Here’s what happens if the USA leaves NATO
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- This happens if the US leaves NATO
Support me on Patreon:
/ oliverbahl
Video Producers:
Oliver Franke
Charles Street
Research & Writing:
Omar Garcia, Oliver Franke
Edit & Animations:
Arun Singh
Sometimes even if you are the most powerful nation on earth it’s still good to have friends
Europe needs to be better at being a friend
USA can pay less for nato
You also have to see how much of spending is going towards American company’s.
But yeah Europe has homework to do and we demand it from our politicans
@@randomuser5443 What did we do?
@@randomuser5443 We aren't the ones pulling you guys into wars for fun. I get your point, but my god you have enormous concessions to make, if you want to make that point stick.
Getting arms economics explained via an Eminem lyric was NOT on my 2024 bingo list 😂
Great stock response.
Main issues is without US the glue of NATO is done. Greece and Turkey would not see much benefit in cooperation. French interests, German interests and all do not align entirely with each other. Right now it's the American way which everyone follows without US the existing NATO structure will not exist as it does.
but...but...what about Canada?
@@LoremIpsum1970
I really really want to know why the hell Canada is there
I got Europe they want security
US want to be the big guy
but why the hell Canada is there? on one next to them anyway
@@someone-ql6pubecause the us is there smartass
@@someone-ql6puif USA left Canada would prob leave too tbh
@@LoremIpsum1970 canada is not real.
Although small and not part of NATO, Australia spends hundreds of millions a year on NATO defence via its satellite monitoring bases. It’s a thankless task that the Europeans reward with a punitive trade embargo on Australia that has been inflicted for generations. It’s more than just America that wants out of the burden of the Europeans.
Are you talking about the joint US Australia satellite program? Isn't that more for five eyes stuff than NATO?
@@trevor3013 Five Eyes is what gives NATO the monitoring.
@@seanlander9321haha we got AUKUS now, let’s bring back the empire baby!
@@socomxx Empire? Not on your Nelly, sweetheart.
@seanlander9321 Extraordinary. I thought about Alice Springs just a few days ago when I was thinking about of the political and economic costs the Euros would have to duplicate if they wanted true "strategic autonomy". My conclusion was that they are full of $. Not possible conventionally. Forget three letter agencies or nuclear detterence. It would take decades, trillions of euros and politically impossible for them even if they integrated to a U.E.U
Are you American or Australian by the way? I would think you have to be from a five eye country
The US leaving NATO is not a good idea. But persuading the other member countries to bear more of the burden of defense spending is an idea whose time has come. Europe is no longer lying in ruins from WWII.
We Americans had to pay for that to.
there time has not come it came in the 50's and never left yall have just decided not to pay your fair share since the wall came down and "history ended" ;)
@@matthewkimble964 history has not ended
That time came back in in the 2000s.. '04 I think? Or '08. NATO agreed to a defense budget commitment of 2% of the partner nation's GDP. Every member of NATO is supposed to be investing 2% of their GDP to their defense budget. This was later reinforced in 2014 when our allies in Europe realized that of all of the non-US NATO members, Germany, the UK, and France, made up over 50% of the collective defense budget. So they got together in Wales and essentially told everyone else in NATO to get their crap together and start investing that 2%. They were given 10 years. It's been 10 years. Only about 4 other countries have reached their 2% commitment..
Also NATO serves US geopolitical interests
US geopolitical interests are not American national interests. The growing disconnect and hostility between the American people and the globalist political class of the US is what’s driving us to end these alliances in the first place.
thats its sole purpose... lol you think americans are going to fight for estonia lol
yes they will they fought for my people once @@rebuilt11
There will come a time when Americans truly see that we get very little in return from Europe.
We should have pivoted to Asia sooner instead of continuing to guarantee the security of an E.U. that regulates American exports out.
@@rebuilt11yes
Like most Americans couldn't care about the so called superpower status lmao all they want is to live a peaceful life.
Calling the US a superpower, after afghanistan and rising prices is a ruse
Regular Americans may not care about superpower status, but their leaders do care and want to remain influential power in Europe.
If that breaks and Europe become its own superpower, then the US has to play by the rules equally instead of making them.
And that's something that the US simply doesn't want, even Trump understands this as Trump is very good at playing bluff games to scare its allies.
I feel like most Americans (myself included) would start caring once it starts affecting our pocket books and comes knocking on our door via Mexico.
There are plenty of nationalists who care, including myself
The us chose to leave Afghanistan. @General_MacArthur
The first graph is not how much countries spend for NATO but how much they spend for the military in general. Very different.
That's how NATO works 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
The irony of this video being made by a European…. Lol
lol
Made sense.
bodied washedbf
they know it better than us; the world reads - we study tik tok
Really enjoying the content, but just a quick note: the music is a bit loud at times, making it a tad hard to hear you. Maybe a slight adjustment could enhance the overall experience. Keep up the great work!
Yea the U.S. can leave and the members that paid the 2% can make NATO 2.0
All the other members that don’t want to pay their fair share can get new treaties with different agreements.
Only nations that are being invited to NATO 2.0 that don’t pay the 2% are Turkey and Bulgaria because we need their geography.
Everyone else tuff luck.
@@AG-yc7vt given your unrelated comment, you're clearly a bot
@@SirThanksalot_1 ...
@@SirThanksalot_1nah, youtube ui is just bad
I don't get it; we were doing all our hardest and best to break off of and get away from Europe in the 18th century. Why are we with them again? They don't even like us. Break off!
Washington advised caution between the British and the French due to the power the nations held at the time. Don't make this difficult, grow up.
We like you. If you think we talk shit about you it’s more like brotherly mocking. Just look at how European countries talk to each other. (Much worse)
Something bad probably - Tzen Shui Feng
For American orligachs.
Ruin US reputation by leaving NATO? In my eyes it’ll speak the famous saying: Not gonna help you if you’re not willing to help yourself.
TO FREEDOM 🇺🇸
I'm getting the same vibe of the USA wanting to stay out of WW2 from this comment.
And let's just say that didn't work out...
Japan got bold from the USA being inactive & strikes Pearl Harbor just like what china could do if they suddenly got brave by the USA's in activeness from leaving NATO.
& i feel like you also ignored like 90% of the cons to leaving NATO bruh..
Its these kinds of people who help history repeat itself & its scary to think people like this are also in high positions of power..
@@M0vingSaturn523 Replying to both comments. You can't compare today's U.S. to WW2 U.S., we'll know an attack is coming as soon as a country decides to do it. We poured too much resources into Europe. To the point even Europe doesn't care about their problems anymore unless it's immigration because they know America's going to save them.
I'm not a isolationist, I honestly feel like we need to redirect our resources to counter China with our Asian allies since China is more of a threat to the U.S. than Russia. If the U.S. & China goes to war, what will NATO do? A war with China will be a naval war. Do you think NATO countries that even have a navy can even sail half way across the world & be combat effective? Let Europe deal with Russia.
Europeans: US leaving will harm the military industrial complex 😠
Americans: 🥳🥳🥳🇺🇸
That too simplistic and not true in the short term, because we would still buy from the usa besides that the usa reputation would be damaged and usd as the world reserve currency put in jeopardy
I think the best question is “How can the US get other NATO members to pay their fair share?”
I know people freaked out when Trump talked about abandoning countries who didn’t pay up, but he had a point: we can’t just let other countries outsource their defense to us. It’s supposed to be an ALLIANCE, not a puppet show (in that Europe would be the puppets).
That's a logical hole that can be sticky. What would be considered "fair share"? You have to remember that these other country economies are nowhere near the size of the US. The largest european GDP, Germany, has about 15% the size of the US.
@@billywest1307 A “fair share” would be the spending threshold set out in the North Atlantic Treaty itself: 2% of a country’s national GDP. The only countries that hit that are the US and any country in NATO with hostile neighbors (so mostly just the eastern flank)
"their fair share?" is the dumbest statement ever. Firstly, United States spent 3.73% of GDP on , the cost of Nato being a small fraction of that (640M USD for running costs in FY22). So a fair share of what? Personel and equipment? R&D and Procurement? 2% of Estonia's GDP is not as much as 2% of Germany's GDP. What's not mentioned is the US sales to Nato, without standardisation Nato could procure from anywhere including RU (like Turkey wanted to). The other benefits are global reach and Article 5 being invoked after 9/11. I think it would have been very dificult to mount any campaigns in the Middle East with only a carrier group or two and no land bases, not to mention medivac facilites in Germany... The 2% agreement is really just a distraction.
@@LoremIpsum1970”2% of Estonias GDP is not as much as 2% of Germanys GDP”
That misses the entire point and shows the core issue with NATO right there. Yeah 2% of Estonias GDP isn’t going to make that much of an impact but by committing it shows they’re committed/value the alliance and are not free loading off it. So what cause your GDP isn’t that big you should be allowed to not commit anything and just allow other countries to take care of you. You can f off with that.
One interesting thing would that it could lead to EU millitary integration and eventually an EU army.
Already happening to some extent with coast guard/anti-piracy missions
EVENTUALLY being the operative word. Too long for it to be truly effective.
Europoors can't even save Ukraine. You think they're going to fund an army from the Brussels bureaucracy?
7:23 should have listed this on pros. He was not honest enough 😊
Unlikely since the EU would not be able to fund an EU army that's equal to all members and bigger countries like Germany would be expected to foot most of it.
Sounds like europe had been getting a free ride
They will never admit it though
@@dfdf-rj8jr some of us do actually - the Eastern flank has been calling out our Western European neighbours for their attitude towards increasing expenditure
@@nik_yeEastern Europe Best Europe.
It's easy to have affordable healthcare and social benefits when someone else pays for your defense.
yeah but not for the one who’s doing all the paying, fair share
In Germany you pay your healthcare yourself through taxes, so yeah.. Doesn't really have anything to do with military spending
We brits and the french have Nukes... nobody is gonna fuck with us unless they want to see their country become an irradiated wasteland.
As for the rest of Europe? They should build their own nukes because the US is an Unreliable ally and ruzzia is an extremely agressive neighbour.
@Philjamin just wait till you have to pay 25+% more taxes to cover your own defense...
@@Philjaminwhen all government spending is funded by taxes, yes it does.
The budget comparison with China is a little bit misleading as the cheap labor and purchasing power are completely different.
And we're seeing that already with their insane and booming naval industry
yep true. making ammo in Europe or USA is approximately 27X more expensive than in China. S o simply means that 800 Billion $ of NATO does not mean 500 Billion $ of China is making less ammo etc.
China is not doing as good as some people portray them as, there is alot of quality issues, problem with corruption on the lowest levels, exploitation of goods by low level officers.
Their internal economy is suffering from heavy deflation meaning all profitability is being squeezed out. They are over producing goods. Their construction industry bubble pooped in January - February and they are feeling the effect. It is not all good china they suffering economically and won't be experiencing massive growth for while. Income inequality is rising between urban rural environments to insane levels.
@@ssStolengrad not to mention they almost completely rely on oil and coal imports. the coal mainly coming from here in Australia which as china found out a couple years ago they cannot live without when they blocked imports briefly then almost ran out of power.
When it comes to high-tech military equipment the differences in purchasing power between different countries is actually not that significant... Just because Chinese steel is relatively cheap doesn't mean they can churn out 5x more fighter planes equivalent to F-35 for the same price.
Pretty sure China is getting most of their coal from Indonesia @@R3verse301
The strongest argument to me is emotional; many U.S. voters it's an insult to pride to be in an alliance where the U.S. commits more than other nations do, even if the U.S. degree of commitment is voluntary and could be scaled back without leaving the block altogether. Many voters think in binaries that don't permit a gray area between "maintaining current levels of commitment" and "completely leaving".
There's also the argument that while the U.S. would lose money in the short term, if the status quo holds, it *might* save money if a NATO member state is invaded and the U.S. does not legally have to spend any resources in a war of intervention.
I think, as a U.S. voter myself, these are lousy arguments, and am very strongly in favor of the U.S. staying in the alliance, and helping member states get technical assistance and financing set up better ammunition production institutions and facilities.
To add to your point, I will also include all the Americans' lives that are sacrificed. Americans are tired of sending their sons and daughters to fight wars that don't even come close to our homeland, and then we get accused of being warmongers and get comments like all we do is start wars. But we are their best friends when Europe is in trouble; it's a bit hypocritical. Europe should put their sons and daughters on the front line, not just blame Americans for not doing enough. I am frankly sick of the world always blaming us for everything while at least we try to make a difference instead of just complaining about it. Do we always do things the right way? Absolutely not! We have made mistakes 100%, but we try.
It also doesn’t help that other NATO countries benefit from the U.S. defense guarantee and nuclear umbrella, but still under-contribute towards mutual defense.
Clearly, they do not care about lives lost as long as it’s ours.
Theres also understanding just how much certain countries in nato hate us, especially France.
@@o_o825 While this is an issue, it's not equally present across NATO members. The U.K., Poland, and Estonia definitely care about lives lost and actually lost quite a few in Iraq and Afghanistan. Germany and France are a bit more guilty slacking off.
@@augusthoglund6053 agreed
Japan and South Korea would never be abandoned, so the European fear doesn't extend to them. Guam, Samoa, Hawaii and Alaska are vulnerable if we abandon the Philippines, so we'd never abandon them either. Germany understands this and doesn't want to give theirs up by following France's anti-American rhetoric. But France seeks its former glory, so I feel bad for the EU.
it's not as much anti-American as it is pro-European, but I do agree the French rhetoric somewhat reeks of post-colonial revisionism
Honestly seeing russia's performance in europe I think the germans,brits,french,italians etc etc have a pretty good chance at beating them if not atlteast holding out. Americans should focus on asia
@@nik_yeit’s definitely anti-Americanism.
France still believes we’re peers sadly. They can’t understand that we’ve lapped them and they won’t be catching up.
Let China and North Korea have all those countries!
You make good points, but bad point in that we can’t use US tech anymore. The US wants to make money, so selling US weapons, tech and service will continue.
This guy thinks we’ll go from allies to sanctions.
Believe it or not there are other non NATO countries that the U.S. still has defense treaties with. (Japan, South Korea, etc) and the treaty is basically set up just like NATO, except it is only the U.S. and the other country tied together if an attack happens. Not some big conglomerate of nations.
The US military industrial complex may want to make money, but Europeans won’t want to be dependent on an increasingly hostile foreign power. Likewise the American people won’t want to supply the anti-White/anti-Christian regimes running w3stern Europe.
For a time, yes, and for specific systems, sure. But why would an area as rich as Europe want to stay dependent on the then unreliable US. It's just gonna use its position as military supplier for political and economic pressure. So best transition away ASAP. It's not like Europe is incapable of this either.
@@gerritvalkering1068we by far build the best stuff.
Europe can't make an F-35 for the price on their own and if they did it would be 2 generations behind what the US is currently using.
@@nuba16can you only need the best if you want to police the world. If you just want to make sure people won't attack you, good enough will do.
I said it before and I will say it again, Money spent does not mean money well spent.
Why is it so hard for the Europeans to pay what the agreed to? Mutual defense only works if we are all able to mutually defend each other. We Americans are being taken advantage of and have every right to be angry with CA, and the EU. If y'all are unwilling to uphold your end why should we uphold ours?
NATO issue is that th US is throwing money in as other nations are doing the bare minimum. That needs to change
Why? If that happened the US would lose any control over the region as its vast military would become obsolete there. Seems more beneficial to supply the defense
That's a US problem. For decades they have spent trillions into its military while neglecting other things, such as education and health care.
The other NATO countries aren't willing to spend that much because they know better. It would be economically moronic to spend that much on their militaries and they don't need to.
The US needs NATO as much as NATO needs the US.
@@sideshowblob What a joke. NATO is good, but NATO would be gone without the United States. The United States is not gone without NATO.
@@SavageJarJaryeah ture but the United States loses a lot of security in that
@@AdvancedGamer- yeah it wouldn't be a good decision but it obviously isn't a two-way thing
To be honest, from my perspective (Norway 🇳🇴), it's a bit difficult. We need NATO because our incompetent politicians haven't really invested in the military before now recently. At the same time it feels like Norway kind of has become America's bitch. It has for a long time been policy to not allow foreign military bases on Norwegian territory during peace. However, the government has allowed the US to build large installations on our own bases. These areas are exclusive access areas for americans only, and it's quite sketchy how we are not able to know what happens in there, because they are allowed to kill you if you trespass, without getting into legal trouble...
Where is that pfp from.
A friend had it I'm curious
Okay I'm sick of hearing this one okay you don't like more US troops that's understandable but that whole thing about we don't know what they're doing in there it's none of your business what they're doing in their that military base is officially foreign soil so even if you did know what was going on in there you wouldn't be able to do anything about it neither would your country without causing some type of international incident so is childish to think that they could
@@cartrellsplunge1525american detected
@@realgoogleuser hahaha you're right I am an American but I'm also speaking a little thing called common sense
Not incompetent, just loyal to daddy)
The key is logistics. The us logistics apparatus is simply unmatched
Das Worst Chase Szenario für Europas Sicherheit und Stabilität
Well, it is going to happen. I voted for Trump, and unless you guys get your shit together and stop acting like useless ingrates, you’re going to be on your own come the next Russian invasion. I thought the European Union was some big superpower now, lol. What happened to the European bravado? Have fun alone, and I hope for your sake that the others don’t just turn to Germany to leech off next.
Then pay your fair share not 20%. This is not hard you freeloaders
There are plenty of benefits to the US leaving NATO.
First, the US provides NATO nation with the funds to buy many of the weapons they NATO nations use. Even though a lot of that money does come back to the US since a lot of the weapons NATO uses come from US manufacturers, it is still like paying a quarter to get a dime back.
Second, our military personnel wouldn't have to spend so much time overseas supporting, protecting, and risking their lives for a country that isn't their own.
Third, our taxpayer dollars won't be going to essential handle a responsibility that each sovereign nation is supposed to handle on their own. This is especially true of countries as wealthy as many NATO nations. We could use that money on things that Americans need like publicly funded healthcare and higher education (which many NATO nations have because they don't have to spend a lot of money on defense) or give every American a hefty tax break.
Fourth, it would make each NATO nation a less secure place for business. This would make it so that American companies would have less competition on the global marketplace. It would also make American companies think twice about sending American jobs overseas to those companies for fear that those companies might be a risk from destruction from war or takeover from Russia or China causing them to loose money. This would cause them to have to keep their jobs here in the US to stay secure.
These are some of the pros for leaving NATO. The US doesn't need military allies. It can defend itself all by itself. As shown from this video, the US has all the capability to do all of that without help.
The thing is though; you forget that one of the main purposes of NATO is to keep Europe weak and dependent on the United States itself, after all if Europe is forced to become a Military Superpower, they would be more willing to go against the United States and their own interests.
Considering that many Americans deeply resent the fact that China is now a serious economic & geopolitical competitor to themselves, they would be even less pleased if Europe becomes another competitor.
@@MrSmith1984 Those European nations where (on an individual level) already military superpowers ahead of the US once in their history during their colonizing/imperialist time. However, it resulted in them killing each other and not the US (a.k.a. WW1 and WW2). In our modern time (even in a united Europe), they'll have Russia to worry about which will keep them from focusing on the US. They also don't have the raw material resources to be compete with either the US or Russia (especially if cut off from their commonwealth colonies). The US has nothing to fear from Europe.
@@sppoitier1
In response to what you have said:
*The United States didn't become a Superpower until after WW1; had it become a Superpower beforehand, the Europeans would have likely targeted the United States at some point.
And under today's circumstances; if NATO died and Europe decided to become an Independent Military Superpower, while they wouldn't be particularly interested in being hostile to the United States, it would inevitably mean that they would adopt an independent foreign policy to the United States.
Which might well include establishing a more friendly relationship with the Chinese going forward, something that would be absolutely against the interests of America, considering that the end result would be Eurasia being in the hands of a Europe-China Axis.
*You do realise that Europe would get all the resources it would need from Russia & Kazakhstan, alongside an increased presence in Africa should they wish to compete with the Chinese on that front.
And before you ask; there are a fair number of politicians in Europe that would indeed want to improve relations with Russia, which would be against the best interests of the United States.
*Europe becoming a Military Superpower would also mean that they would be in an even stronger position to both impose additional tariffs on the Americans and resist any trade concessions to the United States.
Long story short; the United States cannot afford to have Europe have an independent foreign & economic policy to themselves, especially when it would shift the balance of power worldwide in favour of everybody but the United States.
Interesting argument. However, it is full of holes.
First argument. It is true that some imperialist European nations before WW1 might have targeted the United States. However, those same European powers were much more concern about their powerful neighbors than the United States. Whether the United States had become a superpower before WW1 won't matter when your neighboring nation is more of an immediate threat.
Second argument. Other countries develop foreign policy different from the United States all of the time. They can do so by right of their own sovereignty just like we can. The whole reason why many countries have foreign policies that work with the United States is because we make it worth their wild. If they go against it, they loose money. This won't be in there best interest.
Third argument. China is an industrialize nation due to a great deal of technology transference from the United States due to companies offshoring their labor to them. Had this not happened, China would be where North Korea is now. Even if Europe decided to join with China as China is now, they'll still have trouble getting resources because both countries aren't very resource rich.
Fourth argument (part 1). The whole reason why NATO was even created was to help European nations which were struggling after WW2 fend off possible Russian aggression after WW2. This is still it's main purpose today. If NATO were to disband now, every western European nation would be focusing its efforts on trying to defend itself from Russia. They wouldn't be trying to get help from Russia because they'd be adversaries. They also wouldn't be trying to go against the United States because they'd have Russia to deal with.
Fourth Argument (part 2). Most European countries wouldn't have the option to turn to their African commonwealth nations. Many of those ties were dissolved after WW1 and WW2. Those ties are continuing to get weaker as many African nation become more independent. As a result, Europe won't get resources it would need to compete heavily again anyone in war without that.
Fifth argument. It is true that many European countries want to have good relations with Russian. However, it doesn't mean that those relationships are nearly as friendly as those with the United States. It is because of the United States and NATO that these European countries even have leverage to negotiate with Russian on even terms. It also wouldn't be in there best interest to make an enemy of the United States with Russia not being fully on-board with them.
Sixth argument. Since Europe isn't a very resource rich nation and a lot of their raw materials come from the United States, imposing higher tariffs won't be in their best interest due to the fact that they won't be able to rely on the anyone else for resources due the reasons mentioned above. Even if they did, the United States has enough industry and resources to go it alone should they decide to do so, and Europe knows it.
Your explanation for keeping Europe in our (the United State's) pocket still falls apart. We still have the option to go it alone.
“It wouldn’t even save [the US] money by leaving the alliance”
Bold. Claim.
You can tell this European moocher is scared of leaving Uncle Sam's basement. It's pathetic. ..he has no idea that it is also not just Trump....Kennedy wants the USA out of NATO...hope the day comes!
The US leaving NATO is not the same as US cutting all ties with all NATO countries...? A lot of the points raised in this video doesn't work if the US just keeps cooporating after leaving NATO
If the US leaves NATO, cooperation will take a serious hit. He told it perfectly clearly, trust will be gone and with it, cooperation.
Plus, a lot of the cooperation takes place within NATO structures, so that part will be gone for sure. Intelligence cooperation within the ( eyes and the extended version may remain.
It would still be idiotic, and limit their actions of foreign intervention
"NATO nukes have been crucial in dissuading Russia from invading the Baltic countries".
I see now.
Nato only has 200 air dropped warheads dispersed throughout Nato in Europe. The French and British nuclear arsenals are independent and can be used without Nato/US approval. And there are no nuclear ICBMs in Europe.
The question must be asked differently.
Does it still make sense for the US to maintain NATO if it takes its national interests into account?
Countries in Western Europe such as Germany pursue a mercantilist economic model.
To do this, they depend on cheap energy from Russia and large export markets such as China.
The US is currently "protecting" Germany with thousands of soldiers, a nuclear shield and hundreds of military bases.
The resulting political influence that the US has on Germany has not been able to prevent economic relations with China from becoming even more intense in recent weeks.
Chancellor Scholz's trip to China in April was, in my opinion, a clear sign that Germany is not prepared to cut its economic ties with China.
And given this reality, the US will sooner or later give up its military involvement in Europe.
Great point
If we leave Europe, Europe will have wars every 20 years again 😂😂😂
Why is this a problem for the US when there is war in Europe?
The others should pay their fair share
🤣🤡
@@LoremIpsum1970 Europoor
MEGA - Make Europe Great Again
China is looking for friends 😂
Nobody pays into anything. everyone just pays into their own military. USA money stays in the US military.
@@santostv.Authoritarian regimes love company
This is the most Euro centric take yet. The U.S. doesn't need the Euro states in any capacity for military, intel, or reputation. The EU promised a million shells to Ukraine. They've delivered half, if that. The U.S. has provided ISR for Ukraine targeting techniques and equipment; The lack of U.S. funding recently has proven that other NATO members can't bridge the gap. If anything, reputation will be the biggest consideration, but that boils down to if you're making a deal with the U.S., make sure that you can hold up your end of the bargain under normal circumstances. Other countries would understand this, and no-one in East Asia would say the U.S. is acting unreasonable for this regard. Japan, the Philippines, Australia and Taiwan especially, wouldn't be bothered, considering they're doing everything they can to up arm themselves in the face of Chinese aggression, while many NATO members *still* haven't hit the 2% spending requirement even though war is literally on their doorstep
NATO has essentially become the U.S. subsidizing, and, in some cases, babysitting many Euro states for security. The fact that countries in the bloc have been able to get away with spending less than the 2% commitment for over a decade shows just how cozy things have been for the Euro members. Leaving NATO would cost the U.S. some clout, but it would devastate the Euro states who have no means to defend themselves.
TL:DR If you don't want to be treated as a burden, don't let yourself be carried.
There is no need to spend that much. As you can see in the video, Russia military spend is already a fraction of European total spend. Just because the US likes to spend so much money in its overbloated military industrial complex doesn't mean Europe needs to follow. What Europe needs to do is to integrate and optimise its spending, instead of having 27 useless militaries and military industries, it needs to be a single military and a single military industry.
@@bohbohbohwut Cool. Still agreed to 2%. Hit your reqs, however you like. Otherwise, we out.
@@thegrayfellow8164 lmaoo I love the wording you use like how are any normal citizen has the ability to change it
@@drthunder5527Nice thing about the United States is we’re the land of the Free. We’re a democracy. I went out and voted for the first time in my life this year for Donald J Trump, and it looks like he’s going to win. If enough normal Americans don’t want to protect Europe anymore, Europe isn’t going to be protected anymore. Simple as.
Bye bye😂
Are you even a in the usa military?
Not a single aircraft carrier in NATO can rival the US
So?
@@shafsteryellow You dont think naval power is important? You dont think aircraft carriers are a major part of that?
@@matthewkimble964 fr
I doubt that would be relevant in the European theatre unless you think all Nato airforces would have been wiped out? Otherwise, what would a carrier bring to the table? It's Europe not Syria... Personally, I'd be more interested in missile cruisers, SLBMs and SAC capabilites...
@@matthewkimble964 I'm saying so? What's the point of that comment? The US has more aircraft carriers then the whole world combined.
The thing is though; people forget that one of the main purposes of NATO is to keep Europe weak and dependent on the United States itself, after all if Europe is forced to become a Military Superpower, they would be more willing to go against the United States and their interests.
Considering that many Americans deeply resent the fact that China is now a serious economic & geopolitical competitor to themselves, they would be even less pleased if Europe becomes yet another competitor.
Why the hell does NATO still exist after the early 90s?
Firstly, in small part, the Russian Federation invading and occupying neighbors, starting in 1993 with the Transnistria War.
Secondly in large part, 9/11 happened, and member states chipped in to the War On Terror, especially Central European and Baltic members.
The U.K. and France being hit hard by terrorism after 9/11 made it clear that terrorism by Al-Qaeda and the Da'esh/ISIL was an international problem that demanded a coordinated international response.
Russia sadly still exists, that's the reason
Military spending is not equal, even when finances on paper make the suggestion.
What can be done in the Chinese or Russian economy with 1 billion is very different than what we can do in the 'western' circle.
Beyond that, wages is a significant proportion of these funds, and it doesn't take a PhD in macroeconomics to understand that we can employ less people for the same amount of total wage output.
Love the content as always, just wish there was a more nuanced explanation of the meaning of the military funding itself.
I don’t think the intended audience was nuanced people; there just wasn’t much depth to it. I don’t think it was intended to invoke an emotional response, but it probably appeals mostly towards people who tend to respond thusly - and for one dimensional people who don’t get past the immediate cause and effect scenario. Longer term thinkers who are more interested and aware of geopolitical interdependencies aren’t going to be that impressed.
@@ronjon7942 what?
The nuances are in the difference in worth of currency over country lines, not in the people watching this video?
“I don't do nuance,” George W. Bush to Joseph Biden... There was no depth at all to these numbers, it's just a regurgitation of what a number of Republicans and channels have stated to non-thinking people who can't look at the numbers themselves and who can't differntiate globlal US defence budget spending with what the US actually spends on and within Nato (it's a very small number in comparison btw).
If this would happen i think this would happen after that: Canada and the UK will still work with the US and the other countries will use the EU instead of NATO.
Only reason to keep Canada is because we don’t want the Chinese meddling in their affairs.
Also all the other nations that meet the 2% goal can make NATO 2.0 with the U.S.
Poland and Hungary would stick with the US. Turkey would grift off to Russia, and the rest would become leeches/puppets of Germany. Fine by me, we never needed or wanted y’all ingrates.
Uk is in Europe although they seem to not consider themselves as such and Canada I don’t see the reason they would leave unless the usa forces them
@@santostv.We consider are self's to be european but just not in the institutions of the undemocratic and corrosive EU. No united states of europe.
Wow, I love how this is very one-sided. If you flip the scenario on its end, do you think Europe would be unified in its current state? If the United States left NATO, Europe would have to defend itself. And in the long, long, long history of Europe, when has Europe been this stable or prosperous? Yes, the United States economy would shrink, but it would also start to grow. The 80s globalization has led to many jobs leaving the USA for cheaper workforce elsewhere. But if the US starts only focusing solely on its interests, we will be just fine. Why so arrogant? Because we have done it before. Here is the major issue that Europe seems to forget. You laughed at Obama when he said Europe needs to invest more in its security. Mocked Trump when he said the same thing. European arrogance is what led to the current situation going on right now. You expect America to fight China and Russia at the same time while Europe does nothing? Token gestures don't count. I thought this was a partnership? Where is Europe's end of the bargain? Are they going to do work, or do you expect Americans to spend their children's lives and future on Europe's defense because Europe is too lazy and arrogant to do some of the work?
big mistake considering money = superiority
just to give you an idea: in russia an inmate cost 2,5 euros, in western europe 128. the result is the same
It's not a direct straight ratio, but of course money matters and a lot.
That's right, to a major degree - but nothing buys nothing. If you have the comitment, strength in numbers and keep your equipment simplified you can make all your enemy's investment in tech pretty worthless -- Ukraine has more of a threat from running out of personel than running out of weapons and October 7 proved that to IL. Also, it's like Kelsi Sheren said, when you enemy doesn't fight by the rules (GC) you have no way to defeat them.
Slowly and gradually reduce spending.
The amount of military equipment Britain used to produce compared to now is embarrassing.
Military spending is mostly personal salary so China/Russia….will get a lot more value for money spent so one can’t directly compare them.
It's also not good practice to compare official military spending. What is counted in one country is not in another. For example, Sweden says they do not spend 2% of their GDP on defense, but if you account for how military spending is counted by NATO, then they do. China is similar, with a lot of what is counted in the US not counted there. Accounting for this, and purchasing power, China's defense spending is more like $600-700 billion by US standards.
True, but on the other hand China and Russia see significant amounts of value lost to corruption.
They also have technology from 20 years ago so they would have to invest multiple times the money to even be on the same level as EU or US.
@@killzolotI wouldn’t say it’s at 700 billion it’s more likely at 500/600 billion.
@@omarionbayley9721 My guess is $700 billion is too high too. It is what a congressman said the intelligence community estimated, but I think it was a China hawk so it is probably on the higher end of the estimates, and rounded up
Nato allows for the US to project power and we should still stay in it however European countries DO need to start paying the BARE minimum
maximum*
@@General_MacArthur Based MacArthur
Don't make the mistake in thinking that Trump gives a fuck about the US reputation or what would happen to the world if the US pulled back. He doesn't and you can't assume policy changes based on some kind of rational actor making the decisions.
I voted for Trump, and I fully expect Europe to crumble and hate us after we leave. Suck it.
He wants the US to stop paying the 80%. The media at first made a big deal about it. Then Trump pointed out we have been since NATO was formed.
Apparently, people do not get what we said then. We said we would take up the bill because it was after the end of WW2, and countries were rebuilding after the war and had economic issues. We just never stopped.
By the way. He was respected by the majority of the leaders of other NATO countries for telling them to pay there damn share. Also, because nobody before him had the balls to come out and say it for literal decades.
The dissolution of NATO would be a short-term problem for the countries integrated into it but a medium and long-term benefit for both the US and Europe. The dependence on the US on forces and technological development prevents the development of industry and the creation of exclusively European military bodies. The United States should concentrate on the Pacific, however, American citizens must understand that their political and military forces have an interest in increasing their presence and control over Europe, at any cost.
Exactly. Especially as an American, I hate paying for or defending Europe. I fully support our Pacific Allies, though. Cut Europe loose, and focus on ourselves and our Pacific Allies.
An interesting exploration, but you forget that the US cannot leave NATO without authorization from Congress. What a certain future US president CAN do is to cripple NATO from within by not doing or contributing anything should a dire situation arises.
This is a really good point
As an American soldier, I would gladly come to help my European allies. Democracy, home or abroad, must be defended.
democracy dictatorship is way better
lmao u love getting used , right?
Did you personally swear to protect the constitution’s (or whatever they may call them) of those European allies?
Think you for your service
My Uncle lost his leg in Iraq. I lost relatives in Afghanistan. Myself and my whole family agrees it is pointless. Our ‘Allie’s’ abandoned and continue to abandon us. Defend democracy? Please. Why does it matter if some random European is free to vote? I’m sorry, but unless they’re a US citizen, I couldn’t care less if they are free or not.
As an American citizen, having access to healthcare and the cost of living is more important than what happens in Europe.
*America should put America First. Europe should take care of itself. We ( the US) don't need NATO and we should leave).*
Unfortunately, we absolutely do need NATO, and a militarily and economically robust Europe. And Pacific region, too.
I can tell your a Russian bot or hacker
@@ronjon7942 Unlike the Pacific regions, Europe doesn't pull its weight in basically any capacity for NATO. Why should the US taxpayers and soldiers have to be drained or die over Europe not willing to stand for itself.
piss off kremlin bot [THIS WAS POSTED BY A BOT, IGNORE THIS POST]
@VeXGamingLSRP I'm an America First patriot who is sick and tired of the US sending our troops to places nowhere near our own borders
The part about nukes is set in a vacuum while reality is not set in a vacuum. In no world would there be no response from the US even if it leave thus even if they leave there would always be the looming of MAD
Now show with country whose companies benefit the most from the expenditure
That’s misleading and not completely causal. Of course the answer is our nation; America has the largest economy. In practically any high technology scenario, America will benefit the most because America invests and spends the most. And most of the industries that have been offshored were either invented or substantially improved by the US.
And the European defense industry is no slouch, although most of their beginnings are directly traced back to American investment in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
@@ronjon7942 "And most of the industries that have been offshored were either invented or substantially improved by the US" and "lthough most of their beginnings are directly traced back to American investment in the 50s, 60s, and 70s" .
Yes plz leave nato
The US should not leave NATO because the Europeans can still milk it some more, maybe until it's dry!
🤣🤡
The Europeans came to your aid after 9/11 as well as buys American weapons.
4:58 how can you just glance over this point? So it DOESN'T end mutually assured destruction because of submarines...so your previous point is negated.
I love the US and hate the EU. Cheers from Finland
Why?
If the rest of your country were like you perhaps we wouldn’t be so close to leaving now… I apologize to the grateful Allies we might end up stranding due to the endless swamp of arrogant European ingrates thinking they are so much better than us. If we end up leaving NATO, maybe we can make some arrangements with Finland.
Ooh hello from America 👋 😁
Even if the us leaves NATO it would still be a thing just with a smaller budget with a less scarier military . Why? Because NATO consitists of major and key us allies the us would literally be trying to isolate itself if it just let Russia invade France or Germany for example
Why dont any of those countries pull their own weight? Would they not be stronger with their own military force that can act in their best interest instead of being conscripted to fight in pointless wars for the sake of US arms dealers and the US military industrial complex under NATO?
We’re Allies with France?! I jest, but only in part. The French are enemies who occasionally pretend to be our friends. If Russia invades France, we should send RUSSIA aid.
US is not isolating itself, its just trying to focus more on the Pacific.
as soon as he started comparing dollars he lost me
The US has the highest nominal GDP in NATO so they would anyway spend the most even if everyone was spending the same percentage. However, the US overspends and some NATO members genuinely spend less than a proper percentage on defense. For lack of invasions, the nations became complacent. However, with Russia's invasion now, they are waking up. Very poor foresight really.
If the US leaves NATO, you will get a nuclear armed Poland, Japan and S. Korea within 5 years. If this occurs, Iran and Saudi Arabia will very likely follow suit with Germany, Italy, Sweden and Turkey right behind. All these countries have the technical means to develop and field nuclear weapons (except Saudi, who would buy them from Pakistan). Do you really want a nuclear armed Japan, Germany, Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Japan already rejected the idea when given the green light to do so during Trump era. Germany would lose election left and right if they ever go nuclear. Iran would love to have nuclear weapons, they arent there yet...or are they? Saudi Arabia enjoy the US protection as always, NATO or not. Poland would go nuclear if possible, they don't have the means due to a large standing land force. South Korea might not go nuclear since they are too close to another trigger happy Korean.
Second nuclear arm race
I'm not following your take. The USA's membership in NATO has nothing to do with any of these countries' nuclear capability development. There is literally no connection. I certainly can see Poland's POSSIBLE desire for nukes as a result of the departure, but the cascade you have described could happen regardless of the USA's NATO membership status. In addition, I'm curious why you added Japan and South Korea into a nuclear arms race as a consequence of the USA's NATO departure? Those two nations are not part of NATO.
@@Denebreusyes it does actually the American nuklear umbrella has stop them because well no one wants a nuclear arms race again it if the umbrella is gone then there is nothing to stop the eu from getting there own nukes
@@Denebreus The US has been moving closer to the Pacific, do to the expectation of Europe being able to mostly hold its own front. Korea and Japan individually are much closer to the US than the EU member states are besides maybe Poland and Britain.
Money spent is not a good measure of capability. A weapon might cost 4 times more to produce in the EU than in China or Russia. Military personnel are paid much less in Russia and China than they are in the West. Most of the defense budget in the west goes to make a few military contractors rich.
If that happens, we can expect some peace in this world.
Well this seems unfair for America lol
why
@@kingsgeekdid you not watch the video. US tax payers pays for the natos lack of defense
I like that you ended this video with how preposterous this would be, because it would be the mother of all bad ideas.
Oh not only that but you think nations would still trade at the same levels with America if they left NATO look at the Brexit and what happened with the EU
unlike UK leaving the EU, it still a commited member of Nato and to the Wests defence , US leaving Nato would sever relations way harder, the whiplash the Trump prob hasnt thought of is if US leaves Nato, it suddenly struggles to justify its bloated militery spending
Of course they would. Comparing Brexit and leaving NATO is comically idiotic.
NATO and the EU are different types of organizations. The US would never be part of an organization like the EU.
Still, regardless, would you trade with someone who just turned tail and ran from your defense ?
@@Knockdown-mu4pk Businesses don't care about geopolitics. UK-EU trade declined because the laws changed. Businesses care about the law.
North America is all that matters. I am North American I could careless about the rest of the world.
North & South America. We can't allow foreign powers to set up military installations anywhere in our backyard.
We also need to make sure China doesn't become a superpower like the USSR, and start funding anti-US nations in Latin America.
The US should make up no more than 50% of the NATO budget. The other countries need to step up and put their money where their mouths are. The US can no longer be the worlds ATM.
"If you owe the bank 10 million the bank owns you, if you owe the bank 500 million then you own the bank"
The US' contribution to NATO is so big that NATO would cease to be a proper deterrent the very same day they leave. This basically means that Europe belongs to the US.
Pretending that out of control spending is wise, this is a lie.
F That! Leave NATO now!
You need to consider a military budget in context of purchasing power. When normalizing for PPP, China actually has the largest military budget, and Russia’s budget surpasses that of ex-US NATO.
Nah the US still.
Allies? More like free loaders
this is close minded unless your trying to be funny...... the eu help a lot (economically,) with goods etc usa helps by being a-
- big brother of sorts its a mutually beneficial relationship / partnership
Estonians died in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. That's being an ally, not a freeloader.
@@augusthoglund6053 The US would have beaten the Taliban without the Estonians. The Estonians wouldn't hold off Russia for two days without the Americans.
@@dfdf-rj8jr How does that make a Estonia a freeloader? Being a freeloader is about inequality in sacrifice, not inequality in ability.
@@augusthoglund6053 Estonia detests America. If the US saves Estonia from Putin, twenty years later, Estonians will be mocking Americans for their healthcare, education, etc. Europeans despise America with every fibre of their being, why shouldn't we leave NATO?
Im surprised you're posting pro-US content for once. Normally you like to do comparison video between Europe and USA declaring how good the infrastructure/health care is in Europe (subsidised by Americans taxpayers)
If you're in a relationship, but it's always your wallet being drawn-and-quartered, I'd consider leaving too. And i'm a European. FUCK Macron's idiotic idea of a EU-army, thats just a prelude to "The United Nations of Europe", and hells-to-the-no for that. Europe, and especially our weak politicians need to step up, and raise army budgets to +2% of GNP. It's just that simple.
Europe can't defend itself against Russia, we already see what happens in Ukraine and Georgia..
@@pablobomgiorno8273sounds like Europe's problem
We are. 20/32 nato members will have defense spending at over 2% by the time 2024 ends.
A European army is actually one of the few very good ideas brought up in the last few years. Everything steering countries in the direction of united nations of europe is good for everyone.
Most younger people identify themselves as Europeans, not with their own country which is a great thing.
@@gro967where younger people identify themselves as europeen ? Which europeen country ?becauses i never heard anything like that in mine, it’s sincere question, i’m suprised to hear this
The only reason I can think of why the US could leave NATO is that the alliance could be used to drag America into war, similarly to WWI, where alliances were triggered bringing other nations into the conflict. If America were to leave NATO for the reason I stated, it would signal to the world that US is incapable or too afraid of fighting.
There was no NATO in WW1 or WW2. And only dragging could come from USA. Yes, US leaving NATO would be open season. If US wouldn't sit back when Hitler took over all Europe and would help with troops to stop him, Japan wouldn't have balls to attack Pearl Harbor and there wouldn't be no WW2, maybe. They showed weakness for not stopping Hitler.
Article 5 was used by the US to bring Nato allies into Iraq and Afghanistan, but there's no reason why Article 5 has 'drag America into war', if other member states could provide assistance without needing direct US involvement, it just depends on circumstances.
@@gwaldman6546 BUT you have to look at US politics at the beginning of WWII as it was overshadowed by US involvement in WWI, isolationalism, America First, etc. Look at the background for what happened before 'Lend-Lease'.
No I Think We'd Lose Israel If The Us Vetoed NATO
Why should America fight for Europe? The Europeans haven’t even repaid any loans from two world wars or even made an equitable contribution to the costs of the Cold War. Protecting the Europeans is a thankless and expensive task, and Americans are tired of being taken for suckers. By the way, America leaves, and Canada is out, plus you can say goodbye to Australia providing Five Eyes.
Wow! Now that's a sinkhole thumbnail to be concerned about!😂😂❤
Military expenditure isn’t NATO’s budget… fumb duck
Probably the most succinct answer so far 🤣
@@LoremIpsum1970 room temperature
GET THE HELL OUT NATO TRUMP24
That doesn't include Russia's new military speeding and adjusting for purchasing power parity. If you adjust for that Russia's military spending is approaching $400 billion. This is why Europe is so desperate to increase military production because the Russian's are scaling up a lot more than your average person realizes
Good luck reaching parity on that. 2024 Nato civil budget €438.1M, military budget €2.03B, and the ceiling for the NSIP is €1.3B
Pull out of NATO, UN, slash the pentagon's budget, and abolish the Federal Reserve, IRS, CIA, FBI, EPA, ATF, DOJ, DHS, DOD, and the rest of the agencies.
why?
If USA leave NATO, wouldnt Canada leave too?
Canada would just join AUKUS
why the hell was Canada in NATO at all?
I don't think Russia will invade them nor Maxic
is it because they knew the US disabled friendly fires? so they Joined the same team
@@everypitchcounts4875 Canada can’t join Aukus. The other members are purposefully ignoring them.
Usa will be fine... usa army factories will not be fine.... 😂😂😂
military is 4% of GDP and we'd rather have that go to education or infrastructure
The problem isn’t even that because we would still buy from them for a while, but they would have been seen as weak considering the eu is a major bloc and not the brics, also i bet the usd would lose value,then we would stop buying usa lpg, diminish Hollywood presence in Europe ect as a retaliation, like the uk that is doing worse than the eu although they fool themselves thinking they are not.
Why doesn’t your Denmark have a big military?
Leaving NATO should not be up to the president but require a congressional vote .
Because there is no guarantee the the president truly has the best interest of the people at heart.
No guarantee that a sitting president could have been engineered by a foreign power or coerced in some way to weaken our defense.
0:16 *🇲🇰North Macedonia is also a member of NATO!*
I would comment the same for my home country.
together stronk
They switched the flag of Austria (not in Nato) and Latvia (in Nato).
I think if we have left all of Europe with only 500 nuclear weapons capable of destroying a city they may be perfectly fine video says they have a shelf life of 35 years if they can't get their priorities in line in 35 years to get their nuclear arsenals two status quo then they deserve what's going to happen to them afterwards that's all they really is to it I also don't like the part where you point it at Taiwan when you said China would get involved in if we left never going to happen weather people like it or not Taiwan is a NATO member and therefore would still be protected by all of Europe and just because the US wouldn't be part of NATO at that particular time it would still go to taiwan's defense will always make time to defend another democracy
I honestly doubt that.
Chinese money is too enticing to give up, and considering the fact that Germany was happy to keep buying Russian gas, even after their 2022 invasion of Ukraine, makes me think that Europe would just awkwardly condemn a Chinese invasion of Taiwan while still buying cheap Chinese manufactured goods.
@@NickCorruption true I'll just go ahead and say contracts or contracts in their defense though
WTF?
Taiwan isn't NATO, Taiwan doesn't even know where North Atlantic is
@@someone-ql6pu yes they are
Most of the world is ungrateful for our support.
I say we pull out 35% of our forces around the world and bring them home.
piss off kremlin bot
Sure, tens of millions of americans without a job and the military industrial complex melting like snow because american blackmail is the only reason you get to sell your crap abroad....
Another little MAGA university Einstein incapable of thinking about real consequences or geopolitical understanding of anything....
@@trthibDon’t buy it?
@@ronjon7942Others do, we don't thanfully
good reason for the US to leave NATO:
to not risk going for nuclear wars for countries you never knew it existed before 2020
Nato should have been disbanded many years ago when the soviet regime fell apart. The new russia even wanted to join nato at one point, but were refused.
Nato is worthless without an enemy lol
Exactly. At this point NATO is just the US being forcibly dragged into the European - Russian rivalry. We haven’t been enemies with Russia in decades. It’s no business of ours what they get up to, and there’s no point keeping a system created to defend against Russia when we are not at risk and we foot the whole billz
@@alfredhaugen2266 Ai is your friend.
I certainly wasnt expecting an eminem reference in this video...
If we leave NATO it’s to focus on our own nations security.
alliances are equal relationships. US abandoning Nato wouldn't be abandoning allies. It would be cutting their vassals.
As a European, I wouldn't mind all that much if they left.
As an american, trust me we’re trying to leave.
@@itsv1p3rExactly. We hate this arrangement, it only benefits Europe.
It doesn’t make sense, Americans are falling for rethoric made to divided us , we would fall but so would them although to a less degree they don’t even understand their country hard and soft power.
Like the Brexit thing all over again, It doesn’t make sense, Americans are falling for rethoric made to divided us , we would fall but so would them although to a less degree they don’t even understand their country hard and soft power.
@@santostv. We’re strong alone. We don’t need you.
Make a video on what happens if the US extradites John Cena to China, and the social revolution that may come with that
dissolve nato!!!!
Hear hear!
A EU federation would take americas place, europe would be forced to adapt. Would be good for the EU and europe since we finally would end the gridlock that has prevent the EU to become a superstate. If the EU becomes a single nation that means it can mobilize resources on a large scale since right now the EU is a fractured system. If a nation wants mass production then standardization is necessary. Without standardization you do not get mass production and the EU currently got 4 different tanks, 3 different fighters, 20 different IFVs, etc. Leading to massive waste of resources but that would disappear if the EU becomes a federation. Sovereignty would have to be sacrificed in order for europe to survive and it will do that if the pressure is strong enough.
The has been no pressure to adapt since many eastern and nordic nation lives like it is the 1990s, they think americas policy will forever have the same foreign policy when it comes to NATO while france actually wants to build a redundant system that can adapt no matter what happens with american foreign policy. I agree with the french perspective that we can not always predict the future political landscape and we should not make giant assumptions on the future. The EU should build its own ability to defend itself no matter what america thinks though I would think that america would love that idea while anti EU army people thinks america only wants the EU to be a US puppet state. I think their ideas are absurd but that is the main reason why we have not build a single EU army since they point out that we got NATO and that america would not like to have a strong EU superpower since america would precive it as a rival instead of an ally for some strange reason.
The only thing that I (an American) wouldn't like about a Federal EU would be the inevitable loss of autonomy and reduction in culture and identity for the smaller EU countries.
Poland and other smaller European states would have been otherwise subjected to the immigration crisis that befell Western Europe because of bad immigration policy.
Local policy is nearly always going to be better than dictates from a large Central Government.
So if Europe Federalizes, it will be much more of a positive than a negative, however I would hope that it more closely resembles the U.S. where most laws are set at the local level, with a few Federal laws, than China, where most laws are set by the Central Government.
g'day bot, ain't reading allat
You haven't game played this scenario in your mind. The EU could federalize, but it would be a disaster. Just in conventional combined arms capabilities, Europe is in the hole for trillionzz of euros and for decades. Mot only that there is a huge intellectual property gap. Any defense guarantee would be almost immediately tested in geopolitical time and the help sent is medical supplies, tents, and helmets.
Europe's capabilities are worse shape than reported.
That's why there are so many Ruzzkin influence bots are here to break the relationship.
Your politicians know this. What's likely to happen is a stampede of offers for bi-lateral defense and trade pacts with the US. And somehow, some strange real estate deals that pop into Trump hotels and towers all over ethical Europe.
Europe will never unite bro 😂😂😂
@puest-uo4lr I mostly agree but I will 'never' say "never". There are state and lobby interests in Europe pushing this agenda to the gullible for their own purposes like France under the cloak of Europeanism. However, USA could get angry enough to pull back. The freeloading has been going on for too long. The Europeans take the relationship for granted and abuse it. Besides the defense spending issues, there are Madeleine Albright's 3Ds (don'ts) which they will next try to violate. They don't listen to decades of warnings.
I don't think the US would leave NATO for several reasons. Partly because, as you mentioned, it will cost more than just adjusting their budgets. But even more so, the US might not be able to reunite with NATO, under their Art. V (Article Five) philosophy of only bringing in countries without recent war participation. Something US can't claim to have.
What happens if the US leaves NATO?
Nothing good...
For Europeans
Nothing good about our money being wasted on european bullshits, pay your fair share for once
@@johnsonfromml8662 USA will lose their influence on the world and china and russia will fill it. After europe and east asia fall to the russo-chinese influence, America will be next.