What exactly is the point of hoping for the US to stay when their contribution currently seems to boil down to blackmailing and threats of abandonment should shit really hit the fan? This sounds more like an abusive relationship than a defence treaty...
The hope is that this is just a temporary glitch and America will revert to what it has been for 250 years, for better or worse.
The Biden Administration, for instance, was viewed very favorably by NATO partners, and that was just two years ago.
1945 to date, not 250 years
Until WW2, USA was not a world power
The USA has been the largest economy in the world since 1870-1890. By 1913 they were more than twice the size of their nearest global rival. The USA has been a world power for a long time, they just used to be a bit more isolationist, they should go back to doing that.
America can't just go back to the way things were before Trump. Trump is a symptom of deeper systematic problems. If we try to pretend this all just goes away when he does, we're going to find ourselves right back in the same shit in a few years when the base latches on to the next psychopath.
Because, for decades prior, the US was the military of NATO. The US pumped massive percentages of its GDP into maintaining a standing military while most of NATO focused more on social programs with comparatively minimal military spending.
And threats like russia wouldn't attack out of fear of having to fight said militarized nation. Whereas now there is a very clear window where the nations that might stand up against them are rebuilding. "Fortunately" russia is stretched pretty far by a failed invasion of Ukraine but... go read the wikipedia article on how their previous invasions of Ukraine went.
Welp. The Internet as a whole is real broken. But Lemmy is very rapidly taking the cake for THE place where you can never discuss anything and the only responses are people who are incapable of having a conversation and are just angry that you didn't say what they wanted to hear.
Dead Internet Theory looking increasingly not that bad. Or, better yet, prioritizing different social media where people respond to each other rather than the voices in their own heads. Somehow... we managed to actually leap frog reddit on the way down?
You're right of course.
But two things I'd like to point out:
-
Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.
-
You're first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it. It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.
If you think we ‘happened’ to keep a large standing army just because we were defending Europe.
The plain fact is we didn’t even try and reap the peace dividends following the Cold War. We doubled down and found an excuse to pad the pockets of the MIC.
If we’d shrunk down instead of maintaining all this obsolete gear, it’d be easier to be proactive to changes in warfare like drones. We wouldn’t maintain fleets of fourth gen fighters and build out our fifth gen fleets.
You maintain military production capacity by having a strong civil industrial capability.
As we learned in WW2, it doesn’t take much to convert from making cars to making tanks.
Bonus side effect: prevents us from getting embroiled in nation building or getting after commercial wet dreams for regime change when it takes 2-3 years to build up a force.
The plain fact is we didn’t even try and reap the peace dividends following the Cold War.
The US did reap a peace dividend. Loads of storied US military supply companies had to close, because there were no longer infinite money for defense.
Let's remember that the US has been, by far, the richest country in the world since the world wars, largely because it stayed out of them til the ends, and issued massive loans to European countries that they continued to profit off of for decades and decades.
You talk about GDP percentage, as if every country had a similar GDP per capita, and could thus afford to spend similarly. The reality is that the US had more then enough money to both fund its military and fund its social programs, but it chose to instead fund the military and the already wealthy.
The Internet as a whole is real broken. But Lemmy is very rapidly taking the cake for THE place where you can never discuss anything and the only responses are people who are incapable of having a conversation and are just angry that you didn't say what they wanted to hear.
Did you expect a bunch of responses just agreeing with you? Allow me to placate that ego.
wow, so true!
I agree with your actual post, but the bitching that you're not just getting blind praise is wild.
Do you remember why NATO was founded, and why the biggest European country was mostly demilitarised, and forced to have its army limited?
Now we're going to have to do that to USA...
US also needs to remember that should it choose to leave it will also need to exit all it's European bases currently occupied under the pretext of NATO.
Good luck trying to expand your global empire of regime change without European bases and or airspace.
Maybe they will stay happy in their corner of the world torturing Cuba, Venezuela and fucking with Canada with a daily threat.
Don't let the doorknob hit their ass on the way out.
Worst case scenario is Russia tries to take advantage of the situation and gets curb stomped by a NATO that is roughly 30% weaker but still more than powerful enough to handle the paper tiger that Russia has proven itself to be.
Trump is dead within a year, guaranteed. The GOP will fall to infighting after the cult of personality ends, and when the next president wants to clean up his mess and rejoin NATO, they can be allowed back in without the bullshit VETO that they for some reason have. They can return as an equal, not as a boss.
I kinda hope Trump lives and runs in the 2028 GOP primaries—the GOP deserves it.
Baby Trump is furious.
The hope is Congress grows a pair
The hope is americans grow a pair.
No american NATO? I was calling for it way back when trump was doing the greenland threats
I called it after Helsinki 2018.
Trump is such a loser
My best breakups have been when I didn't wait for the best or right time to break up. Because once you are there, even if you wait, you know it's never going to be the right time; it will only fester and fester until your entirety is gradually dragged into an existential sepsis.
F-35 program needed to die anyway. Grossly expensive shared-production 'Fighter program as political tool' is overloading it to the point of making it useless. And if our adverseries learn how to systematically defeat it, we are left with an entirely useless coalition air force. Better to have diversity.
Diplomats say France wants to lead the mission, exclude America and bring in India and perhaps China.
Its best option, [probably someone else] says, would be to redouble efforts to build the European pillar of NATO. Perhaps that would convince Mr Trump that allies are willing to take up more of the burden. More probably, it would at least start to prepare them for the daunting task of taking over NATO if Mr Trump abandons it.
New bloc goes brrrr.
Also, no thanks to this guy, who's basically been supporting the complacency this whole time:
“I have spent the past five years telling people not to worry about Trump and NATO,” says one European diplomat in Washington, DC. “Now I am genuinely quite worried about Trump and NATO.”
At this point, I don't blame them for not WANTING to keep us
Yup. I'm from Poland and I am more worried that the US would pull us into WW3 than I am worried about Russia.
I hope America leaves, next 9/11 no one will be obliged to help them out.
No americas treaty organization.
No americas treaty organization.
Hey! What did we do? -- Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.
It's No Americas, they're allowed to have one.
Good. Hosting US bases just makes you a target.
Good. One less thing to worry about.
Let them go, with this leadership having them part of NATO when they ideologically oppse it only gives them power to damage it from within, it is clear tRump is more aligned with Putin, and that makes him an implicit threat to stability. Eject US based on their leadership under existing rules, or create new ones to do it, and tell them they can reapply when they get someone rational in power.
World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link