Russian jet, attack a Russian base lastly ??? Establishing an economic deal doesn’t mean a friendship ( Check U.S - China relations). Heck These two countries are basically naturel and historical rivals and in a fight since 17th century. You guys surely need unbiased geographical, geopolitical education and news…
I just want to say, although I am not a Trump supporter. If you look at what he said and see it as a strategic move to get these countries to stop relying on America. It does allow his possible presidency going forward the ability to focus on more internal matters, than dealing with anymore Russian or Chinese growth. If other countries are stepping up and taking leads on there own defense and country first principles it makes his job easier. I don't know could be a move for someone people continually underestimate.
Yeah I see a lot of people saying trump talks first and thinks later but I don’t think that’s true. There’s a reason he was elected and it’s because so many Americans resonate with what he says and wish a president would actually have a spine. Trump is not perfect in the slightest and of course I wish there was someone better than him but no one else has the balls to say what everyone has been thinking for years. Of course that’s because it has major geopolitical consequences but the average American doesn’t give a shit about americas projection of power around the world because standard of living has been falling for a while now. It’s pretty easy to see why Americans are fed up paying for European defense while they get the benefit of their government spending on them while also shitting on America for not having the same quality of life
@@nickbob2003 Trump would not spend that money on improving things for the average person. Even if he, personally, wanted to - and I don't think he gives a shit - the party wouldn't back him. One of the few times the Republicans in congress openly opposed Trump in large numbers during his term was when he tried to increase infrastructure funding. They do not believe in spending tax money to help the average citizen. That's communist bullshit. This is clear. They have run on this for decades. The money not spent on the military would find its way into the pockets of corporations and the 1%.
BS! The orange idiot will come up with something else to renege on our treaty obligation even if all funding goals are met. He's in Putin's pocket. And if he had been President instead of Biden he would've allow zero US aid to Ukraine. You already see it in the House, which follows drumpfs orders, cutting off aid. Focus on what internal matters? Becoming a dictator?
As Obama learned the hard way, In the United States, the president cannot unilaterally enter into -- nor break -- treaties with other nations. While it certainly would present a constitutional crisis, the U.S. president cannot just say, "Yeah, we're not gonna do that article 5 thing." And DJT knows this. This is bluster, intended to do exactly what Simon said it would: get the freeloading NATO members into gear.
If you look at the Republican Party’s Project 2025. Then yes the president will actually be able to do that.
Remind me what exactly Obama learnt the hard way? Also, wasn't it Trump's Administration (for example) that backed out of the Treaty of Paris regarding climate change goals? I am pretty sure he did not face constitutional consequences for that.
@@Tyger_YT I'd say there's a fair bit of difference between backing out of a non-binding agreement with the globalist capitalists and ignoring a treaty that has kept Europe at relative peace for over a generation.
NATO should’ve stop being an alliance since 1992 when the Soviet Union fell.
It makes you wonder what would’ve happened during the Yugoslav Wars wars if Nato disbanded
Ok troll
elaborate
@@Potjandorie NATO was founded to counter Soviet aggression in 1949. The Soviet Union fell in 1992. NATO serves no purpose seeing as there is no more Soviet Union.
@@kuldigszemnieks-kr1nu I’m not trolling, NATO shouldn’t be a thing since the main reason it was a thing stopped excisting in 1992.
"Allies" they sure talk a lota shit and do a lot of backstabbing for allies.
America has few true allies, Israel and those in NATO are not among our actual friends.
really`?
like when.. Allies is a term for an entire country, not a single term politician saying dumb shit..
So who is backstabbing who? i dont get your point here
@@legatilegions8055 the eu at large has been subverting and throtteling the us for years their no better than china atleast china is openly hostile than this underhannded bs
@@legatilegions8055France sanctioning america is the early 2000s is back stabbing
@@jamespolk1925 lies, couldnt come up with anything better? 😂
Other NATO members should keep their commitments and spend the agreed upon part of their GDP on defense.
If we do not come to the aid of members that didn't meet 2%, America loses nearly all credibility as the monster everyone fears. We must help all NATO members to maintain our American sphere of influence.
It is a political statement from a petty multi-bankrupted clown who has never met his fiscal obligations. He is a hypocrite who will diminish American superiority to make idiots happy, because they don't understand spheres of influence.
if all NATO members were paying at the 2% of spending target he would have some other reason to not want to come to the aid of other countries in an article 5 scenario.
that being said the member states should get their spending up to the 2% minimum.
They should pay their retroactive spending targets :)
Over 45 years of back payments.
@@FleetAdmirable nato never had a minimum spending - and still hasn't.
@@fischersfritz468 Euro countries slacking on defense spending pretty much is the cause of shortages of military equipment that they aren't able to send to Ukraine.
Like all the announcements of aid packages of billions of dollars sounds cool until you realize its promises to be fulfilled LATER BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE IT NOW.
@@FleetAdmirable it could deliver a lot more - but that would have to be taken from the active stocks, not just the old ammunition.
Btw.. the US has 10'000 tanks in the desert but was only able to deliver 32
@@fischersfritz468 45 years is alot of old stock. the US does not have 10000 tanks let alone in a desert somewhere.
They are sour complaints when america is constantly barated and humiliated for not funding universal healthcare and massively funding our military while other nato members provide these luxaries for their citizens and shirk their responsibilities. They still receive the benefits of a massive military, without the costs, and this is because that burden is being carried by us. We have infrastructure that is deteriorating and remains in use. We have an open boarder with millions pooring through illegally each year. That money the government collects feom it's citizens is prioritized for it's citizens. It is not charity.
Pull your weight and stop freeloading in times of peace.
Its baffling to me that people find it shocking for the US to opt out of defending NATO members when they arent even doing the bare minimum of paying 2% GDP for the defense pact.
Trump isn't being unreasonable here, hes asking for the bare minimum from Europe in return for defense from the most powerul military in the world, if anything its the Europeans here who are being unreasonable.
8:18 is Olympia, Washington not DC 😂
It's simple: just pay up!
by the end of 2024 most NATO members are expected to pay 2%
@@adidascap9441 That's good, I hope they go through with it.
@@Daxiongmao87 yes, better late then never