"What is the point of NATO anymore?" Topic

This is a deliberately provocative question, yet it needs to be asked because many Americans no longer see the value.

If the U.S. provides the bulk of NATO's security, underwrites global trade routes, stabilizes energy flows, and absorbs most of the strategic risk… why is open animosity toward America now treated as normal?

Scroll European social media and forums and comments here, and you'll see it daily: America is the problem, NATO would be better without the U.S., maybe U.S. bases should be seized. And yet – continued American protection is assumed as automatic. The security umbrella is criticized, but never declined.

That raises an uncomfortable Realpolitik question: Is NATO an alliance of partners—or a hierarchy where one actor leads and the rest depend? In short – what does America get out of it?

Alliances are supposed to involve mutual respect, shared burden, and aligned interests. Dependency breeds resentment, and leadership without reciprocity breeds entitlement. Entitlement plus hostility isn't partnership—it's obligation without consent.

Pre-1917 America didn't operate this way. We traded, balanced offshore interests, and intervened selectively when US interests were directly threatened. Europe handled Europe. The US handled the US. The US stayed powerful without permanent guarantees—and without permanent obligations, costs, sacrifice and blame.

So maybe growing American fatigue isn't about isolationism. Maybe it's about reciprocity.

If the U.S. is seen as a threat rather than a guarantor… and if American leadership is resented but American protection is expected… and if burden-sharing stalls while criticism escalates…

Then it's fair to ask: what, exactly, is NATO for—and who is it actually serving now?

One Austrian NATO politician said they could sieze US bases and then how would the US be able to project power against Russia and into the Middle East. Huh -- he should have been asking, if the US declines to provide Europe's security and Europe has to do that, why would the US *need* to project power against Russia to defend Europe, or into the Middle East and North Africa to protect European energy supplies?

Because Realpolitik is simple: security arrangements survive on mutual benefit and mutual respect. When one fades, the other eventually follows.

NATO still is of use. It is an existing coalition of military forces of about 30 nations in Europe. Russia is still a threat … Putin's invasion makes that clear …

Russia is still a threat … Putin's invasion makes that clear …

Yes -- to Europe.

If the US is no longer responsible for European security, then that changes the equation. Just because we've gotten used to some 80 years of being responsible for it doesn't necessarily mean we continue on that track. In the long sweep of world history, NO great power has EVER devoted multiple generations to the defense of other wealthy, capable states without conquest, tribute, or formal imperial control. What the U.S. has done for Europe since 1945 is not just uncommon in American history—it's uncommon in the history of nations, period.

SB this is where i defer from others. I have not seen the need for NATO since the Soviet Union ceased to exist. I do not like peacetime alliances. They just lock you into commitments and give you absolutely no room to maneuver.

I have become even more against it, since the expansion of NATO membership since at least the Clinton administration. One mistake and you are automatically at war over Latvia, Romania, etc., if you honor your commitments.

You just cannot make rational decisions that way. One has to decide what is in the best interest of one's own country and people.

Besides, Europe should have recovered enough to protect themselves from Russia in 80 plus years.

In my youth up to the time of Ronald Reagan, Russia/Soviet Union controlled most of Central Europe. A sad thing for those under their thumb, but the world did still exist. If Russia invades Latvia, and we go to nukes over it, does the world still exist? A peacetime alliance does NOT allow you to make that decision.

I know there will be those who disagree, but those are my views.

I agree with a lot of what you said. "dam#ed if you do and dam#ed if you don't" and will admit that a lot of my current feelings have come from that attitude, here included.

One Austrian NATO politician

Not sure what a "NATO politician" is (a politician of a NATO country?), but I am sure that Austria is not a member of NATO. So that whole paragraph is probably someone's imagination and/or stirring a pot.

Honest question, why hasn't the US walked away from NATO? Is it because the benefits to the US, either strategically as a nation and/or commercially for some US owned conglomerates, is greater than the cost?

The US is pragmatic- it entered WWI to make sure its banking sector was not crippled because the Entente couldn't repay its war loans, for example. If the NATO burden is that big, why not drop-kick it into touch?

This may be a provocative answer:
If it wasn't for NATO allies, your forces would still be chasing that last oil tanker through the Denmark Strait (assuming of course that they could even find it, and reach it from bases on the US mainland).

If it wasn't for NATO allies, your forces would still be chasing that last oil tanker through the Denmark Strait (assuming of course that they could even find it, and reach it from bases on the US mainland).

But then… we wouldn't be chasing it, yes? We were chasing it to prevent Russia from selling oil that's under sanction…so…

NATO should be supported and allowed to thrive via more European participation in material support. But it is a mistake to abandon it. Right now it seems relatively easy to ignore Russia as a paper tiger. But they have some serious power and I would never turn our backs on that or the allies that, even though they could do more, are still allies.

The world has shrunk, Putin is a danger to everyone. He and the CHinese are not our friends, they are always a threat.I don't want to fight him or China anywhere but over there.
It does not help Europe to become stronger by running out on them now. We should rise above, but not forget, the fact that we have been used by them and hang on to the strength that NATO can provide as a way to deter wars. It does not always go smoothly. Diplomacy is a never ending responsibility – leaders live with it, sometimes fingers are crossed. But its the same for the other side.

Beat me to it Dal,"One Austrian NATO politician said".
Some joker not even in NATO whining?

I believe it is more than just a military alliance. There is also an economic factor and perhaps even more than we don't always remember.

Not sure what a "NATO politician" is (a politician of a NATO country?), but I am sure that Austria is not a member of NATO. So that whole paragraph is probably someone's imagination and/or stirring a pot.

Gunther Fehlinger is Austria's NATO committee chair.

But rather than whining -- sell me, my European compadres…why should America stay in NATO? What are both the material security and economic reasons, and other reasons given we only see negative comments about the US from our NATO allies in much US media.

Should I stay, or should I go now? (Yo me enfrío o lo soplo)
Should I stay, or should I go now? (Yo me enfrío o lo soplo)
If I go, there will be trouble (Si me voy va a haber peligro)
And if I stay, it will be double (Si me quedo sera el doble)
So ya gotta let me know (Me tienes que decir)
Should I cool it, or should I blow? (Tengo frío por los ojos)

I don't get the translation… is a joke?

Armand

I don't get the translation… is a joke?

It's from The Clash, "Should I Stay or Should I Go?"

YouTube link

Now Macron is posing as a tough guy, threatening Trump… I think I get it now. This is all a distraction by weak loser leaders to deflect attention. They think this is consequences free, too, that posturing against the US is cheap and easy…

35tOVI +1.

Gunther Fehlinger is Austria's NATO committee chair.

In reality it's just a NATO side-kick's political consultant talking out his rear end, not someone in NATO suggesting a move of great idiocy? Because that's how it came across, SB, and I think how you wanted it to come across.

Beat me to it Dal

Only because I get up 16 hours before you do, mate. :-)

If the US is no longer responsible for European security, then that changes the equation.

Yes, however, NATO is an organized alliance which has worked together for decades. In itself with all the NATO members will generally act as a deterrent. For a future event/war/conflict.

We can't generally rely on the UN for much of anything if a strong military coalition is needed. The last we really saw that deployed effectively was the Korean War, IMO. Albeit it took on many "peace keeping" missions thru out the world. Even in Iraq, etc. Along with refugee support, etc. e.g. camps, all classes of supplies, aid, etc.

So again, NATO could be used to some affect at some time in the future. A large existing military alliance which has developed SOPs, trained and operated together, etc. That is key for any military body to function effectively. Whether at Fire Tm level and all the way up to Corps, etc.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated once again why a strong functioning combat force. It also highlighted the need for many of the NATOs to start pulling their weight, increase defense spending, etc. And by doing so at the "coaxing" of a capable US POTUS.

FWIW history will show Putin's concern about NATO expending East. Was another intel, C3, etc. failure, among many others recently. This in effect caused NATO's membership to increase and combat readiness to again be important.

So when will the next big "event" occur when a well-trained, well equipped, effective solid force… However, based on past, the NATO members have to make it a priority to be combat ready.

If history teaches us anything. We[NATO, etc.] have to be prepared for the next conflict. And be prepped effectively with higher tech, training, dogma, etc. As we see thru out history playing "catch-up" only takes more time end the war and a heavier loss on blood and treasure in the long run. E.g. that was clearly observed at the beginning of WWII. With among other things "Blitzkrieg"[France '40] and air superiority[Pearl Harbor] creating a new paradigm.

Like I said on a related thread, maybe there are minor voices amplified by the media like Herr Fehlinger – but that's what the American voter is seeing. We're also seeing Prime Ministers and Presidents melt down, the PM of Canada angrily canceled 5th gen American F-35 contracts to buy 4th gen Grippen fighters…thank you, I guess, in the remote case of conflict with the US for buying obsolete aircraft???

And the mocking reaction here… I'm not seeing any reasons to stay other than Tortorella's and Legion's replies, which I appreciate…but they are fellow American providing conventional wisdom on the alliance, which I lived and breathed as a youngling Cold Warrior in my wayback days. European and non-American reactions are a bit lacking…a bit of angry mocking snark… kind of like what I see from European leaders…

So again, NATO could be used to some affect at some time in the future. A large existing military alliance which has developed SOPs, trained and operated together, etc.

So keep NATO around to play world police? What was the purpose of NATO? And now Europe is going to start ponying up the dough, guess better late than never? I get all this talk of Europeans rearming is great for defense companies. It would be worth it to see Putin go just so the boogeyman is no more. First it's "look at the meat waves, they've run out of tanks, taking washing machines for parts" but it's also paratrooper are landing in Paris and London and red super tanks are moving on Berlin. Let Europe have its united military to deal with their monsters. The US had bigger fish to fry and they're to the west.

This may be a provocative answer:
If it wasn't for NATO allies, your forces would still be chasing that last oil tanker through the Denmark Strait (assuming of course that they could even find it, and reach it from bases on the US mainland).

That only reinforces what I just posted about NATO. "Strength in numbers" … "Peace thru strength".

But then… we wouldn't be chasing it, yes? We were chasing it to prevent Russia from selling oil that's under sanction…so…

Bingo !!!

The US is doing a lot, much to the chagrin, upset, etc. of members of Congress, the UN, some NATO members, our enemies, etc. By the Maduro Raid. Not only were two major criminals/dictator captured & arrested. Along with that he was an ally with the Wests, enemies we know who they are.

But by getting Venezuela's oil and gas industry back online making it a productive functioning state again. Before Chavez and Maduro destroyed a thriving Capitalist Western nation. For their own greed for power and $$$$, etc. At a great cost to their nation, but also many the US and other free nations.

Of course to get Venezuela's infrastructure for their oil industry will cost the USA billions. But the US oil companies have been informed and will most likely make the investment when the time comes. Again this is a win-win for both the Venezuelan people, the US and even the world which depends on oil to do pretty much everything.

Fact:
Venezuela has some of the biggest oil reserves in the world. Plus a of lot minerals resources e.g. gold … The Spanish Conquistadores didn't it all centuries ago.

By getting Venezuela back to where it was 25 years ago. E.g. feeding its people, being a productive member of the world, free of Communists influence. Not longer being an FOB for the USA's, etc. enemies' operating in our own backyard. Plus being able to more effectively combat the drug trade. Albeit that will still be a challenge. But we have better tech now. We know where the cartels, gangs, etc. are …

By the US[and NATO] starting to interdict the oil going to the West's enemies. Will go to cutting a major class of supply. Which will affect Russia's war in Ukraine, Cuba's Communist threat to the US being only 90 miles off our coast, etc.

The POTUS just cancelled the second wave of attacks on Venezuela. As their gov't appears like it is playing ball. And will work with the US. With Maduro's reign of terror being ended. Albeit it appears now some high-level gov't and military officials are dragging their feet, etc. But again, this conversion may take a little time. The extremely successful raid was only a few days ago. Maduro and his wife are still settling into their cells for God's sake.

Also this raid demonstrated to others in South & Central America and even Mexico. The US can project it will/force a long way. With TLAMs, Drones, air strikes, etc. Hopefully they will understand, these narco-states could easily have their cartels, gangs, drug making and storage locations and even military and leadership "terminated with extreme prejudice" fairly easily. Without boots on the ground. Save for CIA, Spec Ops, etc. who have been there for a very long time anyway.

which I lived and breathed as a youngling Cold Warrior in my wayback days.

Yep, been there, did that … got the t-shirt(s). 👍👍

It's not animosity to the US, it would appear the Trump supporters are just as sensitive to when the President gets criticized as the President is.

Members here ignore that the UK, France and the Dutch conduct anti drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean. The UK conducts anti piracy, drug interdiction and freedom of navigation off the cost of africa and in the pacific.

Greenland hosts a US base so the US gets to project it's interests in a country and has been doing so for many years. The push to acquire Greenland is a more recent thing with no real rational other than a wish to exploit the resources as there is no current barrier to the US basing.
Claims of US security needs are nonsense as long as the US will uphold Article 5 it comes under NATO protection. Seems like that's a good reason to have NATO after all.

Kilt, no this animosity has been going on a lot longer than Trump. I read it during Bush II and on TMP during Biden, from those outside the U.S. (not all of you, but most that posted). (Tort and Legion, appreciate your views, but as SB said "You be one of us. 😉).

I have seen no one outside the U.S. take up SB's challenge.

I placed my rational and reasons earlier, which coincide with most of, but not of these.

"Unequal Burden-Sharing: Proponents argue that the U.S. spends disproportionately more on defense compared to its European allies, many of whom have not consistently met the voluntary target of spending 2% of their GDP on defense. This is often framed as U.S. taxpayers subsidizing European welfare states and national defense at the expense of domestic U.S. needs.

Outdated Mission: Some view NATO as a "Cold War relic" created to counter the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. They argue that the primary geopolitical threats of the 21st century have shifted to other areas like the North Pacific (China), cyber warfare, and climate change, making a North Atlantic-focused alliance less relevant to U.S. security priorities.

Strategic Autonomy and Entanglement: Withdrawing would allow the U.S. greater strategic unpredictability and free it from multilateral commitments and a cumbersome consensus-driven decision-making process, which some see as hindering rapid responses to modern threats. Some also believe the alliance entangles the U.S. in foreign conflicts that do not directly threaten the American homeland.

Encouraging European Self-Reliance: By leaving NATO, the U.S. would force Europe to develop its own robust defense capabilities and strategic autonomy, which some argue would lead to a more balanced and healthy global security landscape in the long run.

Domestic Focus: A withdrawal could free up military and financial resources to address domestic issues and prioritize the interests of the American people, rather than those of international partners."

I'd argue the same in the Pacific. We have to be able to make decisions when is the best time and place for us to get involved, if a conflict with China happens. Otherwise, do we full commit to a confrontation takes place over Taiwan if it happens? Fully commit our navy and Air Force's in that area, which is in China's backyard. Or confront them later in a place of our choosing, when they are at more of a disadvantage.

After 4 years plus of the Ukrainian War, I really question Russias ability to overrun Poland, yet alone all of Europe. At least short of nukes.

SB, that song had better not run through my head all day. lol

Baron Ismay said at the beginning of NATO that "The purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Soviet Union out, and the Germans down."

Well, now that Germany is one of the strongest members, at least the first two still apply.
Come on. Let's face it. The "purpose of NATO" is to preserve peace in Europe. By and large, with exceptions like the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine and Cyprus and… 🤔
Hah! You forgot about Cyprus, didn't you!

To some degree it's easy to get lost in the 2nd order issues, the primary thing the US gets is having Europe as an ally provides an external counter-balance to it's rivals – China and Russia – in the great power balance game. That's using Mearsheimer's realist theory. With Europe as an ally, no matter the uncertainties around Article 5, China and Russia have to consider Europe in the balance equation. Without NATO, and implicitly no successor alliance between Europe and the US, the US no longer has the Alliance as a strategic asset, and has to replace that external counter-balance with its own strategic resources. As for Europe, the presence of the US is a 'pacifier' so they don't go down the route of another disaster European war. In other words, Alliances matter beyond the bean counting of military contributions and defence budgets.

And, FWIW, Article 5 only says an attack on one is an attack on all. It does not specify how individual members will respond in support of the attacked country.

From a transactional viewpoint, there are questions of burden sharing, budgets, military contributions, etc. However, alliances have a win-win value that transcends the transactional. Just consider the value of the US as an ally in 1939 – according to Google it was ranked somewhere around 17th-19th in the world. It was small, under equipped and, arguably, undertrained. Yet, what country wouldn't want the US as an ally? What enemy wouldn't have to weigh the balance the tremendous potential of that alliance.

Russia has nukes, a security council veto, unlimited oil, and a political culture that has made it awful to live in or live next to for hundreds of years.

Also, NATO keeps the Germans, French, and British from fighting each other, which history tells us they would otherwise do.

Plus NATO is pretty handy every now and then when the US wants to fight someone and wants to make it look like a group effort. Remember when the Luftwaffe dropped their first bombs since WW2 on Afghanistan?

It's always okay to criticize America, and I think that's important. Jesus, Socrates, Thoreau, everyone agrees it's important to examine yourself. We allow collecting self-criticism here. That means we fight every war with one hand behind our backs. Every single war there are Americans protesting against it. There were union strikes during WW2! But America still wins because freedom and the ability to critique yourself are so very powerful. Do you think anyone was protesting the war in Nazi Germany? Or North Viet Nam? or anywhere else? In any other country once you're at war you shut up and get with the program.

So yeah, everyone criticizes the US, we essentially encourage it. They're all too delicate psychically to allow the same criticism of themselves. Well the French fight each other, but it's not the same.

So it's a little off-putting, to put it mildly, to pay for the defense of people who disrespect you, but thousands of years of history say that's the advantageous position.

Ok I will now play "devils advocate" and respond in the reverse of what so many overseas have said about us on TMP.

But can we trust the Europeans anymore? Especially with all those liberal socialist running their countries? Look how they acted toward us before Russia put the fear of God in them and invaded the Ukraine. They were not even paying their 2%!

😏

"Liberal socialists"!
OMG! And we allowed that???
Oh wait. We have California and New York City. Never mind.

The more countries are likely to respond in kind, the less chance of a nuclear first strike.
Unless you're living on a different planet, that's a good reason to have as many allies as you can get.

Can you trust the Europeans? Maybe – maybe not, but from a counter-balancing viewpoint, can the Chinese or Russians trust that they won't support the US?

Don't forget the US does have the option to force the issue by pushing Europe into the arms of Russia, China or both. Then you don't have a trust issue anymore.

"with all those liberal socialist running their countries"

Really? Really? Come on! Do we in US-allied countries need to have the same level of social benefits preferred by US Republicans to be seen as reliable allies? It comes up often enough on TMP, but, personally I find it a tiresome line of discussion. (Equally tiresome, in my view, are the reverse – comments by non-Americans on US social programs.)

"Look how they acted toward us before Russia"

There was a time – and certainly when I left NATO in 2003 that everyone, including the US saw Russia as a partner. Afterall, Russia did support the US after Sept 11/2001. Sometimes it takes a shock for institutions to change course. And, sometimes, they've already started changing course before it becomes apparent. Don't forget 2008 had a big effect on many things, including national budgets.

But, 'devil's advocate' away. However, the opinion of not wanting the US to stay NATO isn't exactly a rare species here. So, it's not that much of a devil's advocate, is it?

It seems that Russian propaganda bots are doing an effective job in some parts of the USA

In a nuclear armed world no big power conflict has occurred courtesy in large part to NATO and Article 5.

If it works, why fix it?

Shadoe01,

I was just responding with what I have read them say about the U.S. on TMP previously. "We can't trust the U.S. anymore", "it's an authoritarian regime"…

🙂

But the responses so far, have not convinced me of the advantages to us, that overweigh our commitments and risks.

Yes Europe had some nukes, but how many nukes does it take to end civilization?

Yes we have bases there. But if we don't believe Russia without nukes can threaten our homeland, do we really need them? Aren't we just insuring Europe and specifically, Eastern Europe's safety from Russian conventional excursions?

Do the Europeans really want (those that do) a U.S. led NATO, basically because after centuries of wars, especially the last two, they really don't trust each other? 🤔

I hate helping you guys but here are a couple:

There is the arms sales, which have increased significantly since Russia invaded the Ukraine. 😉 But a lot of that money goes to businesses leaders and stock owning politicians.

Sharing of technology and intel. But again not sure who gets the biggest benefit. I have to believe Europe gets the main of that sharing. Honestly from the European side, most of that technology coming back would be from Western Europe and probably a handful of countries there.

Thats all my help.

@shadoe01, appreciate your thoughtful and well-argued post, and I agree with the core point that alliances have strategic value beyond bean-counting, and that uncertainty itself can be deterrent.

Where I'd gently clarify (and slightly narrow) the argument is on the *counter-balance* point. Europe is clearly a meaningful external balance against *Russia*, but a much more indirect one against *China*. In Realist terms, NATO's value vis-à-vis China is less about Europe adding power in Asia and more about *freeing U.S. attention and resources* by stabilizing the European theater.

I'd also add that some of the umbrage we're seeing in Europe isn't just about specific policies — it's about *disruption of long-standing assumptions*. Post-1945 institutions are built on predictability: U.S. guarantees assumed to be permanent, unconditional, and unquestioned. When those assumptions are openly challenged, establishment actors react defensively because the *system itself* becomes negotiable. Thus the deranged response to Trumpian tone on Greenland, which also happily provides these weak leaders a distraction to focus attention on away from their failings.

That doesn't invalidate the alliance, but it does explain the tone. NATO's value isn't sentimental or cost-free; it's that it has been a relatively low-cost way to manage Russia, reduce uncertainty, and avoid worse strategic alternatives. The harder question — and the one driving current tension — is whether that bargain can adapt when predictability gives way to change.

@35thOVI,

"I was just responding with what I have read them say about the U.S. on TMP previously."

I'm not those people.

"But the responses so far, have not convinced me of the advantages to us, that overweigh our commitments and risks."

I know you're allergic to alliance – and I agree not all alliances are useful ones, but neither do they necessarily lead to a cascading serious of events like WWI.

I've mentioned the counter-balancing benefit. We have to keep in mind that defence planning isn't just for the 'now' or even '5 years hence' but has to be looked much further into the future. With that in mind consider the strategic context for the US is NATO were to dissolve tomorrow, then what in 5, 10, 15 or 25 years into the future?

Would other alliances remain?
What will be Russian influence in Europe given its energy resources?
Will the US be able to counter one superpower while confronting the other?
Will the US be able to maintain existing forward bases which currently give it a huge ability to project power?
What will happen in the Arctic – even if one assumes the US occupies Greenland?
What of Iceland, the UK and Norway?
Will Western and Central Europe be stable and how will the dissolution of NATO affect that?
What will diplomatic support will the US have?
Will a hostile (to the US) hegemon, in time, come to dominate Europe.
Plus, plus, plus…lots of more similar questions.

In this context NATO isn't a risk but, rather, its a valuable risk-management tool for the US. Once you start to look at this with some degree of political and military analysis, then NATO is the cheapest, safest, and most effective way for the U.S. to shape the world it lives in.

None of that doesn't mean that the US doesn't have legitimate grievances and that there should be better burden-sharing.

But, I don't expect any of that will convince. People don't change their minds easily.

@SBMinisguy,

Your question seems to come down to adaptability in response to change – that's a fair question. It's what I was a part of during the 1990s as a NATO defence planner (operations research analyst – primarily supporting land and amphibious defence requirements (5-10 years ahead). NATO was struggling to adapt to a world without the Soviet Union. For such a long-lived institution this will happen again and again.

There's always lots of emotion in the public statements and the media but the real work is in the background. Given that the threats have increased – not decreased since I left in 2003 – I suspect NATO will survive, but, if you're in a relationship you know – there'll be bumpy times.

I did serious looking at Greenland and the conclusion that Greenland will not become a US state or territory by either peaceful means or not. However, there will be increased defence initiatives (Denmark, NATO/US) and maybe something on resource extraction – the issue here is one of a very difficult and costly environment and the need for the indigenous population to be satisfied. (Greenland is nearly 90% indigenous with very much an indigenous worldview. Note currently Greenland has 100% control of its resources.)

Shadoe01

The "devils advocate" was not aimed at you. 🙂

Yours points are thoughtful and valid.

I'm not allergic to alliances. Wartime alliances are necessary. Even NATO was necessary when the Soviet Union existed and we were in a "Cold War".

But peace time alliances? Not a huge fan. They force you to go to war over Serbia and an assassination. For Poland, even though there was no way to save it.

Are there advantages? Sure, some. Do they outweigh the disadvantages and cost?

I think Eastern Europe would be better off with their own alliance, maybe headed up by Poland.

It's funny, still no Europeans advocating. Your profile says Canada. Of course many bask in the perceived safety of anonymity here on TMP. So who knows.

My profile says "Ireland". 🙄
Some may have figured out that it's not quite accurate.

I like to tell fibs here.

"I like to tell fibs here."

Why we don't take you seriously. 😉

@35thOVI,

"The "devils advocate" was not aimed at you."

No worries…it's not always clear who's the target – ouch!

"still no Europeans advocating"

I'm not sure how many Europeans frequent this forum given it is pretty much just English language. So, maybe no surprise there.

"But peace time alliances?"

Are we at peace? Some might argue the next war has started. It does seem that we might be at the start of a new cold war. What I'd argue is that we're in a transition period. I'm a physicist so I like the analogy of a phase shift from an old equilibrium (Cold War and the period up until very recently) to a new equilibrium that's not yet defined. In other terms the old global security architecture is dissolving and the new one has not yet taken shape. In such a period, an alliance like NATO can be a stabilizing influence. Dissolving NATO would definitely do the opposite.

FYI – what was US defence spending as a % of GDP in 1941? Answer = 5%.

"FYI – what was US defence spending as a % of GDP in 1941? Answer = 5%."

But we were part of no alliance in 41.

Check out 42 through 45.😉 interestingly to get an even comparison to the U.S. in 1941, look at Canada in 1938.

"In 1938, on the eve of the Second World War, Canada's military spending was approximately 1.5% of its gross domestic product (GDP)."

Canada in 1938 was NOT locked into the UK's military alliances. Just as the U.S. was in no alliances in 1941 (well until Dec 7th). In WW1 Canada was locked into the UK alliances.

US
Dropped to approximately 15% in 46 and 47.

"I'm not sure how many Europeans frequent this forum given it is pretty much just English language. So, maybe no surprise there."

Actually quite a few. You would be surprised. 🙂

Hah! You forgot about Cyprus, didn't you!

IIRC, the UN forces there keep the Turks and Greeks on each of their sides of the island.

Members here ignore that the UK, France and the Dutch conduct anti drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean. The UK conducts anti piracy, drug interdiction and freedom of navigation off the cost of africa and in the pacific.

Oh I think many are aware of those navies doing their part. They are part of NATO.

I think in the end the US will have a number of bases on Greenland. The US will come to an agreement with Greenland, and Denmark. US will bring in some business to mine, etc. With Greenland and possibly Denmark. All getting a big piece of the action in the long run. Improving all economies involved. And again, any US base there will improve the local economies. I think there just more discussion between all the parties to get this to work.

Also the US having a fairly large force there will let the Chicoms and Russians this in not your backyard. And the natural resources, ports, airfields, etc. belong to Greenland, Denmark and used by the USA.

I think in the end the US will have a number of bases on Greenland. The US will come to an agreement with Greenland, and Denmark. US will bring in some business to mine, etc. With Greenland and possibly Denmark. All getting a big piece of the action in the long run. Improving all economies involved. And again, any US base there will improve the local economies. I think there just more discussion between all the parties to get this to work.

I am planning to head to Alaska later this year (from Australia). I will have to submit all of my socials, including TMP, as part of my ESTA. I am sure the US government will use AI to examine all of my comments. I dont want to be like the poor lady who was deported because she forgot to list a reddit account she didnt use.

@35thOVI,

The 1941 5% defence expenditure wasn't meant as anything or to be compared to anything. And 1938 isn't the correct year as that was the 'peace in our time' year.

I was just curious as to US defence spending in the expectation of war.

From what I can quickly glean from internet – US defence as % of GDP

1938 1.2%
1939 1-1.4%
1940 1.7-2%
1941 5.1%
1942 figures vary from 17-20% to 31-37%
1943 to 1945 40+%

For Canada:
1938 1-1.5%
1939 Initial budget similar to 1938 but expenditure seems to be 12%
1940 7-8%
1941 22-25%
1942 32-35%
1943 38-40%
1944 40-43%
1945 25-30%

The Canadian was more resource extraction based, so one would expect smaller figures, but no doubt much of the extracted resources went to the US.

Anyway, pretty impressive mobilization of the economy by our two countries.

And none of that has anything to do with 'modern warfare'. Just interesting facts.

More Euro posturing – now the President of Germany is talking tough about Greenland. It's bizarre that they ARE MORE passionate and angry about this than they are about Ukraine…maybe if they'd expressed as much "resolve" about Ukraine, and stopped buying Russian oil, the war would end sooner, or never have started at all…

I am planning to head to Alaska later this year (from Australia). I will have to submit all of my socials, including TMP, as part of my ESTA. I am sure the US government will use AI to examine all of my comments. I dont want to be like the poor lady who was deported because she forgot to list a reddit account she didnt use.

Hyperbole ? Regardless don't forget to mention my name … 😎 Or stay in Oz …