Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It’s not worth it. I 100% agree with everything else you stated, though.
Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It’s not worth it.
What are you on about? NATO is comprised of EU countries plus Canada (with rumors of Canada joining the EU)… and the US.
Withdrawing from NATO would basically mean dropping the US. In this timeline, that’s very desirable, unless you’re selling murican arms.
NATO is useless now.
I understand your point, but I disagree. I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later. The US recently threatened a war of aggression against one of its founding members. Now would be the right time to punish the geopolitical excesses of the criminal US-regime by creating a new alliance. The US is only a world power because of its military apparatus, which is financed on credit.
I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
Edit: There can no longer be any talk of a community of values with the US, as the regime there proves on a daily basis. It is more than unlikely that this will change, as the US population remains passive and will therefore soon be living in a dictatorship that will no longer pretend to be any different from oligarchies such as Russia. Therefore, I think, it makes little difference to orient oneself towards China instead.
I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later.
De facto NATO is dead, because the US - it’s most powerful member - can no longer be trusted. I hope the political leaders of all other Member States see this.
But that doesn’t mean it no longer any value. It’s main goal has become deterrence, and Russia and China still need to be deterred.
because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
This is totally false, you can argue it has brought misery but you cannot say it didn’t bring any good.
The 80 years before it’s creation (and the creation of the UN) have been much more violent than the 80 years since. Sure Asia and the Global South haven’t shared in the peace it brought, but it’s not like the west had brought peace there before.
There might be a better future without Nato, but i don’t think the world as a whole would’ve been better off if Nato never existed in the first place. The Sovjet union would probably still be there for example, and except for the ruling class that was not a nice place to live in.
I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
How can you say that when the whole point of the existing world order was to prevent another World War II, which they have been successful at? There haven’t been any wars with as many lives lost as that one ever since, largely in part due to the fact that every time someone looked like they wanted to take over the world again, the rest of the democratic world united to force them where otherwise divided they would succeed.
You said “since the end of World War II” not “since Trump was elected”. How can I hold Trump responsible for things that happened before he was even born?
There’s a good chance the situation will change significant in three years. It’s worth to at least wait for that while acting right now either way but without completely giving up already.
The situation will not change on its own, not unless the US population rises up. The US president may change, if there are still free elections at all, which I think is highly doubtful given the establishment of an obvious secret police force in the form of ICE (the budget of this “agency” is equivalent to the military spending of a medium-sized country).
Even under a new, less aggressive administration, however, the fundamental problem will not change: The US is exclusively concerned with itself and does not shy away from using its power to its advantage – this was already the case under Obama, for example, who was eloquent and likeable, but also pursued the usual neo-capitalist policy of exploitation; even under him, it was difficult to say that the US was an ally of Europe. The US may be entitled to this as the most powerful nation in the world. However, it is a dying world power and will soon be overtaken by China. This is entirely foreseeable, and as Europeans we should almost be grateful to Trump, because his insane policies make it obvious how the US feels about its “partners.” - I think he accelerated the decline of the US by at least 10 years as it stands.
But please don’t misunderstand: based on my socialization alone, I would prefer the US to China, but I am not naive. When it comes to autocracy, the difference between the US, Russia, and China is becoming increasingly small. So it seems to me that Europe needs to sell itself as expensively as possible in order to save democracy here - and I think China would be willing to accept the continued existence of democracy in Europe in return for Europe turning away from the US.
The US, on the other hand, can only be expected to follow its own line and continue to undermine democracy, which is what billionaires are already doing in the EU as well, by the way: In Europe, the same social media giants that are enabling right-wing extremist parties to win elections in the US are also highly relevant. They are quite successful in doing so here as well: one example is the neo-Nazi AfD party in Germany, which is the equivalent of MAGA and is hugely popular because it is massively supported by the same billionaires who made Trump big in the US.
Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It’s not worth it. I 100% agree with everything else you stated, though.
What are you on about? NATO is comprised of EU countries plus Canada (with rumors of Canada joining the EU)… and the US.
Withdrawing from NATO would basically mean dropping the US. In this timeline, that’s very desirable, unless you’re selling murican arms.
NATO is useless now.
That is only true if you want every single NATO country to be unable to defend themselves from Russian aggression.
No country want to be part of Russia, even the ones that aren’t in NATO want to join because of how hostile Russia is.
NATO is even more important now than it ever was. That is why it is growing, not shrinking.
Putin is the reason NATO needs to exist.
In that case, better start preparing for that replacement as soon as possible. Ideally way back when the US invoked Article 5 the first time.
I understand your point, but I disagree. I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later. The US recently threatened a war of aggression against one of its founding members. Now would be the right time to punish the geopolitical excesses of the criminal US-regime by creating a new alliance. The US is only a world power because of its military apparatus, which is financed on credit.
I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.
Edit: There can no longer be any talk of a community of values with the US, as the regime there proves on a daily basis. It is more than unlikely that this will change, as the US population remains passive and will therefore soon be living in a dictatorship that will no longer pretend to be any different from oligarchies such as Russia. Therefore, I think, it makes little difference to orient oneself towards China instead.
De facto NATO is dead, because the US - it’s most powerful member - can no longer be trusted. I hope the political leaders of all other Member States see this.
But that doesn’t mean it no longer any value. It’s main goal has become deterrence, and Russia and China still need to be deterred.
This is totally false, you can argue it has brought misery but you cannot say it didn’t bring any good.
The 80 years before it’s creation (and the creation of the UN) have been much more violent than the 80 years since. Sure Asia and the Global South haven’t shared in the peace it brought, but it’s not like the west had brought peace there before.
There might be a better future without Nato, but i don’t think the world as a whole would’ve been better off if Nato never existed in the first place. The Sovjet union would probably still be there for example, and except for the ruling class that was not a nice place to live in.
How can you say that when the whole point of the existing world order was to prevent another World War II, which they have been successful at? There haven’t been any wars with as many lives lost as that one ever since, largely in part due to the fact that every time someone looked like they wanted to take over the world again, the rest of the democratic world united to force them where otherwise divided they would succeed.
Don’t hold me responsible for this, hold Trump responsible.
You said “since the end of World War II” not “since Trump was elected”. How can I hold Trump responsible for things that happened before he was even born?
well i got this pitchfork and this pitch and this lighter. you got a big piece of wood?
There’s a good chance the situation will change significant in three years. It’s worth to at least wait for that while acting right now either way but without completely giving up already.
The situation will not change on its own, not unless the US population rises up. The US president may change, if there are still free elections at all, which I think is highly doubtful given the establishment of an obvious secret police force in the form of ICE (the budget of this “agency” is equivalent to the military spending of a medium-sized country).
Even under a new, less aggressive administration, however, the fundamental problem will not change: The US is exclusively concerned with itself and does not shy away from using its power to its advantage – this was already the case under Obama, for example, who was eloquent and likeable, but also pursued the usual neo-capitalist policy of exploitation; even under him, it was difficult to say that the US was an ally of Europe. The US may be entitled to this as the most powerful nation in the world. However, it is a dying world power and will soon be overtaken by China. This is entirely foreseeable, and as Europeans we should almost be grateful to Trump, because his insane policies make it obvious how the US feels about its “partners.” - I think he accelerated the decline of the US by at least 10 years as it stands.
But please don’t misunderstand: based on my socialization alone, I would prefer the US to China, but I am not naive. When it comes to autocracy, the difference between the US, Russia, and China is becoming increasingly small. So it seems to me that Europe needs to sell itself as expensively as possible in order to save democracy here - and I think China would be willing to accept the continued existence of democracy in Europe in return for Europe turning away from the US.
The US, on the other hand, can only be expected to follow its own line and continue to undermine democracy, which is what billionaires are already doing in the EU as well, by the way: In Europe, the same social media giants that are enabling right-wing extremist parties to win elections in the US are also highly relevant. They are quite successful in doing so here as well: one example is the neo-Nazi AfD party in Germany, which is the equivalent of MAGA and is hugely popular because it is massively supported by the same billionaires who made Trump big in the US.