Is the "Western Alliance" over? Is there a replacement for NATO?

Donald Trump's recent remarks are all over the airwaves this morning. Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills The US presidential hopeful says he would not protect any country failing to pay its bills. www.

bbc.com One can dispute what Trump actually said, but it has been plain that in the Republican Party, a distinct anti-European, anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian tendency has emerged, while Trump has put himself at its head. Trump almost pulled the US out of NATO in 2018, and that has been well reported.



Someone who worked for him, John Bolton, says that Trump decided to leave abandoning NATO for his second term. It is also widely reported that (while President) Trump hold a European leader "I would not come to your defence", if there was an attack from Russia. In reality, what Trump claims to have said, or not said, or what his real intentions are, (if any) are immaterial.

The sense among European leaders is that he, or the Party he leads, cannot be trusted into the future. His infantile admiration for Putin only adds to that. Trump vowed he’d ‘never’ help Europe if it’s attacked, top EU official says ‘By the way NATO is dead,’ the former (and potential future) US president added in private meeting.

www.politico.eu The "Western Alliance" has been more than just a military union - it includes a shared commitment to democracy, a cultural affinity, and extensive financial, industrial, business & trade relations.

But it is in the military relationship that would be the first to go. Western Europe would: Need to make up for deficiencies in tanks, jets and ships compared to Russia, that had formerly been part of NATO contingents. Need a nuclear deterrent to deter Russian nuclear blackmail.

France and/ or the UK might supply that. See the collapse of Ukraine into chaos, assuming a Republican President would cut off supplies, followed by the advance of the Russian army deep into the country. Europe would struggle to make up for US armaments, though at the moment its commitments (in total) to Ukraine equals that of the US A power vacuum in the Mediterranean, where the withdrawal of the US Navy would expose Israel, and render tenuous the American presence in the Middle East.

This is a massive military and diplomatic headache, with "headache" an understatement. By the way, NATO countries do not have to pay "dues". Could it be that Trump's mouthiness has provided a wedge-issue? Nikki Haley seems to think so .

The EU should be trying to form a military wing. Not all will be in favour but at the end of the day all members have a duty to defend a member who is attacked. I think Germany historically and even to some extent now is very reluctant to take the role of leader of Europe in the military field, despite being the largest economy and having 84 million people.

Scholz in my opinion is a vast improvement on Schroeder and Merkel. Merkel wouldnt have given Ukraine a helmet let alone a bullet. I think France is a problem too.

While they now are over the 2% of GDP on defence, most of this went on their nuclear deterrent. They have 2 in 5 of their electorate supporting Le Pen, whose party admitted receiving a €10 million loan from Russia. Russia has deeply corrupted the politics of Germany, France and in my opinion also the US especially the Republican party.

Maria Butina the spy and KGB honeytrap was photographed with many Republican politicians and Trump allowed her to return to Russia without getting Paul Whelan exchanged (a US and Irish citizen)., I am pessimistic about whether Germany would be willing - especially given its angst over its wartime past - to take the lead. Macron talks the talk but the problem is he has only given Ukraine €545 million, while Germany has spent €17bn .

France doesnt even come in the top 10 countries for aid to Ukraine. French nuclear plants provide 80% of French energy, and France is still buying uranium from Rosatom. France and Hungary have opposed sanctions on Rosatom.

Slovakia has a pro Russian Prime Minister. However, there is some evidence that so far, they are not blocking aid to Ukraine. Fico said he would not block private sales to Ukraine.

However he is pro Russian, but its also true that his coalition includes both a pro Russian Far Right party the SNS, and a pro-Europe and pro-Ukraine party called Hlas (Socialist party). I think the Foreign Minister is from Hlas. Macron has called for European "Strategic Autonomy".

That might suggest a desire for a European common defence more independent of the United States. Also today a Dutch minister is calling for a European Defence Ministry. Such ideas in the Dutch case may die if Geert Wilders and his PVV party leads the next Dutch government.

The Dutch coalition talks have hit a snag as Pieter Omzigt, who has differences with PVV over their policy of banning mosques and banning the Koran, has pulled out of talks. The reasons he did so are because of something I think is unrelated to do with government spending they are unhappy with I think (not sure the exact details). Poland is already spending around 4% on defence and has a target of 5% by 2030.

Obviously the ROI will step up and fill the gap left by the USA, one hint of the Rangers being deployed would send Putin running...

owedtojoy said: Donald Trump's recent remarks are all over the airwaves this morning. Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills The US presidential hopeful says he would not protect any country failing to pay its bills. www.

bbc.com One can dispute what Trump actually said, but it has been plain that in the Republican Party, a distinct anti-European, anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian tendency has emerged, while Trump has put himself at its head. Trump almost pulled the US out of NATO in 2018, and that has been well reported.

Someone who worked for him, John Bolton, says that Trump decided to leave abandoning NATO for his second term. It is also widely reported that (while President) Trump hold a European leader "I would not come to your defence", if there was an attack from Russia. In reality, what Trump claims to have said, or not said, or what his real intentions are, (if any) are immaterial.

The sense among European leaders is that he, or the Party he leads, cannot be trusted into the future. His infantile admiration for Putin only adds to that. Trump vowed he’d ‘never’ help Europe if it’s attacked, top EU official says ‘By the way NATO is dead,’ the former (and potential future) US president added in private meeting.

www.politico.eu The "Western Alliance" has been more than just a military union - it includes a shared commitment to democracy, a cultural affinity, and extensive financial, industrial, business & trade relations.

But it is in the military relationship that would be the first to go. Western Europe would: Need to make up for deficiencies in tanks, jets and ships compared to Russia, that had formerly been part of NATO contingents. Need a nuclear deterrent to deter Russian nuclear blackmail.

France and/ or the UK might supply that. See the collapse of Ukraine into chaos, assuming a Republican President would cut off supplies, followed by the advance of the Russian army deep into the country. Europe would struggle to make up for US armaments, though at the moment its commitments (in total) to Ukraine equals that of the US A power vacuum in the Mediterranean, where the withdrawal of the US Navy would expose Israel, and render tenuous the American presence in the Middle East.

This is a massive military and diplomatic headache, with "headache" an understatement. Click to expand..

. 2014 - O'Bummer and Crimea 2022 - Dementia Joe and the rest of Ukraine So you were writing what re ole Orangie being Putin's bootlicker? Funny how, when are supposed best pals, Mr. Shirtless On His Pony did nothing when ole Orangie was in power.

Lastly, re paying for NATO, again: Surely a Trump administration leaving NATO would drive another huge wedge between Blue and Red states? owedtojoy said: Donald Trump's recent remarks are all over the airwaves this morning. Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills The US presidential hopeful says he would not protect any country failing to pay its bills. www.

bbc.com One can dispute what Trump actually said, but it has been plain that in the Republican Party, a distinct anti-European, anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian tendency has emerged, while Trump has put himself at its head. Trump almost pulled the US out of NATO in 2018, and that has been well reported.

Someone who worked for him, John Bolton, says that Trump decided to leave abandoning NATO for his second term. It is also widely reported that (while President) Trump hold a European leader "I would not come to your defence", if there was an attack from Russia. In reality, what Trump claims to have said, or not said, or what his real intentions are, (if any) are immaterial.

The sense among European leaders is that he, or the Party he leads, cannot be trusted into the future. His infantile admiration for Putin only adds to that. Trump vowed he’d ‘never’ help Europe if it’s attacked, top EU official says ‘By the way NATO is dead,’ the former (and potential future) US president added in private meeting.

www.politico.eu The "Western Alliance" has been more than just a military union - it includes a shared commitment to democracy, a cultural affinity, and extensive financial, industrial, business & trade relations.

But it is in the military relationship that would be the first to go. Western Europe would: Need to make up for deficiencies in tanks, jets and ships compared to Russia, that had formerly been part of NATO contingents. Need a nuclear deterrent to deter Russian nuclear blackmail.

France and/ or the UK might supply that. See the collapse of Ukraine into chaos, assuming a Republican President would cut off supplies, followed by the advance of the Russian army deep into the country. Europe would struggle to make up for US armaments, though at the moment its commitments (in total) to Ukraine equals that of the US A power vacuum in the Mediterranean, where the withdrawal of the US Navy would expose Israel, and render tenuous the American presence in the Middle East.

This is a massive military and diplomatic headache, with "headache" an understatement. Click to expand..

. You are very gullible , what should a President say? , nah dont help pay for NATO, we will protect you anyway? You are falling for the 1st Dem hoax of 24 , Trump's comments were basically good negotiating with a bit of a dad joke attached and a bit like where Trump told Putin he would nuke Moscow, Trump only needed him to believe it 10% It seems to me a myth that Trump is pro-Russian. He was shouting against nordstream 2 years ago, while the Germans sniggered at him.

I expect what Trump really wants is an American-dominated NATO, with Europeans forced to cough up ever-larger amounts for their defence. It may be that the Russians have more to fear from Trump than from Biden. silverharp said: You are very gullible , what should a President say? , nah dont help pay for NATO, we will protect you anyway? You are falling for the 1st Dem hoax of 24 , Trump's comments were basically good negotiating with a bit of a dad joke attached and a bit like where Trump told Putin he would nuke Moscow, Trump only need him to believe it 10% Click to expand.

.. That's why he encouraged Putin to attack Europeans.

Fvck off and dye your uniform brown. parentheses said: It seems to me a myth that Trump is pro-Russian. He was shouting against nordstream 2 years ago, while the Germans sniggered at him.

I expect what Trump really wants is an American-dominated NATO, with Europeans forced to cough up ever-larger amounts for their defence. It may be that the Russians have more to fear from Trump than from Biden. Click to expand.

.. See my reply to @silverharp .

.. Conor "Cruise" O'Brien once said that the very possibly the ultimate enemy Ulster Loyalists would face would not be Irish Republicanism but English Nationalism.

Similarly I think as regards people like the OP in Europe their ulitmate enemy may well turn out to be US "isolationism"- whether from the Right with people like Pat Buchannan and Ron Paul or from the Left with people like Jill Stein or Max Blumenthal. parentheses said: It seems to me a myth that Trump is pro-Russian. He was shouting against nordstream 2 years ago, while the Germans sniggered at him.

I expect what Trump really wants is an American-dominated NATO, with Europeans forced to cough up ever-larger amounts for their defence. It may be that the Russians have more to fear from Trump than from Biden. Click to expand.

.. Unlikely, although one variable that's often never factored into the mechanics of these discussions is the State Dept.

pen pushers - particularly neocons, who want American global primacy to continue uninterrupted. Most Geopolitical analysts (including Brzezinski when he lived) recognise that Russia could be a very useful ally in any pivot against China. Obviously that chicken has flown the coop; but I still think that American geopolitical interests are better served by pivoting on China.

Moreover, Putin has said that he's still open to negotiations. owedtojoy said: Donald Trump's recent remarks are all over the airwaves this morning. Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills The US presidential hopeful says he would not protect any country failing to pay its bills.

www.bbc.com One can dispute what Trump actually said, but it has been plain that in the Republican Party, a distinct anti-European, anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian tendency has emerged, while Trump has put himself at its head.

Trump almost pulled the US out of NATO in 2018, and that has been well reported. Someone who worked for him, John Bolton, says that Trump decided to leave abandoning NATO for his second term. It is also widely reported that (while President) Trump hold a European leader "I would not come to your defence", if there was an attack from Russia.

In reality, what Trump claims to have said, or not said, or what his real intentions are, (if any) are immaterial. The sense among European leaders is that he, or the Party he leads, cannot be trusted into the future. His infantile admiration for Putin only adds to that.

Trump vowed he’d ‘never’ help Europe if it’s attacked, top EU official says ‘By the way NATO is dead,’ the former (and potential future) US president added in private meeting. www.politico.

eu The "Western Alliance" has been more than just a military union - it includes a shared commitment to democracy, a cultural affinity, and extensive financial, industrial, business & trade relations. But it is in the military relationship that would be the first to go. Western Europe would: Need to make up for deficiencies in tanks, jets and ships compared to Russia, that had formerly been part of NATO contingents.

Need a nuclear deterrent to deter Russian nuclear blackmail. France and/ or the UK might supply that. See the collapse of Ukraine into chaos, assuming a Republican President would cut off supplies, followed by the advance of the Russian army deep into the country.

Europe would struggle to make up for US armaments, though at the moment its commitments (in total) to Ukraine equals that of the US A power vacuum in the Mediterranean, where the withdrawal of the US Navy would expose Israel, and render tenuous the American presence in the Middle East. This is a massive military and diplomatic headache, with "headache" an understatement. Click to expand.

.. You'd have to hope that it didn't take last night's Trumpian emission to get European leaders making contingency plans for a GOP victory.

Having said that, given the confused response to Ukraine, I'm not confident that they have been. As regards the UK, hopefully a new Lab govt will result in a rapid thaw in UK-EU relations and that may move some of these issues forward. Macron seems to have finally given up on his doomed triangulation with Putin and I think can be relied upon until he leaves power in 2027 (heaven knows what happens then).

Germany seems to be all over the place and has a very weak and unstable coalition. An alternative led by the CDU/CSU (notwithstanding the grim legacy of Merkel) would probably be more decisive and less hidebound by neutralist ideology. Thankfully Tusk is back in Poland and they seem to be under no illusions about their situation.

Italy and Spain - yeah 'power vacuum' is definitely the correct term. owedtojoy said: By the way, NATO countries do not have to pay "dues". Click to expand.

.. Uh, read his tweets.

He's not the guy that your type supports. https://twitter.com/Brian_Riedl Lastly: https://www.

nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm And so maybe you and Brian might want to call these "dues": All Allies contribute to funding NATO using an agreed cost share formula derived from the Gross National Income of member countries.

This is the principle of common funding and it demonstrates burden-sharing in action. NATO has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget (funding NATO Headquarters), the military budget (funding the NATO Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (funding military infrastructure and capabilities). And ole Orangie's point: In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness.

This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation. The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence .

This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance and has grown more pronounced since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defence spending. The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. However, this is not the amount that the United States contributes to the operational running of NATO, which is shared with all Allies according to the principle of common funding.

Moreover, US defence spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the Alliance relies on the United States for the provision of some essential capabilities, regarding for instance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electromagnetic warfare. And for you and the rear end in a top hat Brian: Germany walks back plan to meet NATO spending target on annual basis​ By Holger Hansen August 16, 20232:47 AM HST Updated 6 months ago Not just the US: NATO allies have criticised Berlin strongly in the past for not spending 2% of its gross domestic product on defence annually Germany talks up NATO spending pledge, fighter jet project​ BERLIN, Nov 10 (Reuters) - German government leaders on Friday pledged to raise regular budget outlays for defence to ensure Berlin meets its NATO spending target of 2% of economic output even after a special 100 billion euro ($106 billion) defence fund has been exhausted.

Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said Germany would incorporate higher spending into medium term financing plans. He was speaking a day after the government pledged to make the German military the "backbone" of European defence as part of a major policy shift to boost spending and modernise its forces following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Germany has for years been criticised for spending too little on defence, effectively relying on the United States to underpin its security despite being Europe's biggest economy.

Maybe you might stop with US Dem talking points. Lastly, at least Brian has one redeeming point, do you? https://x.com/Brian_Riedl/status/964259275022495752?s=20 Okay, maybe Brian has one more: https://x.

com/Brian_Riedl/status/1494400461289500683?s=20 Okay, he's got at least three: https://x.com/Brian_Riedl/status/1522376897782550531?s=20 midlander12 said: You'd have to hope that it didn't take last night's Trumpian emission to get European leaders making contingency plans for a GOP victory. Having said that, given the confused response to Ukraine, I'm not confident that they have been.

As regards the UK, hopefully a new Lab govt will result in a rapid thaw in UK-EU relations and that may move some of these issues forward. Macron seems to have finally given up on his doomed triangulation with Putin and I think can be relied upon until he leaves power in 2027 (heaven knows what happens then). Germany seems to be all over the place and has a very weak and unstable coalition.

An alternative led by the CDU/CSU (notwithstanding the grim legacy of Merkel) would probably be more decisive and less hidebound by neutralist ideology. Thankfully Tusk is back in Poland and they seem to be under no illusions about their situation. Italy and Spain - yeah 'power vacuum' is definitely the correct term.

Click to expand...

You can bet that within a number of years, Russia will be testing the resolve of the US and Europe, under a Republican or a Democratic President. Trump concentrates the mind because it may be that Europe will have to do it on its own. Or fail, and be dominated by Russia.

The presence of a now-sizeable pro-Russian party in the US makes that inevitable. You could replay the scenario in the Far East. Trump is already complaining that "Taiwan stole our chips business", which is the usual first move in the grievance-mongering that he carries on with.

He praises Xi and Kim without fail, while never praising any democratic leaders on the face of the earth. Trump's heart is with dictators and "strongmen". If NATO goes, it is hard to see AUKUS or any other US alliance surviving.

It is America First, after all. parentheses said: It may be that the Russians have more to fear from Trump than from Biden. Click to expand.

.. Balderdash.

He has taken every opportunity to praise Putain-''a genius'', ''how smart is that''-and denigrate Europe. The only European MAGA has any respect for is Orban and his bootlickers in congress and the media, Vance, Gosar, Navarro, Carlson, Bannon and trailertrash Taylor-Green chief among them never cease glorifying Putzin's war on ''woke'' and hurling contumely on President Zelensky. When not echoing Putin's lies about ''Nazis'' , corruption and biolabs, they're deriding Zelensky as a ''globalist'' or as a money launderer for Joe and Hunter Biden and it's clear they will never forgive him for spurning Trump's efforts to dig dirt on Biden.

Trump is totally in Putain's thrall; if he's not in awe of him as the kind of ''strongman'' he aspires to be, its clear Putzin has some hold over him. Does this look like a Putain who has anything to fear from Trump? owedtojoy said: You can bet that within a number of years, Russia will be testing the resolve of the US and Europe, under a Republican or a Democratic President. Trump concentrates the mind because it may be that Europe will have to do it on its own.

Or fail, and be dominated by Russia. The presence of a now-sizeable pro-Russian party in the US makes that inevitable. You could replay the scenario in the Far East.

Trump is already complaining that "Taiwan stole our chips business", which is the usual first move in the grievance-mongering that he carries on with. He praises Xi and Kim without fail, while never praising any democratic leaders on the face of the earth. Trump's heart is with dictators and "strongmen".

If NATO goes, it is hard to see AUKUS or any other US alliance surviving. It is America First, after all. Click to expand.

.. What? yobosayo said: Uh, read his tweets.

He's not the guy that your type supports. https://twitter.com/Brian_Riedl Lastly: https://www.

nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm And so maybe you and Brian might want to call these "dues": All Allies contribute to funding NATO using an agreed cost share formula derived from the Gross National Income of member countries.

This is the principle of common funding and it demonstrates burden-sharing in action. NATO has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget (funding NATO Headquarters), the military budget (funding the NATO Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (funding military infrastructure and capabilities) Click to expand..

. That is not the military budget..

That is the budget for the officials who run the Secretary-General's office and the staff at the centre, like salaries, offices, computers etc. It is the NATO Pentagon, if you like. Those contributions are not the issue.

NATO countries do NOT pay into a budget to run a NATO army, navy or air force. They do not pay "dues" to a treasurer to disburse on tanks, jets or warships. Each nations pays for its own military budget, and does its own miitary "thing" as part of a wider plan developed by NATO.

There is a commitment about their military budget, but it was never made a condition of entry. That Trump is so stupid not to know this after being explained it by the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of Defence for four years puts a massive question mark over his cognitive abilites to be President..