102

NYT: Russian attack on NATO looms as Trump threatens to abandon alliance (euromaidanpress.com)

submitted 2 years ago by LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] letsgo@lemm.ee 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] obinice@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I'm the first to agree usually, USA Defaultism and such is a huge annoyance.

But, while the following is just one theory, it was plausible enough to give me pause, and consider that there may be avenues for things to go badly that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

This scenario doesn't include the USA leaving NATO but instead not responding to Article 5 if it's triggered in an unimportant backwater corner of NATO, so functionally it's the same kinda idea.

https://youtu.be/ZY7GPBSyONU

If nothing else, certainly food for thought!

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Absolutely I’d love to see Europe pay for its own defense and patrol the trade lanes that feed it.

Bring our guys home and stop wasting us tax dollars.

[-] Jallu@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago

So, according to your comment Europe is getting free (military) resources and/or money from the US with no agenda or gain for the US? It's like "The US (alone, for your clarification) against the World, we do things just to empower every other nation and everyone else".

Please, bring your guys home, then. Maybe the World would be better off.

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The US has been subsidizing Europe (and Japan) as a counterweight to the Soviet Union since the end of WW2. Bretton Woods established the modern world where the US opened its markets and guaranteed freedom of the seas to anyone that would join us against the USSR.

Globalism as we know it today did not exist prior to WW2. Nations traded and sourced resources from their colonial empire. The U.S. opened the world to trade by championing globalism guaranteeing safe trade lanes. In return we tied those countries to our security and stood them up to take on the USSR.

Fast forward 80 years and the Soviet Union is gone, Russia is weak and will probably disintegrate at the end of the war in the Ukraine. Most of Europe is aging faster than anytime in history and is dependent upon globalization to import energy and is far from independent, Germany relies on exports to power its economy, the U.S. does not.

The demographics in the U.S. are strong, we have a sizable millennial and Gen Z population to replace the boomers (something which Europe does not have). The U.S. is in the middle of the largest industrial build out in history and we produce all of our energy needs within North America. Why do we need Europe? They have no expanding market, Russia will pose no threat.

I prefer to give Ukraine everything they need to win their war and kneecap Russia and then pull out over the next 15 years and let the world do its thing without us.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

So... you want the USA to fall into decline.

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I’d love to see the thought process behind your statement. Please go on.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

When a nation relinquishes its influence outside its borders, that's not saving its strength. That's giving it up. Forever. That causes a power vacuum abroad which other powerful nations will instantly swoop in to grab for themselves.

Domestically, it's actually the same tactic capitalists used to loot corporations like JC Penny, Sears, etc. It's the same tactic that resulted in BREXIT. It's short-selling a nation in order to grab everything that isn't nailed down and run. It's those same people selling the idea of American isolationism.

[-] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Look I’m a numbers guy, ever since the end of the Cold War and especially since the end of the GWOT the US electorate has become more and more isolationist. Even Biden has been reluctant to involve the US military in directly in foreign wars.

I also dont mind intervention when it is in our interests. But much of our foreign policy is an echo of the Cold War which is no longer relevant.

The US lost a little over 7,000 lives and spent between 6.2 to 8 trillion on the GWOT… what benefits did we see besides scarring an entire generation and burning 8 trillion in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine how much sooner we could have achieved energy independence if we had invested that money in oil, gas and clean energy sources.

We now one of the largest exporter of oil in the world… why would we go back to the Mid East, why do we need to ensure anyone’s safety in that region. China is now the largest importer of oil from this region. In ten years when the US is done with building out our own industrial plant in NA and moving production to other countries, why would we continue to secure China’s access to that oil?

The US has 296 ships in active service, this is less than half of what we had during the Cold War. Yet we still patrol the world water ways while promising to aid Taiwan if they are invaded. We simply do not have the fleet size to maintain the mission tempo for all of these obligations. If you google ship readiness rates and deployment lengths you will see the damage this is causing our navy. I don’t see the political will to increase the size of the Navy to a level that would allow us to support those commitments. The current intervention off the coast of Yemen keeps trade lanes in the Red Sea open. This benefits Europe and China, but does very little for the US.

Let the world go to war, we can sell arms to countries at war and tip the scales in our favor. The best thing to happen to US foreign policy in the last 20 years was not the GWOT, it was Russia invading Ukraine.

We can sell or provide arms when it is in our interests. We can use our fleet and military to intervene when our interests are directly threatened. But we don’t need to guarantee other nations safety or economic security with our own blood and treasure.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Can't say I'm a numbers guy myself. I believe them, for sure. But I don't keep them around because I personally can't verify them properly.

I see where you're coming from. I'm not particularly pleased or impressed with my country either. But I know I don't want the isolationists in charge, getting their way, getting away with whatever they want. I want an America beholden to it's obligations abroad. I want us to do our best to be ethical leaders, not forfeit the ability to become so.

I don't know the solutions. Just wanted to make sure isolationists are aware that influence diminishes under such policies, and does not easily recover, if ever.

[-] tallricefarmer@sopuli.xyz 23 points 2 years ago

Didn't Congress just pass a law that a US president cannot pull the US out of NATO without an act of congress?

[-] Anti_Face_Weapon@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

If the US pulled out of NATO, Russia would not have the resources or ability to attack NATO.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 9 points 2 years ago

If usa leaves France and UK would probably nuke... Like France literally has the most aggressive first strike policy.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Can we stop talking like using nukes could somehow be reasonable. The thought of using a first strike nuke should be considered beyond outrageous and any leader that even remotely considers it should be ran far away from any position of authority.

Edit: understandable - reasonable

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 12 points 2 years ago

Nobody in their right mind considers it. It's just a global game of chicken, and some weird armchair strategists try to convince everyone that nuclear attacks are basically the first option on the table.

And I sometimes suspect, that this sentiment gets pushed by Russia (not created, but pushed), because the western fear of nuclear war is definitely an argument against delivering weapons. Especially here in Germany, literally every single new weapon system was considered to "cross a line", so Russia might attack if we send it.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago

If you attack EU, you die. That shall be rule.

First strike is the sharpest sword and the biggest shield.

Why would you need to understand something when that something already fucks up the whole world?

[-] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 17 points 2 years ago

The EU doesn't need nukes to defend itself from a Russian invasion. Ukraine got the West's hand-me-downs and has completely stalemated Russia with them for over a year. Russia's conventional forces are a paper tiger. The question is will Russia resort to nukes when the war goes sideways for them.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Russia will continue to soften up the EU, and the US with hybrid psyops warfare then take bits and pieces of real estate. It is working quit well now actually.

[-] letsgocrazy@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Depends how you consider "quite well" - the total collapse of Russia's military credbility, the insanely high casualty rate, the loss of material, for something that they were already allowed to use in Crimea, and a part of the Donbas?

I wouldn't call that "well" at all. Seems like a completely disaster.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Maybe reasonable would be a better word.

Once someone uses a nuke, everyone will, and then everyone's dead anyway.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago

Exactly! And thats what will happen if some idiot decided to attack EU.

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I understand the posturing. Attacking the EU needs to be presented as a terrible idea, but when people start talking about using nukes loosely, then the other side might also consider them fair game. I guess, in my opinion, using first strike nukes is never justified, and if the EU or anyone does it then they're no better than the aggressors. I would prefer we hold ourselves to higher standards instead of letting the bad actors bring us down to their level.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago

We are mostly talking about Russia, wich is the country that does nothing as much as threatening to nuke countries...

[-] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Yes and we shouldn't let them bring us down to their level. First strike is never justified, but second strike in response could be. They don't care about their people, so they probably want to goad others into nuking them. It would free them up to use theirs and claim it's justified. Let's not play into their hands.

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago

Nah, first strike is 100% justified if you attack EU.

[-] DrGeraintLLannfrancheta@nafo.army 0 points 2 years ago

@MrCookieRespect @School_Lunch but it's not. @anderspuck had a great video and vlexler a solid addendum how Russian aggression would occur. The biggest sword that putin has if Trump questions art 5 is indeed nuclear blackmail. That is imo the reason why the US has put nukes in RAF Lakenheath (UK has no tac nukes). But a big big big reminder: NATO is 99% posture and a 'promise:. It was never contested. Art. 5 is an' invitation to discuss', nothing more (sadly).

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 1 points 2 years ago

If you think that you are part of the problem.

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

usa is blocking france and uk?

[-] MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com 5 points 2 years ago

Not necessarily but since USA is the biggest singular part of nato everyone would discuss with them before doing something. Unless its a linear attack on France or UK directly, then they would strike, or if a first strike is committed on them, then they would retaliate if possible.