UNITED STATES | A NATO Exit?
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
- On 10 February 2024, former US President Donald Trump said that he would support Russian aggression against non-compliant NATO members. This has raised concerns about the future of the United States' commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO. As the organisation commemorates its 75th anniversary, it remains a crucial facet of international security, despite Trump's repeated implications that the US might withdraw its support. So, what has sparked his comments? And could the US really withdraw from the alliance?
NATO's inception during the geopolitical tensions after the Second World War and its evolution beyond the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Cold War emphasise its longstanding importance. Spanning over 27 million square kilometres across various continents and comprising 31 members, NATO is a formidable entity with a combined defence expenditure of around US$1.26 trillion in 2023. However, Trump's rhetoric of an "America First" policy and the financial burden placed on the US has fueled debates about the necessity and strategic interest of the alliance in the face of contemporary global threats. Conversely, NATO advocates stress the increased defence spending of member states and the extensive strategic benefits to the US, such as collective defence, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic leverage. The world watches closely as the political landscape shifts with Trump's potential re-election, recognising that the US's withdrawal could significantly destabilise European and international security frameworks.
MY NEW BOOK!
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know
Oxford University Press global.oup.com/academic/produ...
Amazon amzn.to/2MPY3W2
Audiobooks.com www.audiobooks.co.uk/audioboo...
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay, and here I take an informed look at International Relations, conflict, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, please subscribe. Even better, perhaps consider becoming a Channel Member or supporting the Channel through Patreon. Thank you!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE
czcams.com/users/JamesKerLind...
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER
/ jameskerlindsay
JOIN MY PATREON PAGE
/ jameskerlindsay
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction and Titles
00:43 Military Alliances, NATO and the United States
01:38 NATO: Size, Location and Expenditure
02:25 The Cold War and the Emergence of NATO
03:59 NATO after the Cold War
06:20 NATO and the Trump Presidency
07:52 Trump’s NATO Comments February 2024
10:30 The Case for Continued NATO Membership
12:28 Is the US Preparing to Leave NATO?
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
NATO
www.nato.int
North Atlantic Treaty | 1949
www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/...
NATO | CZcams Channel
/ @nato
US State Department
www.state.gov
Donald Trump | Campaign Website
www.donaldjtrump.com
Trump Speech | 10 February 2024
www.c-span.org/video/?533460-...
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
kit.co/JamesKerLindsay
MAP CONTENT
www.themaparchive.com
DISCLAIMERS
- The contents of this video and any views expressed in it were not reviewed in advance nor determined by any outside persons or organisation.
- Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.
#NATO #UnitedStates #Trump
Trump certainly provoked widespread outrage when he made his comments about not protecting NATO members who hadn't paid their fair share against Russian attacks. But how seriously should we take suggestions that he would withdraw the USA from the organisation if he wins another term? Do you support his views? And even if you don't agree with the idea of NATO leaving, are his criticisms at all justified? As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.
Trump used to be a good manager. He is no longer a political leader.
Tell me again why Ireland would join this pantomime.
I don't think he was serious. I think he said it so he can scared members into paying more into NATO. So, he can turn around and say he made NATO stronger.
7:30 Correction. It's a ongoing proxy war in Ukraine.
🌚🌝
His criticisms of nato countries not paying into nato are whatever, I think his criticisms of euro countries not investing in defense infrastructure is legitimate though. Since the invasion of Ukraine that has changed but it will take many years for countries outside of gb, France and Turkey to build up their militaries where they can mount a serious defense.
One thing you left out of the video Prof is that the US Congress recently passed a bill which ensures that the President can not unilaterally leave NATO without the full approval of the US Senate. So even should he win, he would need a 2/3rds majority within the Senate to authorize it, and the approval of the house to pass that into law.
Very good point. And a point that surprisingly few are making. But being a good ally also means working to support the Alliance. There are all sorts of ways that Trump could weaken NATO without withdrawing. I think there is also a fear that the US might not be willing to honour Article 5 if an attack were to occur. No one could compel the US to act.
This implies that Congress can actually enforce the law against a President who only recognizes their authority when it's convenient. Trump could withdraw (formally or informally) and face, at most, a court order, which he could also ignore. There is no way to actually hold him accountable beyond an impeachment that would be unlikely to pass, let along succeed in convicting him.
Let us assume that Trump gets elected and doesn't fight this provision as being unconstitutional. Please tell me how you get the Commander-in-Chief to pursue an intervention that he doesn't want to do? AFAIK, the US Constitution has a means to prevent the executive from pursuing foreign adventurism (the power to declare war rests in Congress, and the House has to start financing bills). And the War Powers Act limits (to some extent at least) the executive to engage in war in response to immediate threats. But I'm clueless on how either Congress or SCOTUS can force the executive to fight a war it doesn't want to engage in. Heck, they can't make it prosecute entire classes of criminals.
But a president can veto all legislation sent to him and that's what I advocate for until congress makes us exit NATO. NDAA- Veto, Budget - Veto, Farm Bill- Veto, Debt Ceiling- Veto. Lets see how many vetos congress can override. Congresses donors will tell congressmen to exit NATO if the donors know they will lose billions and our credit will crash with a debt ceiling veto that doesnt get overridden.
@@EuroMaidanWasAnInsurrection It doesn't need to get to that. All it needs to be done is to not respond when article 5 is invoked. That would render the presence of the US in NATO obsolete, even if the Senate is not willing to take it out. Although people are overreacting. Trump is an electoral campaign. What he says here and what he will do when he is again president can mean a world of difference. He has a point though. For too long a lot of NATO states have neglected their military.
A problem Europeans have in general, when discussing NATO is never actually thinking about US interests in the matter. The fact of the matter is that the US is impossible to invade, or seriously attack given the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. Europeans try, unconvincingly, to tell Americans that their participation in NATO keeps them safe from the Russians, but no one, not even the Europeans I suspect, actually believe this. US interests are increasingly shifting to countering China, no European powers can project any military power in Asia any longer after the collapse of their overseas empires. This makes NATO a dead weight in our eyes as Russia is still in decline and couldn't touch us even if they tried their best, outside of mutually assured destruction. Europeans don't actually understand that the US is 100% capable of pulling back its world empire and watching the fireworks as the world erupts into conflict. Bad for business and the US economy? Yes. But much worse for the rest of the world, especially Europe.
In addition, European powers do not seem to make any economic concessions to the US, and make constant noise about decoupling, strategic independence, and turning the EU into a competitor against the US on the international stage. This combines with EU protectionist policies that have existed for decades with the explicit intent of keeping out US competition. So what exactly does the US gain from staying in NATO with free-riders that will never offer anything in return that a neutral country would not offer? Our Asian-Pacific allies, ROK, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, do not demonstrate this hostility and desire to create a parallel sphere of influence to the US. This is mainly for western Europe though, the eastern Europeans to my knowledge do not express this neo-imperialist mindset, as they were the subjects of empire until recently.
@superb-serb fixed it "Asian-Pacific" the fact remains if anything goes down in east Asia, Australia will almost certainly be involved.
If your analysis is believed by the majority of Americans, then they forgot history. The point of NATO and US's world empire or influence is to contain a threat where it come from before it comes knocking to the US, wheter that's imperialism, fascism, communism, or terrorism. If you read history, it will always knock on the US, in the form of 1812, Lusitania, or Pearl Harbor. So that's the point of US's permanent war footing.
Furthermore, US's Asian Pacific partners are looking to NATO. If USA neglects their commitment to NATO, then what's stopping USA to not help the Asian-Pacific partners in times of crisis. That's why Japan and South Korea is insisting the way to deter China or North Korea from doing anything, is to donate to Ukraine. Because Russia winning in Ukraine will embolden China or DPRK that the West are weak and they'll start wars on US's Asia-Pacific partners. You know like how Japan and Germany did that in WW2.
Also, you overstimate USA's strength if its isolated. You only need to look at USA's 200 years of near isolationism to see what can happen, civil war and all.
Besides, Chutotka and Greenland is close to Alaska and Canada.
Also, USA won't be enjoying the fireworks as you said, because the political situation is fragile because of the economy. It won't improve if USA loses its imports, exports, and the reserve currency role of the US dollar should the world erupt in conflict. Wealth inequality, social polarization, mass unemployment due to layoffs resulting from the loss of cheap imports and export markets, and heavy gun ownership are a good basis for a stable isolationism.
@@avilancer2516 There are a few points here.
1) The US has not really ever had a period of isolationism in its history. Whether economic or military. It has maintained extensive control over South and Central America for quite a while. Westward expansion has also been a feature from day 1. War with Spain, boxer rebellion, Perry opening Japan, etc. This is not a moral judgement on US hegemony or foreign policy. The idea that the US has ever been "isolationist" is wrong. Heck, what even is "isolationism" and what distinguishes it from normal foreign policy? Japan was isolationist, so was China, cut off from foreign contact for the most part. North Korea is isolationist. probably Cold War Romania too? I just can't not anything that would constitute isolationism US history.
2) Our Asian allies and China are not retarded. They know, and we know that Ukraine is not part of US interests. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are central to US interests and have been for decades. If Ukraine was oh so vital to American and allied interests they would actually do something to help.
3) Suppose Russia goes all in on Poland after conquering Ukraine. Then assume that China finally goes for it after Taiwan at the same time. What do both of them 100% do not want to happen? For the US to get involved. How does Xi and Putin make 100% sure the US does get involved? Blocking imports and exports to the US. Neither of these countries has an actual direct beef with the US. If the US said "You know what Xi, Taiwan belongs to the PRC and we fully support you. And Putin, we think Slavs can live under the Russian boot forever." there would not really be a conflict between the US and these two countries anymore. Does it make doing this a morally good idea? Probably not? But what would China and Russia do in response? After celebrating they would probably start lifting sanctions and promote all sorts of cooperation with the US. Pravda would run articles on the greatness of America and China would push stories on American wisdom. What would Europe do? Nothing at all outside of media theatrics and tantrums in various parliaments. A whole bunch of other countries support PRC claims over Taiwan and the Russian invasion (not militarily but just voting in the UN and public statements), and Europeans do nothing to inconveniance them at all. The US has a reserve currency because of its economic might and OPEC. So as long as trade is not disrupted, the oil flows, and everyone uses dollars, US security is guaranteed. Other countries want to mess with those things because the US is preventing their regional ambitions, not because their ambitions require the fall of the US. They just don't care about the US itself, this is exactly what happened in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iran right now, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. 1812 and the Barbary war are literally the only exceptions I can think of where the other country had direct been with the US.
US is 2/3 of NATO defence spending.
Usa shouldnt leave NATO, but europeans and canada really should be raising their military budgets.
Russia refuses to stand by its commitments in CSTO in regards to the attacks on Armenia by Azerbaijan and now Trump says he wants to withdraw from NATO. I wonder if this is just a coincidence or part of a larger pattern of changing geopolitics
I think that the Russian refusal to stand by Armenia stems mostly from an inability to do so due to their “special military operation” in Ukraine.
@@rathersane nah it's mostly cause "they don't care". Azerbaijan promised Russia some of that oil money, and Russia said yes.
CSTO is not an alliance of mutual benefit, but rather a clique to make Russia look like it has friends.
@@rathersane that's only partially true. But other factors include Russia's wish to punish Armenia for trying to shift to the West ever since the 2018 Revolution and the increased leverage Turkey (Azerbaijan's main ally) has over Russia (they have played a key role in helping the country evade sanctions). My point is that commitments matter less and less in geopolitics as countries are adopting more individualistic, "our country first", strategies.
@@NovikNikolovicand @markdowding5737 Point taken! Not only is Putin’s Russia spread thin due to unmitigated homicidal avarice, but is also extremely petty towards those to whom it pretends to be a friend.
According to international law, Azerbaijan didn't attack Armenia proper. On the contrary, Azerbaijan territory was under Armenian occupation for almost 30 years. Consequently, CSTO doesn't apply to present situation, legally. Politically, it's another story.
love how you can talk about these topics without watering anything down while still being easy to understand and interesting!! great video ❤️❤️
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. :-)
Raise it from 2% to 5%, the EU has a lot to pay back!
First of all, American expenditure for NATO is not 3% because the military budget included the more than 800+ military bases which are non-NATO bases.
Thanks. Very true. Also the US defence budget includes lots of items - such as healthcare, education, research - that would fall under other government departments in other countries.
So far it remains that the only time Article 5 was enacted was by the United States immediately following 9/11.
this really goes to show that nato isn't much of a cooperation but a us led hegemony
Which appears to have been a false-flag event and hood winked the world into an Iraqui war for American dominance and control of resources.
@NeostormXLMAX _"this really goes to show that nato isn't much of a cooperation but a us led hegemony"_
This might be true, but this example doesn't show that. Instead, aside from this one exception, no NATO member has been attacked yet, which is why Article 5 hasn't been triggered. If anything, this shows that the alliance is an effective form of deterrence, which is why countries want to join it, including those who previously preferred to remain neutral. Indeed, it's arguable if Article 5 should've been triggered after 911.
yes, it was 9/11. and image all the wars prevented just from the threat of Article 5? the cold war was called cold for a reason.
It would be good they cut back support to force the Europeans to do more. The Europeans have been taking advantage since the end of WW2 which was more than 70 years ago
Dear Professor. Can a "depository state" leave an international treaty? If so how? Isn't that also an issue here? Thanks
Great question. I think the answer must be yes. But it would require some negotiation to decide who would take over the role.
@@JamesKerLindsayThank you. Is there any historical precedence for a case like that? The Vienna Convention of Treaties seems not to have addressed the possibility of such a scenario.
It's time for those rich and snooty Europeans to get theirs.
Excellent issue to discuss. The topic of US presidents commenting on the "free riding" nature of NATO allies goes back to President Eisenhower in the 1950s. Thirty years after that another example is in the 1980s when NATO was facing the massive & real threat of the Soviet army across the IGB, many NATO nations for example had less then a week or two weeks of war stock ammunition ready to be used to respond to a Soviet attack. So the concept of "free ridership" started when NATO was established.
To paraphrase Dr Mearshimer "states do not have alliances, they have individual intrests." This reality needs to be an understood fact in a pragmatic analysis & assessment of US-NATO relations.
The US has global commitments and for example Belgium & Portugal do not, so of course those nations will never spend to the percentage of GDP on Defense as the US does. However, we can look at what happened with Defense spending in the Baltics & Poland after 2014 & 2022. Their rapid expansion on defense spending as well as significant policy changes show their seriousness of demonstrating to the US their efforts to provide for their defense and not being seen as a "free rider".
Bottom line nations such as Germany, Portugal or Belgium have & are making conscious choices not to meet agreeded levels of spending. These are internal political choices these nations are making, thus it communicates to others their lack of commitment to collective defense to deter.
Trump's political allegorical story at a campaign event is essential politcal "red meat" being said in order to win the primary election. In reality the long held Jeffersonian political philosophy of isolationism is foolish given the realities of US history and economics in the world today. And to be honest the US doesnt take its own defense responsibilities serious when it is relying on a failed volunteer military service model versus consription. This, like some NATO spending levels, it is a internal political decision the US makes which absolutely shows the complete lack in the US body politic to provide for its own defense needs. The American people, like spending levels in some NATO nations, are "free riders" in their comfortable illusion that military service is important "as long as it is not me serving"
Again pragmatic analysis is necessary and seeing Trump is a theatrical stage actor replicating the "crazy man Nixon" role. Him playing this role is intended to get NATO nations to make different internal political choices.
This might be the most ridiculous position I've seen on this topic. I'm almost impressed.
He doesn't even need to pull out of NATO. All he needs to is not do anything or very little when Article 5 is invoked.
Exactly. This is the real threat he poses. Withdrawing from NATO may be more difficult now - although the recent law by Congress forcing a vote on the issue may actually be unconstitutional - but he could ensure that the US stops short of providing support to an ally that is attacked.
@@JamesKerLindsay American middle class has paid dearly in the last 50 years with majority of their jobs going to China and now Mexico. In plain simple terms Americans are angry.
@@ChaoticTyrant yet lowest unemployment rates since the 1950's.
Stop trying to push some culture wars crap from nothing.
@@ChaoticTyrant You need to look the reason somewhere else, internally. USA is not poor country, not even in crisis. The wars are thriving the economy. AI is also helping. So if middle class is paying a lot this maybe is because some others don't pay anything or very little in analogy of their wealth (including Trump). The 90% of the world wealth is in less that 100 people and the vast majority are from US, so.....
Just like when most NATO members didn't allow their troops to leave the base during Afghanistan.
I hate agreeing with Trump, but Luxembourg really need to up their game.
Is this a joke?
@@slipperyjohn3144 What makes you think it's a joke?
@@IanMcc1000 Because Luxembourg is tiny like really tiny but also very rich. They physically don't have an army large enough to spend 2% of their gdp on. Out of all the countries to pick from the list Luxembourg ain't it. Their military spending per capita is one of the highest in nato and if they were to reach 2% it would be more than double that of the US.
I hear a lot of reasons from this gentleman to vote for Trump.
At the risk of sounding like a historical determinist, I do think the crumbling of NATO (i.e. America leaving) is inevitable.
The alliance made sense when the USSR was a threat to the interests of the US and Europe post-World War, but the world has changed since then - Europe is no longer a bombed-out husk, but a community of strong nations with interests (naturally) tied to their continent (not the Pacific.)
I think it's more likely that the Anglosphere will develop their own alliance system in the long-term (Canada, Australia, US, New Zealand, UK) whereas NATO will morph or rebrand into a sort of European-community alliance.
Hmm. I could see Canada, Australia and the US going their own way together. However, New Zealand seems determined to become the Switzerland of the Pacific, and the UK is firmly tied to a European destiny. Case in point, that the UK amongst the first to respond the the war in Ukraine. Britons feel very concerned about what happens in Europe. So there is likely to be more, rather than less, co-operation between the UK and the EU (at least in terms of military).
Indeed, if it came down to choosing between European or American co-operation, the UK would almost certainly (albeit reluctantly) choose Europe.
@solsunman383 Good points all around, but I don't think the UK's European engagement counts as them being integrated: more so the age old-strategy of having a secure Europe for the sake of a secure Britain.
Otherwise, some of the UK's European concerns are not always shared by other continental Europeans - the UK moralizes about not dealing with Russia, but it's not lost on the others that the UK is open for business to the Gulf countries and places like China.
Either way I think it's 50/50 on which way things go, almost like Brexit. Brits may feel tied to the continent, but at arms length.
NATO could have been much stronger today if they took their own defense seriously in past years. They chose socialism and other liberal policies instead like green energy. If Ukraine relied upon Western Europe alone for help they would have lost long ago. It is time to grow up and pull your weight regardless of what Donald says or does not say.
I like how the mainstream media is triggered by Trump on a daily basis.
All Trump meant is that NATO member states need to contribute 2% of their budget.
Europe needs to pull his own weight.
Having two audio tracks on at the same time is confusing. When showing b-roll lower the audio A LOT. Other than that good vidyas! +1+1+1
Thanks a lot. I usually drop the background audio volume. Maybe I missed it on this one. Sorry.
2:40 Why isn't Austria marked as neutral?
Austrian State Treaty wasnt effective until 27 July 1955
trump says things in an alarmist way but he is right. EU countries had pledged to spend a certain amount of GDP on defence and were blatantly NOT doing this but at the same time expecting the US to pickup the shortfall.
Why should the United States help countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us? Let them fight their own wars. Maybe they’ll get involved in less if they know we won’t bail them out.
I agree, not to mention most of them hate us, ask any French or Brit or Norwegian what they think about Americans and USA and they’ll tell you that they hate us, why should we help people that hate us
To start out, I am not opposed to NATO or US membership in it. I also do not necessarily see NATO as being essential either. Its continued existence and goals are fair game for a discussion that has not been had since the end of the Cold War. The last US president that was willing, and probably capable of, leading such a discussion was George H. W. Bush, and he left office in 1993. All presidents since then have been progressively more populist, and I mean that in the strictest sense.
While bringing up Trump's issues with NATO is fair, you leave out that Obama also chided the allies for their failure to meet their spending commitments. In fact, President Kennedy also complained about "lazy Europeans". So, this is a long-standing issue. Obama also initiated the "pivot to Asia" and considered himself the first "Pacific" president. He pushed deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the US never ended up joining. It didn't help that the corresponding deal with the EU, TTIP was derailed by the issue of chlorinated chicken. All this predates Trump.
You have to understand that in a democracy the leaders do not have carte blanche to pursue any policy they want. They need to be receptive to and in sync with the desires of the electorate. That is why the idea of the "bully pulpit" is often applied to the US presidency. The president can cajole and persuade but cannot make unilateral decisions.
The issue of disproportionate payment by the US into international organizations is one that exercises the populace and has done for some time now. There are also significant portions of the US population that question UN membership and the level of the US contribution to it. In the case of Trump, he is just the most vocal proponent of reassessing US commitments to some of these organizations.
Finally, you mention alternative security arrangements, such as an EU alliance, or as some in the EU have been pushing, an EU army. I just have to remind folks that Macron once lumped the US with China and Russia as threats.
Most people don't realise that the US gains a net benefit from Nato . Firstly, Nato provides a huge market for US arms, secondly it means any conventional war against Russia is fought in Europe and not on the US homeland. Thirdly it means a rival European block cannot emerge to challenge US hegemony.
The situation is a lot more nuanced than Trump understands. Being a hegemonic power comes with costs.
yeah if the USA leave the will no longer be the worlds super power. it will leave the door open for China. Not to start a new organisation but more the fact that America is simply just becoming isolationist. Britain and the soviet union paid large sums when they were hegemons.
Also, the extra international stability that NATO brings, is also very beneficial to the US economy.
It also has a much more straightforward benefit. When you give someone something (in this case, extra defense), you get to call dibs on favors.
US gains a lot of influence on other NATO countries following the US lead through providing an extra large slice of defense spending.
@@gintasvilkelis2544 “international stability” like provoking Russia to invade Ukraine, that’s also beneficial to the US military industrial complex
@@oofballz4328 Russia chose to attack Ukraine.
And why are you against our military industrial complex?
How long have you been working for Russia?
No other CZcams channel has such an objective, unbiased, and insightful approach as this one. What I particularly like about it is the accurate historical background of each story, the brief analysis of the current situation, and then the future prospects. There is no propaganda here; the Professor gives you different points of view, tries to unravel the essence of each political, social, or military problem, and leaves you to judge and evaluate the situation. I have been following the channel closely for over three years, and it has never failed to inform, educate, and even dispel some misconceptions I had before watching the videos. Well done! Keep up the great, unprejudiced professional work, Professor!
Thank you so much Georgi. I appreciate your kind words enormously. I love putting the videos together as it is a chance to explore various contemporary topics in a little more historical detail. I am just so glad you find them interesting. Have a great weekend!
Thank you, professor. Very few commenters have mentioned the fact that Article 5 was invoked the first and only time in support of the US so thanks for bringing that up. Also the story of Trump telling off a fellow NATO leader has all the ‘tells’ of him lying.
And there is that, of course! :-)
I think funnily enough Trump actually said something that was true but in a very unproductive way. Too many members of NATO have been getting a free ride for too long with not meeting the defence spending target of 2%, its only now after the invasion of Ukraine that some have bothered to increase it but there are still some very wealthy nations who arent meeting the 2%.
Unproductive? US had been trying to get Europe to bolster its militaries. All other approaches to get this outcome failed. Seems like what Trump said was ultimately productive. If Europe is actually a like minded ally, their re militarization bolsters the arsenal of democracy and serves mutual interests. If they're not, the alliance is dead already.
@@David-kd5bt I mean like he said in the video it all started from the US saying they were going to leave, I think Europe taking a more proactive role in its defence can only be a good thing.
Judging by the response, it seems pretty productive to me.
@@David-kd5bt newsflash, most Americans wouldn’t care if France led Europe to try and make its own alliance. It would give us an excuse to out-maneuver the Establishment and leave Europe.
A place most Americans quietly don't like anyway. People there being a constant source of condescending, narcissistic, and straight-up ignorant comments on our domestic matters that don't concern them. We get enough ideological internal attacks from within. American Civilization isn't and doesn't want to be Europe.
I think this is probably the most productive way. If he said, "ofcourse I'll come to defend you no matter what", then there's no incentive to spend the 2%
This is a wanibg for us, Europeans. We need to invest in our defence industry. Thats it. We must be able to defend ourselves from any external threat.
external threat lol, we are collapsing from within
Maybe you should stop lecturing others and start with making friends 😂😂?
Correct!
Europe is capable of it, with enough willpower
@@Tar.o Europe will no longer exist in traditional sense, but the economic interests will remain. The EU will turn into an economic zone
Isolationism is an easy sell politically and has a long history in US politics. Even if Trump loses, I expect this issue to come up repeatedly in the future. Europe is wise to prepare for it!
Well said. Thank you. Go Democracy.
If the eu wants some sort of alliance to secure their borders, it would require European nations to pay their share, if they can’t do that in nato, what would you expect!
The EU has a population of roughly 450 million people the US only has 333 million. The EU needs to get its act together.
Funnily German is now meeting it obligations, first time in a long time.
Ngl Europe cooked
My question here is if USA wanted to leave Nato because their allies are not contributing enough, why now? Why not leave in the 1990s and early 2000s? Sorry for bad english
Trumpism wasn't here in the 90s & 2000s.
USA invoked Article 5 of NATO charter to get help in fighting the "war on terror" in the 2000s. They needed NATO.
This issue was brought up in 2008, 2014, 2018 & again in 2024. Bush, Obama and Trump all brought up Europe's lack of defense spending.
@@Evemeister12Most NATO members didn't even allow their troops to leave the base during Afghanistan.
I support the farmers, good on them . I've been following closely, and spreading the word. I live in the Czech Republic, but as yet have not seen to many protests.
I don’t think Trump will actually withdraw from NATO. Love or hate him, he is right in saying a lot of members have dragged their feet on military spending. But most NATO members seemed to have gotten the memo now that most have met the 2% target.
Putin launched a brutal invasion of Ukraine, which has had very serious implications for the whole world, inc. the USA. He also interfered in the US elections.
Why does Trump never call him out?
It's not good enough to wait until the threat is immediate to boost defense spending. NATO needs to be reformed to require defense spending at certain levels, with penalties for failing to meet those levels.
People are gonna keep crowing about how European social democracies provide generous welfare without realizing that it is only possible partly because Europe has piggybacked on the US/NATO defense umbrella without spending at least 2% GDP on defence.
While it's true that many European countries haven't contributed enough to NATO, the 2% of GDP was always a political guideline, not a military target, which is misquoted too often.
It was only a guideline for governments, because it's a poor metric of military capability which doesn't ensure a county is capable of defending itself.
The reality is that when NATO expanded after 1990, membership was granted based on NEED FOR defence, not CAPABILITY TO provide defence (from Russia).
For example, the Baltic states are arguably the most vulnerable to invasion by Russia, yet they're also the least capable of defending themselves, which is why they applied to join NATO as soon as they became independent, but still remain dependent on other members for their defence, both today and the foreseeable future.
America has protected Europe long enough for Free.
He can't leave NATO - Just old campaign trail talking point - There was a bill passed recently because of Trump. That no President can leave NATO, it would have to go to the Senate for a 2/3th of the vote. Looked it up. Part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Good luck in getting being in NATO to translate to the Commander-in-Chief committing forces in response to an act. Article 5 doesn't really commit any country to any specific course of action.
True. But he can play fire with fire to get it done. Just threaten and be willing to veto the debt ceiling if congress doesnt back exiting NATO. Lets see if they can override it.
You're right, of course, and Congress also wouldn't need him in order to honor the Article V commitment; if Putin invaded Estonia, for example, Congress can declare war. The issue is that Trump would weaken NATO by scaling back US participation in it. At the helm of the Defense Department, he could direct US military leadership to stop working with NATO allies and could also move US forces out of key areas.
@@liversuccess1420 Good luck in getting the USA House of Representatives to declare war without a specific request from the President! Has that ever happened?
@@richdobbs6595 Congress can declare war regardless of whether the President asks them to do so. FDR famously asked Congress to declare war after Pearl Harbor, but that is not at all a requirement. And if a NATO ally was attacked, I think there are enough House members who would support honoring Article V regardless of Trump.
I think it makes no sense for the US to leave NATO. Right now, the Military Industrial Complex only has Russia as a competitor. But if Europe has to seriously increase its Military Industial complex. Suddenly, the USA would be facing a new competitor. Obviously, defense spending is a big part of the US economy. Otherwise, they would not have like 700 lobbyists in Washington.
I'm afraid to say that if Europe wants to compete with us it'll have to cross the ocean to do so. Nahhhhh. As long as no nation is planning to invade us I don't see why I should be conscripted and die for someone else's borders. My life is worth more than whatever bit of economic pain they can muster against my nation, whose economy is as exposed by GDP to the world market as countries like Kenya
How does that make sense? Just give yourself more competition for fun?
@user-uf4rx5ih3v my comment got deleted. Just because we drop out of NATO doesn't mean we become enemies. By saying we are competitors that implies we are competing over something. If we have no interest in Europe beyond trade, why would we compete militarily? Why would we invade Europe? And does anyone really think Europe, let alone Russia and China are capable of crossing the ocean and conquering us? Europe is the richet continent on the planet. They're more than capable of looking out for themselves. And we have more than enough cultural affinity to maintain warm economic relations. The lack of a formal military alliance doesn't imply we are enemies.
There is another perspective you don't see is that the US politicians believe it is too costly for the US to be everywhere at once, confronting all of their adversary at once is no longer possible, therefore what Trump wants is for all of their allies nation to increase military budget and when there is a war, NATO countries and all other allies should fight to the death then the US will come in to finish the job. This new policy from the US will greatly benefited them in the long run. Think about it, the US is so much ahead of the world is because the rest of the world is in ruins after WW2, the Americans seek to repeat that if the war will become beneficial to them in the near future. Then again, threat is a threat, does not mean they will 100% leave. If NATO nations don't do what the US say, then the CIA will get busy.
@@josephkelly9239 unrelated but do you know why some comments get deleted? I have faced the same issue and it’s getting annoying.
Credible deterrence is necessary for productive negotiation among hostile parties, and that's ultimately what the alliance is for -- ensuring that wars don't happen due to a preponderance of power. "Let's work this out! Or else...". Americans are tired of being the face and paying the price of the "or else". The call for 2% military spending among the alliance is a call to strengthen credible deterrence and also share the burden.
It's not rocket science -- people hate feeling like they're getting taken advantage of. Those grievances will ferment into contempt, which will result in anger and consequences. "Let's work this out! Or else..." is what Trump is saying to NATO. You can try to dress it up as much as you want, but Trump is right that these countries are delinquent and not meeting the commitments they made to the group. And that is a problem we care about and need Europe to solve. The motivations are not just emotional; there are real strategy concerns about being in an alliance with weak members. Defending a weak country definitionally means the US will pay a higher price than they would if they were helping to defend a strong country.
I see an obvious danger for NATO countries under 2%, which is Trump's design. If a foreign adversary wanted to fracture the alliance, they'd attack the lowest spending member and cause a humanitarian catastrophe requiring international action and testing article 5. If a dirty bomb went off in Madrid, would the alliance hold? How long would it hold? With enemies on the horizon, it's not in these countries' interests to remain weak -- they're putting a target on their back, inviting an enemy to test Article 5 and potentially call the "NATO bluff."
Additionally, what happens before any attack will influence what happens after the attack. Even if the US agrees to defend, there are priorities in war around what to bomb and who to let die, etc. Scarce resources (due to chronic underinvestment) means sacrifice, and the people who pay the least will likely be asked to sacrifice the most, whether explicitly asked or simply forced to accept due to their own weakness. And those people won't have any recourse because they did not invest in their own protection. It's dark, but when any of the alliance's members are weak, the alliance is weak, and so the US is weak, and that's what we don't want.
Whether the US enjoys more pros than cons in the status quo is kind of irrelevant. If the US can successfully pressure weak countries into strengthening themselves and therefore the alliance, then we can have our cake and eat it too. And again, it's in these countries' own interests to be strong, so I think it's likely to happen. Non-US countries are playing with fire -- the US defense complex is doing just fine. This gives the US options, including betraying Europe to save ourselves, which we absolutely will do if we need to. I agree it wouldn't be in US interests to leave NATO, but I think it is in our interests to pressure our allies to strengthen themselves for their own good and our collective good.
Europe does not pay their fair share. Plain and simple
US leaving the NATO would be the same as US leaving UN after ww1, but we know what happened afterwards 1933-1945
I sure hope they will! Time to care for our people and not fight in no mans land.
Thank you ☆
The us leaving nato would be great. There is no need for us protection of Europe. Europe should be self reliant without us taxpayer money.
But what about the arguments I outlined in the video? There are many genuinely powerful reasons for the US to stay involved. NATO membership helps the US strategically, politically, diplomatically, and economically.
Just out of interest if the US withdraw from NATO wouldn't Europe start to buy weapons for each other. Britain produces various weapons like wise the Swedish fighter jets thus reducing weapons bought from US manufacturers. Also if the US withdraws then shouldn't they leave the various bases situated in Europe it would also show other American allies in say Asia that they aren't reliable and thus withdraw from security arrangements with them. It's far more complicated than Trump thinks and would have consequences for the US too..
Go look. Showed up in the 40s, stayed through the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000, 2010, 2020. Who has been loyal or reliable? I think what is hard to do is to tell a friend how bad the situation is. Yes, we have a large military. It can protect the US people and some of you.
In the long run, it will be better for Europeans to pay for their own defence expenses. They have enough people, enough money and the know-how to do this. The Europeans appear to lack the political backbone and the will power to do this.
Cwane ? polakom na wojene zaloza przylbice A usa wycofa sie z nato bedzie Czyste na trybunach zasidzie jako kibice ?
There is no such cultural or national grouping as "Europe", similar to the USA or Russia. Instead, Europe is a continent made of many different countries, like Africa or Asia, or indeed the Americas - both North & South.
A pan European military would be equivalent to a pan American military consisting of the armed forces of not just USA, but also Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and the rest of Central and South America, which is difficult to create.
That is what we all expect.Ending of NATO is now matter of time.Imagine there were some countryes who even paid for entrance.
Hopefully. NATO doesn't need to exist for the United States to help any country it wants to help.
The other countries should pay their share
Brilliant 👏
Thank you!
Thank you.
He wasn't wrong about the free loader tho I'm pretty sure he was throwing a tantrum to look tough to his base
It looked a bit like a high schooler when they say "go on, like I care"
Hi professor, I think some other commenters make some good points. Trump was correct in his first term that many NATO members were not meeting their obligations while they were simultaneously empowering Russia through business deals (ironically Trump’s intended effect being to draw closer to Russia and pull them further from China - a policy I admittedly thought prudent at the time - resulted in the opposite: NATO countries upped their spending as Trump ostensibly wanted and Russia, partially encouraged by the US Congress tying Trump’s hands on making a deal with Moscow, cozied up even more to an increasingly-belligerent Beijing.
As far as Trump’s recent comments, they are likely campaign rhetoric appealing to his isolationist base (an issue seen in the populist wings of both parties), but it is important to remember that as president Trump mostly acted in whatever fashion prevented him from looking weak. For example, when the aforementioned NATO increases in spending occurred, Trump didn’t reject it, instead calling himself the “savior of NATO” and promoting Stoltenberg’s praise for his ability to increase spending. He even recently said that if Putin rejected a peace deal he would arm Ukraine “way more than what Biden is currently doing”. In another example, despite his populist rhetoric, in office Trump had a far more robust policy in the Middle East than the Biden administration, becoming Israel’s “most popular American president” and acting against direct Iranian assets such as Qassim Soleimani. A further, and even more paradoxical, example is Beijing, where Trump oscillated between conciliatory trade deals and realpolitik-driven trade and geopolitical conflicts; ie he both was the first president to acknowledge the “new Cold War” with the CCP while at the same time downplaying Covid for months (which probably cost him re-election) for the sake of selling his recently signed agricultural deal with Beijing.
Trump is above all unpredictable and is liable to say something different every day, while generally acting in a robust fashion that isn’t always reflected by his rhetoric. He is most of all driven by the need to be perceived as strong, and that has, at least in his first term, resulted in a mix of both conciliatory and confrontational policies based on the time and place. This is in contrast to the Biden policy which, although often perceived as weak and misplaced, is at least predictable and strong in the areas where America has treaty commitments.
Another important issue to note is that the NATO countries bordering on Russia’s new sphere of influence all meet their spending obligations, so the entire discussion would likely be a moot point in practice. That being said, I am of the personal opinion that all member countries should meet their 2% obligations (individually, not collectively), and I’ve been encouraged by the increased spending since Trump’s prior term as well as Russia’s aggressive actions.
And unspoken factor here is the hostility shown by Western European leaders towards Trump personally, which definitely got them off on the wrong foot. It would be intersting to see how the new crop of European leaders handles the issue, especially those like Chancellor Scholz who has recognized the need for more military spending and has accordingly committed to 2%.
Relations with France will also be an interesting question; Macron has waffled on the issues of both Russia and China as well as 2% obligations (as a side note I’m not sure how France maintains its global empire on such a shoestring budget, but then again their sphere of influence in West Africa is crumbling in favor of Russia for a reason), and was fairly new to office when Trump was last in power.
Overall I think there is simultaneously too much being made of this remark as well as not enough serious discussions in Europe regarding national security (yet too many straw-man discussions regarding collective European security, which is both impractical to actually implement and ineffective due to diffuse national interests).
Thanks as always Dr. Ker Lindsay for providing a solid basis for discussion!
Thanks so much LocalLt. As ever, so many great points.
I hear the argument that this is all rhetoric. But there are many who worry that it isn’t. Trump I was somewhat constrained. Trump II could be a lot more radical and erratic. He may genuinely believe that he can do US foreign better if unconstrained. I’d certainly like to think he wouldn’t withdraw from NATO. But one just can’t discount anything when we are talking about Trump. And if he is hellbent on revenge against the elite who “stole” the last election from him, he might be willing to do any jumber of things to “own the libs.” Of course, I’m not saying he would take the US out of NATO. But I can’t say for certain that he wouldn’t. And as I also mentioned in several comments, the recent legislation requiring Congressional approval isn’t as strong as it seems. It may well be unconstitutional. (After all, if Congress had this power already then the law wouldn’t be needed!) In any case, I think if Trump wins again we will be in for a very strange (and worrying) time in US politics - in all sorts of ways.
But Europe certainly does need to be thinking more seriously about its defence!
All of NATO in Europe combined cant even deploy two combat ready divisions today, we (USA) are done paying for your defense, its not just spending, you cant seem to put together combat units, that spending is either being stolen or being wasted. Majority of teh USA want to go back to our traditional stance, isolation and small military, small federal government.
@@MasterBlasterSr You pay nothing for our defence. Don't really know where you get that from.
@@JamesKerLindsay I agree that leaving NATO can’t be discounted entirely, as Trump is above all unpredictable, but at least for now that seems to be thankfully beyond the conversation.
I do think it would be exceedingly difficult to take a step like that, especially if someone like Mike Pompeo is the Secretary of State (he would likely try to convince Trump that it would make him look weak), as well as if the Congress showed near-universal opposition.
In any case, and this is not apologizing for Trump’s recklessness on the issue, this whole discussion can be avoided if European countries simply take their defense responsibilities seriously. All the frontline states in Central Europe and the Baltic currently meet their obligations, just like the Western European countries did during the first Cold War when they were on the frontline. Those countries would do well to remember what it was like to be a frontline state and act accordingly in defense of the western bloc they themselves ostensibly lead and benefit so much from.
@TheLocalLt Thanks. Yes, I agree completely. A lot could be done if European states all meet their commitments. Then again, the US defence budget also includes a lot of spending that in most other countries is handled by other departments, such as healthcare, education, public works, etc. Isn’t always a case of comparing like with like.
We gave Saigon Promises too.
And most political commentators damn the US for attempting to uphold them...
I think Trump's rhetoric in from 2015 onward about members needing to meet obligations was actually correct for the time. But it is less salient now. We do not live in the same strategic environment that existed then. Conversely though, if you look into the ad-hoc aid pledges to Ukraine vs. what has actually been fulfilled, it makes clear that to many countries within the alliance, much of their rhetoric is still empty. Many of the same countries which have had no issue meeting NATO obligations have actually come pretty close to delivering on their pledges completely (unlike, say, Germany). Resultantly, I think this sort of rhetoric is actually still helpful in a way (from an "atlanticist" perspective) despite the need for greater trans-atlantic unity now vs. 2015. It encourages NATO countries to continue to get their act together, but it is only helpful because Trump's credibility on just allowing Russia to attack a NATO country is very high, sadly.
For me, it is mostly unfortunate that we have to pick a side here. Personally I would like to see substantially more aid to Ukraine, but a stricter line with NATO allies - more stick and fewer carrots. A few countries still really need to put their money where their mouth is to satisfy the concerns of many US voters. To that end, I feel that the consternation about Republicans and Trump that we are seeing currently ought to be encouraged to a degree as it may lead to quick course correction on the part of some NATO countries who are currently falling short. There does, however, need to be some reward from the US and other countries that have met their obligations consistently towards countries which have or will shortly shape up to encourage this behavior long term, and there does not seem to be the political will to do that in America.
As an aside, it ought also to be recognized that a continental Europe which relies entirely on the U.S. for defense matters is argued by many to be in the U.S. interest. They may be right, but the way in which all parties need to be thinking about the issue would need to change. Could the U.S. and to a lesser extent Britain accept payments for defense services rendered perhaps? This is already de-facto how Japan operates and it may be easier for smaller countries with limited administrative capacity. Just spitballing.
Professor .!
Brow. !
Just want to say .
All those troubles ,we are living ,..coming from NATO ..!
Mistakes or pre planned actions
James, you may be too polite to say this, but all the talk about countries having to pay their fair share is just talk. If everyone spent 2% of GDP, he would find another excuse.
The other thing to remember is that even without formally withdrawing membership, he and his allies in Congress could cripple NATO from within. Like refusing to accept a country's accession. Like not sharing intelligence. Like cancelling exercises. Like refusing to respond to a provocation. If Russia were to invade some sparsely populated region of a NATO country and Trump didn't respond, then everyone around the world now knows that Article 5 is empty talk.
Exactly this. All these find anything imperfect and flair it up bigger than even it's significance.
Like international geopolitics is some realm of perfection.
And they are so perfect themselves..
Thanks. You are absolutely right - on both counts.
🙏🏻✨️
interesting
I do have a degree of sympathy with those in the US who are unhappy with European NATO members spending less on defence than them, especially given that we have healthcare when they only get aircraft carriers.
But, I think there is an argument that the US NEEDS to spend a higher proportion of GDP on defence than Europe, because the US US operating on two fronts - we don't have the same vested interest in the Pacific that the US does.
I understand it's impossible to separate US NATO defence spending from non-NATO, but if they didn't have defence agreements with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea etc, would they spend nearly as much? I doubt it, and the pro-NATO lobby in the states should emphasis this more
good points. but you know the USA can leave nato but still get bilateral agreements with countries in europe that have contributed their share and our more aligned with USA thinking. Poland would be a good example
It's difficult to think of a single global or even regional organization that is not desperately crying out for very serious reform and NATO and the UN would be high on that list. It has also been the case that this reform has been both needed and called for for many, many years and it has not happened. We can therefore conclude, that none of these bodies will do a damned thing that they are not forced to do.
Trump's comments, like Trump himself, were brash, loud and inelegant but they were hardly the first of their kind to come from a US president, only the latest and the most direct and blunt. You'll notice though, that they sure as hell got Europe's attention so to that end, they were effective.
NATO is an important alliance but far too many of its members have fallen into the deadbeat category and I say that as a citizen of Canada; perhaps the biggest deadbeat of all. If we want to keep this thing going; and I certainly believe we should, then Europe is going to have to shake itself out of the comfortable stupor it's been in for 30+ years, recognize reality and start taking matters seriously.
These nations of Europe were supposed to be partners in defense and deterrence, not dependents. A block as big, rich, diverse and advanced as Europe should be wholly capable, in 2024, of seeing to it's own defense without any input from the US beyond things like logistics, intelligence, nuclear deterrence and so on.
There is NO reason why, with so many, many challenges facing them at home and around the world that the US military, and the US taxpayer, should still have to come running to the aid of the 2nd richest block of nations in the world who together are more than capable of doing it themselves but just don't want to.
I believe part of it is because Europe was exhausted by centuries of wars and crises that left the European powers shadows of their former mighty selves.
Yes, I realize that. But that was then, this is now. A NATO dominated and overseen by the US made sense and was, to a degree, necessary in the 1950s. 1960s and even as late as perhaps the 1980s but not anymore. They have the resources and the technical know-how to look after themselves. But they've had the warm, comfy, cozy embrace of the US armed forces to coddle them and tuck them into their beddie-bys at night and have thus allowed their military capacity to atrophy. They should pay a price for that.@@joshuaguste6883
Wow, from a Canadian! Absolutely on point! Thank you for articulating my frustrations as an American!
Brilliantly stated. Thanks.
But that is not the case any more. The Eurozone is more populous and essentially has the same GDP as the US. So why does the US have to foot an unfair amount of the bill for yet another European war? @@joshuaguste6883
#NEXIT #USMCA #AmericaFirst #VivaTrump
Maybe we should also consider that all kinds of high tech defence industry in the world is dominated by American companies. So, when US spends more money, it backs to US economy with a technology leverage..
Thanks Prof 👍🏻👍🏻🇦🇺
Thanks so much, Peter. I hope all is well at your end and that you've been having a good weekend.
While it is legitimate for the US to question European countries’ spending in defence, let’s not forget that Europe only faces one threat (Russia) while the US has to be ready militarily to operate on multiple fronts (eg Pacific, Middle East). The USA’s military spending reflects this multi-pronged geopolitical view. Not all of these are necessarily relevant for Europe, however.
nie ma sie co bac ze ktos chce wyslac nas na wojne wystarczy jednomyslnie sie zjednoczyc wziasc przyklad oporu jak to robia stada Rogatych zwierzat z Sawanny = oni jednomyslnie wszyscy sie razem bronia i stawiaja opor np wobec Lwa ktory nic im nie moze im nakaz ani strachu ani ucieczki... Wiec taki 1 Lew Przezydent wojenny nic nie wskura jesli sie wszyscy mu postawia..Cwane ? polakom na wojene zaloza przylbice A usa wycofa sie z nato bedzie Czyste na trybunach zasiadzie jako kibice ?
We shouldn't withdraw, Nato is a key part of our control and military projection in and from Europe. However we really do need other Nato countries to pay their fair share.
Thanks. I agree. I can understand why many Americans feel aggrieved about the amount the US spends on defence compared to its allies. But withdrawing from NATO really would be a disaster in so many ways.
I don't agree with Trump in his saying that we should withdraw from Nato, but I do think his rhetoric about it has been positive in getting Nato members to realize they have their own defense responsibilities. I don't think Europe will actually end up needing to stand independently, but I see no reason why it shouldn't make a top priority of being capable of standing independently.
That said, "2% of GDP" is not particularly meaningful. Germany spends 1.57% of a $4260 GDP, Turkey spends 1.31% of a $819B GPD, but Turkey gets significantly more bang for its buck and is a very successful military state. Beyond the checkbook Western Europe needs to get serious about being actually effective militarily.
@@JamesKerLindsay
Unless the political zeitgeist changes so people are convinced US military projection is both ethical and an appropriate usage of funds, skepticism will grow for any aspect of that projection, and it will thus serve to destabilize democracy in the US
I doubt the US would withdraw but it is infuriating that Nato members are not paying their fair share. If Trump can force to pay, I would be happy. Plus I think decades of preceived anti americanism from left wing Europeans may have eroded trust in Nato among Conservatives.
We shouldn't withdraw, but we also shouldn't be forward deploying and spending on European defense to the extent we are. We can have the treaty without wasting billions on bases in Europe.
Let's keep in mind (not you professor, but the TDS people) that now he only disclosed that extravagant threat, he made it many years ago. Of course , in a way, the disproportionate US spending complain is very laughable, since it goes into their own military industrial complex, not to foreign countries. Like a large part of the aid "to Ukraine". So if they want to complain , they should complain about their internal transfer of public funds, from the poor (things like public infrastructure and "the wall") to the rich (Raytheon, Lockheed etc) , not about how they're being suckered by allies. It's the same in Russia , transfer of tax money from civilian uses to the military industrial complex. I'm starting to think that is what this war is all about. More tax money to certain companies in the West and Russia. While the West and Russia simply don't care about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that die in the war, they're not people, they're a means to secure those funds. And anyone of us is potentially that. We're slaves. It's even clear that the more people die, the more funds can be secured by both parties. It's quite genius, actually. Evil genius.
Thanks. Great points. And you are right. Vast amounts of US defence spending go to supporting US companies and jobs for US citizens.
I had a conversation with someone on Quora a few days ago and it was about the idea of an EU army. He basically said that Europe shouldnt bother with this and let the americans do most of the work.
I am against this idea. We shouldnt be very depedent on the US espscially when one of its current candidates would have the audacity to throw some of its members under the bus. Thats not an ally you should trust. Thats the opposite.
Some of our politicians think the US could survive entirely in a bubble ignoring global politics. I think its justification to revert back to isolationism where nobody else would get our support. Purposely souring diplomatic relations
Western Europe should first stop neglecting their militaries.
I also see that the fall of the EU and therefore the NWO interesting
Thank you, Professor, for another excellent talk.
Former Trump-supporting Republicans here in the US say to believe Trump when he talks about his ideas and plans for another term - and beyond.
As a US citizen who, unfortunately, lives and works in a right-wing area of the country, I can say that Trump's popularity and ideas are well-supported - both loudly and quietly.
The prospect of his having power again is not mere "political rhetoric"; it is a terrifying reality.
He will (try to) do anything to serve and enhance his megalomania, and plenty of others in and not in government will meet his needs.
I hope that I am wrong.
With the statements that Trump has been pushing out, and his view on "the hunt on him, by the woke globalists". Then I am scared for another Trump victory. And I am not American, I live in Denmark.
The American election is the biggest wildcard for the global economy this year, because Trump is a disaster on two legs.
the EU is not a NATO member so if it's attacked, us ansd uk are not treaty-bound to help.
NATO and the EU are completely separate. And there is no obligation to defend the EU. But almost every EU member is a NATO member (the only ones that aren’t are members or about to become members are Ireland, Malta, Austria and Cyprus) and so we would be obliged to defend them. For all intents and purposes, the EU is protected by NATO, just as North America is.
Trump is right,let others who are in EU to pay there DGP needed,not to depend from America to give his help.
There’s no doubt that Trump’s anti-NATO rhetoric will stop as soon as all NATO members will start spending minimum required percentage of their GDP on their defence. The biggest security threat for the NATO countries located in Europe comes from Russia and this has been so for centuries. So, it’s logical that these countries spend enough money for their defence while US should be supporting these efforts as much as they think is beneficial for their security and geopolitical goals.
It's the rightful duty of daddy states to take care of all it's children
Thanks a bunch for sharing this with us Big Dog!
Don't you mean "Thanks a brunch for sharing this big corn dog!"?
What a difference since Reagan was president
Isn’t it incredible!? I remember the Reagan era. I was relatively young, but it covered my early teenage years. As someone interested in world events, I followed things closely and was always interested in US politics and foreign policy. It really is difficult to get my head around the changes that have happened in the Republican Party.
@@JamesKerLindsay Reagan would puke.
I’m a Trump voter myself, intending to vote for him a third time this November, and this has been an animating issue for me. Hopefully I can shed some light on how his base sees the matter.
For a lot of us, it is just a freeloader issue, it stings a little to see Western Europeans enjoy the use of a security umbrella they don’t have to chip in too much to use. The Trump coalition has also absorbed a lot of isolationists who were previously Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul voters.
But for many others, we backed neocons throughout the aughties and the experience of the global war on terror has soured us against interventionism. I fear the Nikki Haley wing wants to charge forward with leadership on every military conflict and not check our backs that the coalition came to the fight as well.
The paranoia stems from the fact that our coalition has been historically disunited since the end of the Cold War. It was Republican politicians courting the Polish, Czech, and Hungarian diasporas in swing states that pressured Clinton to expanding NATO not just Partnership for Peace. Central Europe was and mostly remains stronger Allies to the US than Western Europe, W called them “new Europe” for this reason. The American right saw in Central Europe countries that were predispositioned to be vigilant against the return of communist regimes.
When NATO was dragged into the GWOT, the dissent of France and Germany triggered the whole Freedom Fries backlash. Arguably, both of these countries have also suffered as a result of terrorist attacks, and I believe they have been vindicated that these interventions were a bad idea, but that was the start of a fracture where different members now had different priorities geopolitically.
In 2014 during the Crimean annexation, Germany and Italy were sanction-shy and continued to import massive amounts of Russian gas. To their credit, they’ve pulled a 180 since 2022. But now we have Orban and Erdogan obfuscating NATO goals, and Western Balkan candidates being kept on the outside by pettiness from the Balkan members that have already joined (Greece finally relenting on Macedonia doesn’t mean they weren’t stubbornly in this club for years)
Another huge thing - the US no longer perceived Russia as our biggest threat, the new Cold War is the Chinese and a lot of NATO members really do not share this outlook, either because they are on Russia’s doorstep, they are close economic partners with China, or both. How many dockyards on NATO soil does Beijing own through belt and road initiatives? Scary to get into bed with that!
The lack of strategic coherence since we lost a common mission, deterrence of the Soviets, is ultimately more responsible for NATOs audit than the Freeloader issue. As a member of two Central European Diasporas myself, I want to see the Russian bear contained still, but I don’t want to share that burden with any alliance member undermining that end.
china and russia are one military alliance ... withdrawing from and weakenjng nato is part of putin and xi's shared wishlist ...
@@tyeh78 that’s kind of my point. Why are NATO members selling ownership of their ports to China (Rotterdam, Piraeus, Le Havre, Genoa et. al.) why aren’t all NATO members sanctioning Russia (Turkey).
Trump is a goofy, gaudy guy and I never admired his reality TV show persona, but the Art of the Deal showed off he has some shrewd business acumen. All this bluster worked during his presidency to increase the € that Western Europe committed to the alliance, and he’s doing it again because some members are still slacking.
Any team needs a strong leader, a NATO that has a dozen freeloaders is also of the interest to Vlad and Xi.
Phenomenal comment!
I'm a like-minded Trump supporter myself.
I think the EU, plus the UK, are currently enjoying a cold shower of 'realpolitik' and are having to reassess their dependence on the US as the world's police force of last resort. Of course some of the alliance members are behind with their 2% membership subs and should immediately pay back their missing contributions, back-dated to their accession. It's a bit late in the day, but some members of NATO are finally realising that they need a European military deterrent independent of the USA, if they are to wave the big stick of MAD in the face of would-be aggressors (including those threatening economic warfare). IMHO liberalism, democracy and unrestrained market-led capitalism are not natural bed fellows ... China's economic rise and the post-communist reign of Russia's oligarchy have shown that. R (Australia)
Great video, like all of them ;)
Being in the alliance provide them an access to the european defense markets. So far I remember they sold around 500 F35 to european countries. Leaving it would probably make european countries focus more on their own industries, or maybe Korea and would be a huge loss. And I am not even sure they would save some money, since they would anyway have a huge military.
Thanks so much! Really great point. It was interesting that some have openly accused Trump of a shakedown. But it’s strange (or perhaps unsurprising) that he isn’t able to see the big picture and all the huge benefits the US gets from membership.
do you really think that europe can ramp up production of the kind of advanced weapons produced in large quantities in the USA? europe will still buy weapons from the USA even if we leave nato. no where else will you get the quality and quantity of weapons needed. overtime, europe can begin to supply itself, but it will take years.
I am sure some of his advisors will remind him at the right time. At the end of the day, it’s their job!
@@jeffaddis5715
I think yes. I believe that we in Europe our militair industry go to pick up. We have the technologie with each other country. And Europe is also growning.
Of course my comment gets deleted. All reasonable, effective suggestions always are. Fuck CZcams.
i usually copy mine before posting because that happenes so often. this way i can atleast edit it to tone it down.
@@EuroMaidanWasAnInsurrectionis there some type of filter that deletes comments?
@user-tp4jl4xt6w yes. CZcams has one. Also every content creator has the ability to delete
Don't worry it is just rhetoric. He is right although that every country should take care of its defence by spending. US taxpayers should not be the idiots of the story and what Trump is saying resonates with them.
7:50 LIE 😂. NATO, a pilar of international security? Are you kidding?
Did you forgot the Carnage that NATO did in Lybia and the tragedy in Afghanistan?
Europeans and Americans really live in a parallel universe haha... They simply forget their war crimes and massacres as someone that forget the keys while going to work 😂
Eu dwarfs Russia in money and population. They can definitely defend themselves without any problems. But why bother when we do it for them?
They’ve had 30 years to prepare
Time is up
Then: Viktor Orban was pleased to join NATO.
Now: He has fallen in love with Putin.
I'm from SE Arizona, Portal where so much attention is paid nationally here with many of Donald's MAGA as neighbors. Fortunately lots here run in the hundreds of acres so I'm alone at least.
I'm steeped in politics regarding the current political climate so I'm a bit zealous with my online vomiting and I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinionated responses.
FYI grassroots organizing effects are now seen by the uneducated eye, mine. Many CZcamsrs who have significant followings in the millions are now connecting with major news organizations like NBC by having their online presence intermingled thereby creating a literal channel of information into different generations. Having to go to go to constituents is another issue in and of itself and reveals the presence of a lot of uneducated citizens but at least this kind of social engineering is occurring every day and it's very, very reassuring for many. Thanks so much for this channel it really is so valuable to have access to reliable information, it's a real service so thumbs up from a fellow international citizen.
Russia was never threatening Europe. We always have been good friends. and we had the advantage of having very cheap Gas from Russia so our economy grew greatly. Since we joined the european union, it has been a disaster. The government has to borrow money for the needs of the country from the central bank which is a private bank and we have to give back with interest. To keep the Allianz with NATO, we have to borrow the money. Russia is not a training but the european union. There are not european trups but only Italian trups , frenc trups or germens trups and so on. eu are not the United States of Europe. there is only europian union and not all the nations in the union have chosen to use the euro monetary system because it is a disaster. They prefer their own sovereign currency so they do not have to give the money back with interest and they can print their own currency more importantly not all the European states are in this Fxxxxg union because they like to be their own country, not slaves of a private central eu back..
Pay your dues simple.
Is the whole 2% of GDP thing even part of the actual north Atlantic treaty?
Yes, all members have agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of GDP, however there are no punishments for failing to meet those commitments
thats a minimum requirement for membership but once your in there is no punishment mechanism.
@@jiggy7108 so it's always been more of an aspirational goal than a binding commitment then?
@@lioraselby5328 Aspirational goal? It's bare minimum. Don't tell me Germany can't spend 2% of their GDP on spending.
Hello, professor.
Very good content as usual. For us in Spain, NATO should be a big debate (it is not because of widespread ignorance on these matters): Ceuta and Melilla, two Spanish cities in the north of Africa (that belonged to Spain centuries before Morocco even existed) are always under the possible invasion of Morocco. The most plausible invasion is suggested to be as the one they did in the Western Sahara. Just thousands of Moroccans walking with no weapons (probably with US flags again). NATO still is not clear about defending them or not as they are not in Europe or Northamerica. It is the only military threat that faces Spain so it is really important to clarify this for us. Even Moroccan kids study these maps where these cities belong to them (as well as the Canary islands and many portions of Algeria or Mauritania). Morroco is a revisionist state and there's gonna be trouble with them sooner or later.
If we had strong politicians (which of course we don't) this should be a condition to reach that 2%.
I thought it'd be interesting for you if you didn't know this subject. It's a very particular situation as Turkey or the Spanish Canary Islands are actually under protection but these cities are not.
Why are you afraid that Spain cannot deal with even the worst case scenario themselves?
@@blackbirdsr71 Morocco is supported by the US and France
@@Viajesygeopolitica so what, the U.S.and France and Morocco will attack Spain?
When Argentina ( a non-member of NATO...) invaded the Falkland Islands, ( which aren't in Europe or North America) how much diplomatic and military support did Spain give to the U.K. at the time and what is Spain's official position on the matter now? Also, maybe the reason that these two cities are Spain's only active military area of concern is that Spain is a NATO member. Spain is a valued NATO partner and NATO needs to stay unified, but mutual obligations get blurry the further one gets from the North Atlantic.
That's an interesting potential scenario. Like you suggest there's a high probability the US wouldn't do anything because there's nothing in it for them . Worst case scenario would be Spain leaving NATO but Spain tends to have very weak governments so I don't see that happening.
Happy Friday Professor, thx again for the thorough and neutral explanation of the situation. You can bet money trump would pull the US out of NATO. At the same time however, his chances of winning another election are greatly over blown. Obama only had a 18% chance of winning a second term. I could give my reasons why I think trump has 0% chance of winning if requested but I'm trying to keep it short. As for NATO, of course the US pays more than any other country, what does being a world leader mean? You lead by example and not through dictation. Pulling out of NATO would be a bigger mistake than brexit. Take a deep breath and relax, trumps a has been.
Good evening, Todd. I hope all is well at your end. Thanks as ever for the reasoned comment. Always good to hear your thoughts. You certainly make a compelling and convincing case. I just hope you are right!
@@JamesKerLindsay With reason, doubts subside. Here's my reasoning. Forget the day-to-day drama and step back. In 2016 he was running against a person who already had a love/hate attitude toward them in Hilary and trump was the outsider. He barely won by a few thousand votes in key locations and for the whole campaign everything went his way, right down to Comey's press conference while people were voting. Since then, he has lost almost every election in which he has put his fingers into, plus you add Roe v Wade and the border hoax ect. This time around, NOTHING is going trumps way, he's using all the GOP campaign funds for legal bills, as trials get closer, he gets more and more desperate and delusional. It just doesn't make any sense that he can only win when everything goes perfectly in his favor and this time around his campaign looks like a train wreck. One last point, sure his will get millions of votes but his approval rating hasn't changed in 8 years. He hasn't won over any voters in 8 years, but he has lost a few voters here and there. He's not in a position now to try and overthrow an election so, what chance does he have?
@@Todd.B leading Joe Biden by 5 points plus or minus 3 within the margin of error meaning at worst Trump leads by plus 2 and at best he leads by plus 9. Joe Biden is cooked he is out. dementia Joe is gone.
Trump had4 years to pull out of NATO. Did he do it or did he get the NATO deadbeats to pay more of their share thus making NATO better able to handle Joe Biden’s war.
Would you care to make a wager re. Trump re-election? 🤭
What I'd say to NATO is better accelerate Sweden's accession before a new player joins the Hungary-Turkey axis within the group.
People saying congress passed a bill requiring a 2/3rds vote too prohibit the president from withdrawing from NATO are missing a key issue the constitution as the president is the commander and Chief so a president does have constitutional authority too pull out as NATO is a military alliance after all
No he does not. Only Congress has power to enter and withdraw form treaties. It’s one of the powers granted to them by the Constitution as part of the separation of powers.
@@baneofbanesThat's simply not true. The President has the authority to unilaterally withdraw from treaties under constitutional law. The law preventing withdrawal is unconstitutional and therefore void.
@@CedarHunt no he does not. The Constitution literally gives sole authority over treaties and alliances to congress.
@@baneofbanes Not if you actually read Article 2 of the Constitution, it doesn't. The president has equal authority and must give approval before any treaty can be applied. The constitution even prevents Congress from overriding a presidential veto of a treaty approved by Congress. Both Congress and the president must approve a treaty for it to be enacted and either can withdraw approval at any time, which immediately voids that treaty.
Where has Nato been a pillar for security
The argument is that it has been successful because the members haven’t been invaded.
@@JamesKerLindsay ok invaded by whom the only invasion and occupation in Europe consistently has been done by nato
The US threatening to leave NATO is just a means to get European countries to invest more in their own defense. If you expect the United States to defend you, you should be demonstrating the will to defend yourself first. It is amazing this is a controversial concept. There should be fewer videos discussing the US threatening to leave and more videos being made attempting to persuade European countries to fulfill the commitments that they freely signed onto.
For every argument and counterargument there is a counterargument. For example, on the intelligence front one of the most important for the US is the Five Eyes network. Two of the five are not NATO members, are indeed in the Pacific. The US has also been strengthening its alliances in the Pacific region.
Thanks. But I’d argue intelligence isn’t an either/or proposition. And some
countries have greater historical relations with certain areas than others. Yes, the US would still cooperate with the large English speaking countries. But losing close cooperation with France would undermine its understanding of what is happening in much of Africa. The same applies to alliances. But I understand that some will believe that the US can go it alone and has plenty of other relationships it can build
Instead. I heard all this with Britain and the EU, and look how Brexit has turned out!
@@JamesKerLindsay Good points.
The Brexit story is not yet done. I have seen projections that the UK economy will be the best performing in Europe over the next 15 years. This is from Bloomberg on December 25, 2023. While it goes through ups and downs, so do Germany and France, for example. All three are projected to grow, but France has the best prospect at 1%. The UK comes in at 0.6% and Germany at 0.5%. Not stellar numbers by any measure.
As for Africa, the US activity there is really part of the war on terror. This is like playing wack-a-mole. Many Americans are surprised at the level of US military activity there. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
@@louisgiokas2206 Thanks. Brexit is an unmitigated disaster. The U.K. has not secured better new trade deals (most of the ones it has are slightly modified EU ins) and it has made trade deals with its closest market unbelievably difficult. As someone said, it’s the first country in history to impose sanctions on itself. It has also become a rule taker, and thus lost sovereignty and independence.
Is that a threat or a promise ?
Probably a promise
To be free you must earn that! Being a member of a gang, only the Alfa rules!
The US spends a tiny fraction of its defense budget on NATO support. The issue has been completely blown out of proportion.
Thanks, David. Great point. This is so true. I don’t think many people realise just how much the defence budget covers societal costs in the US that are often picked up by other parts of government in other countries. For example, the DoD spends massively on grants for medical research. This is spun as having military impacts, but often it is civil use that might just have a potential military use at some point. And serving in the military keeps unemployment down in certain areas and groups. Also, the military provides vital
healthcare to many. The US defence budget is massive but it goes far beyond traditional defence expenditure.
USA and Germany each pay 16% of NATO's joint budget
@@JamesKerLindsayI mean who protects everyone’s shipping? That also counts as spending on nato. Some rag tag group of terrorist could hold up trade from the Middle East