Help support TMP


"USA out of NATO?" Topic


35 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board



Areas of Interest

Modern

1,355 hits since 15 Jan 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse15 Jan 2019 9:24 p.m. PST

"President Trump privately indicated multiple times in 2018 that he wanted the U.S. to withdraw from the NATO alliance, The New York Times reported late Monday.

Senior administration officials told the newspaper that Trump suggested he did not understand the benefits of NATO and that he believed it was sapping the U.S.

The president reportedly made the comments around last July's summit, where he roiled allies by criticizing Germany directly and questioning why other members did not spend more on defense. Trump said later that a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin went better than the NATO summit…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP15 Jan 2019 10:15 p.m. PST

While I think it would be unwise to have a total pullout, is it really too much to ask the people of certain countries and continents to provide the funds and personnel for their own defense, either individually, or collectively?

Clearly, a significant funding shift needs to occur, stat.

Then again, once Angela retires, perhaps she can provide tutoring in Russian.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian15 Jan 2019 10:23 p.m. PST

I personally think the alliance has outlived its mission. There's no Soviet threat any more, and Europe can (or should) defend itself.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP15 Jan 2019 10:29 p.m. PST

I suspect many Ukrainians, some Crimeans, Georgians, and those living in the small, former Soviet Baltic states, as well as most Poles would beg to differ with you.

Heck, with the state of the German military, perhaps some/most Germans should be nervous too.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP15 Jan 2019 10:45 p.m. PST

"To keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

The US as the dominant force prevents a European build up that leads to another European war that requires the US to make an even more expensive, bloody investment to resolve.

Nick Bowler16 Jan 2019 3:13 a.m. PST

The only country that has invoked the NATO alliance is the USA.

Porthos16 Jan 2019 3:32 a.m. PST

"I personally think the alliance has outlived its mission. There's no Soviet threat any more, and Europe can (or should) defend itself."

War is always about trade, Bill. Perhaps you should look at the European trade flows from and to the USA, and those from China.Not a subject easy to show here (much too large). And not until Mueller has given his report I will decide whether or not to trust Trump.

23rdFusilier Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 4:07 a.m. PST

"President Trump privately indicated multiple times in 2018 that he wanted the U.S. to withdraw from the NATO alliance, The New York Times reported late Monday."

"The president reportedly made the comments around last July's summit, where he roiled allies by criticizing Germany directly and questioning why other members did not spend more on defense. Trump said later that a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin went better than the NATO summit. "

"Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis and national security adviser John Bolton worked to maintain the current U.S. strategy regarding NATO, the Times reported, but did not mention that withdrawing from NATO would benefit Russia and weaken American influence in Europe. "

After reading the article I agree with this comment from the article:

"I agree with your sentiment. My sense of this having observed Russian antics since the 1950s when I became aware of international politics is that Russia will do Bleeped text Russia thinks is good for Russia.

Trump has simply got caught up in this and thinks he is controlling the game. He is not."

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 6:47 a.m. PST

Considering the dubious source(nyt), I wouldn't worry too much about this.

USAFpilot16 Jan 2019 7:40 a.m. PST

I'm not big on alliances; remember how WW1 started. Country x invades country y, and because of alliances soon you have countries a, b, c, etc, all at war with each other. NATO is a relic of the Cold War. It served its purpose in a bipolar world and deterred Soviet aggression and the spread of communism. Nothing to be gained from alliance in a multi polar world except an increase in the danger of a global conflict.

FatherOfAllLogic16 Jan 2019 7:58 a.m. PST

Left to their own devices, Europeans are prone to start big ugly wars which then require the US to settle. Sorry, I think the US should stay in NATO and keep reasonable force levels stationed.

(I would believe the NYT before any other source like Fox News.)

john snelling16 Jan 2019 8:19 a.m. PST

NYT,sources could be "a friend of my Aunt said" LOL!

In total agreement with "Editor in Chief Bill".

skipper John Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 8:20 a.m. PST

FatherOfAllLogic
"(I would believe the NYT before any other source like Fox News.)"

Ummmmm… THAT somehow doesn't sound logical!

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 9:06 a.m. PST

NATO is a relic of the CW and has outlived its original purpose. Let Germany and France take the reins of European defense with their planned EU Army.

paulgenna16 Jan 2019 9:18 a.m. PST

Too many NATO countries are failing to honor the 2% spending on defense. Since Poland and several of the other countries near Russia are active then maybe we do a new treaty with them. The US military spends a lot of money in Germany and other non-paying NATO countries. Time to move those dollars to countries willing to honor the treaty.

BorisTheSpider16 Jan 2019 9:47 a.m. PST

If it is a relic of the Cold War how come the U.S is the only nation ever to invoke article 5 of the treaty in 2001?

USAFpilot16 Jan 2019 11:46 a.m. PST

TMP has more credibility than the nyt's.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP In the TMP Dawghouse16 Jan 2019 11:55 a.m. PST

(smile)


Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 12:51 p.m. PST

Deleted by Moderator So far the NYT has been proven right a lot more than most news organization. Admittedly not 100% accuracy but enough be taken seriously.

My thoughts on NATO: it needs an update on its charter but the logic is still sound. All you have to do is look at Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula, interference in local political elections, attempts to prop up ultra-right wing groups, and destabilize alliances to see that NATO still is relevant. While it would be nice if its members honored their spending commitments disbanding it is not the answer to that problem. A stable, secure, and peaceful Europe benefits the USA in both trade and security.

Pan Marek Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 1:08 p.m. PST

Here's my take on it.
Deleted by Moderator

The notion that a Russia under Putin is benign is born of
American domestic politics.

Nick Bowler16 Jan 2019 2:37 p.m. PST

This thread belongs in the Fez.

USAFpilot16 Jan 2019 4:28 p.m. PST

The ultimate irony is that Russia was the enemy of the free world not because they were Russia, but because the were communists. Communist Russia was called the Soviet Union and their goal was to spread communism, one of the most dangerous evil ideologies in the world. The US and free Western Europe formed NATO to counter this threat. Many servicemen sacrificed their lives during the Cold War in the fight against communism. So the irony is this, Russia is no longer communist, but somehow communist ideology has taken hold in parts of many Western societies.

torokchar Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 5:15 p.m. PST

We should have left when the Soviet Union dissolved. Huge waste of US treasure protecting Europe from what? US Army Europe is a huge German and Italian Jobs program and we spend billions on their economies when those dollars would be better spent in the USA. US Army Japan is the same issue I ask WHY???? China and Russia are not the threat only made that way by politicians and the Military Industrial complex. Same issue in the Middle East spending billons to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait

Retired Army, Veteran, served in Europe. Korea and the Middle East.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian16 Jan 2019 5:33 p.m. PST

I suspect many Ukrainians, some Crimeans, Georgians, and those living in the small, former Soviet Baltic states, as well as most Poles would beg to differ with you.

Not sure too many Americans would be willing to go to war over Ukraine…

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 7:33 p.m. PST

If it were up to me, I'd put the EU on notice.

Live up to your 2% commitment each and every year, or you no longer get protection.

Make it simple like that for them, since they don't seem to understand the basics of how defense treaties and organizations work.

I suspect virtually ALL insurance carriers' policies will be ruled invalid if/when you don't make the payments, and then try to seek assistance.

I agree with you Bill that Americans don't want to go to war over Ukraine.

While there is no longer a Soviet threat, the Russian one is just as bad for some (perhaps even worse, since real fighting is occurring, and not just political posturing), as the Ukrainians know all too well, since they live under it daily, and many of their citizens have been killed, wounded, or taken hostage by the rogue country. Not to mention Crimea being annexed/stolen by Russia, and a good portion of their eastern region being controlled by Russia and her guerrilla allies there even to this day.

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP16 Jan 2019 8:33 p.m. PST

NATO was created to defend the democratic ideals and freedoms we supposedly hold dear. That didn't go away with the collapse of the USSR.

Nick Bowler16 Jan 2019 10:00 p.m. PST

I am sure many members of Nato countries didnt want to go to war over Afghanistan. But they are there.

FatherOfAllLogic17 Jan 2019 8:06 a.m. PST

The Estonians sent a detachment of soldiers to either Iraq or Afghanistan to fulfill their treaty obligations. It's only fair that the US defend Estonia from outside aggression (Russia). And they spend more than 2% of their budget on defense.

And whether or not Americans are willing to fight overseas, they seemed happy enough to invade Iraq.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP17 Jan 2019 1:01 p.m. PST

Anyone advocating for Europeans to arm up might want to read more European history.

goragrad17 Jan 2019 6:23 p.m. PST

Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor and the other Pacific holding most Americans didn't want to go to war in 1941 either…

Was a major lack of enthusiasm in 1917 as well.

Same with Korea, etc.

Going back even further, there was a strong minority who had no wish to go to war in 1776…

USAFpilot17 Jan 2019 11:45 p.m. PST

NATO was created to defend the democratic ideals and freedoms we supposedly hold dear.

Actually no, that is not correct.

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union."
link

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP18 Jan 2019 12:53 p.m. PST

NATO has been abused beyond its original charter and for purposes other than those which it was originally intended for many decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In 1991 it was used to build a western alliance to roll back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Later that decade NATO wielded its muscle against Serbian genocide perpetrated on Croats and muslim minorities.

After September 11, it was a mechanism for builing a "coalition of the willing" in America's never-ending War Against Terrorism in the ME against AQ, the Taliban as well as other terrorist organizations like Islamic State, a regime change war in Iraq to topple Saddam just because we can, and an air campaign against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya for the same reason.

NATO has evolved from its de jure mandate as a bastion against Soviet communism to its current de facto role of doing whatever America sees fit.

No wonder most of Europe is balking at spending the arbitrary 2 percent on defense per NATO guidelines. That much money need not be spent to deter Putin alone.

USAFpilot18 Jan 2019 1:53 p.m. PST

And which country pays the largest chunk of the NATO bill?

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP18 Jan 2019 2:18 p.m. PST

And which country pays the largest chunk of the NATO bill?

America? But that's only to be expected and appropriate because NATO was used mostly to support American military adventurism abroad since the Soviet Union's collapse.

Personal logo Private Matter Supporting Member of TMP19 Jan 2019 6:15 a.m. PST

USAF Pilot and why where we against the Soviet Union? Because the Soviet Union was against the freedoms and democratic ideals we tried to export.

I stand by my earlier assertion; NATO is still relevant but its charter needs be updated.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.