Can NATO Survive Without The U.S.?

[brokk]

Actually, US only pays 22% of the NATO budget ( link ) that is less than the contribution of France + Germany (24%), and they make up of about 38.2% of the NATO military. But, the US blackmails its will onto NATO using it as a tool to do its bidding and control which countries develop what (by providing cheap hand-me-down weapons and equipment, hosting defense equipment at various countries), while ignoring everyone else...

In theory it would probably survive and be better of to some degree.. but; in practice it is a relic, even with the US it is highly unlikely to survive the next decade if there isn't an all out war, without the US, considering that the UK, France, Germany will try to run it, it would also quickly go down the drain...when these countries begin showing their racist sides...

Interestingly, if the US goes, if Turkey goes from NATO, that would make for about 30% loss in budget, and 55% loss in troops.. I doubt that any EU country will provide the soldiers that are missing... so that would be some reason to get Ukraine in, Israel in... now would that Frankenstein survive? I hope not. But without that move NATO in this scenario would be a bunch of countries whose only weapon is economic embargo's and defense a stockpile of antique nukes, that are heavily outnumbered by their 'enemy'.

did we not have policy for one-liner threads here?
i mean the better version of this thread could be that

no one in europe comes nearly equal to russia or even the whole Europe combined can be over run by russian Army like an elephant on an ant hill
the only thing europe have is United states
if it was not for US europe would have been still suffering some wars
allies at every front were saved by US
US is the NATO . period

The US's capabilities have been exaggerated to science fiction, the fact is that they declared a war against a tiny country, and still haven't made headway the last 20+ years...

p.s. don't believe the US films on anything, it took 20 million Russian soldiers to obliterate the Nazi's

 

[Pax Ottomana]

Better question... How long will we TURKS pretend that NATO/The West is our "ally" when they're the ones who give weapons to terrorists (PKK/YPG) that murder our citizens and try to divide our country, and they're the ones who protect, harbor and aid the organization (FETO) that went so far as trying to overthrow Turkey's elected government with a deadly coup?

When will we all wake up and smell the coffee?

Times have changed. We don't have to completely abandon the West but we do have to adapt and form new alliances and partnerships, or we won't survive this century.

 

[ebrahym]

The US's capabilities have been exaggerated to science fiction, the fact is that they declared a war against a tiny country, and still haven't made headway the last 20+ years...

p.s. don't believe the US films on anything, it took 20 million Russian soldiers to obliterate the Nazi's

US capabilities have been exaggerated................. True
but the fact is they still are the most potent Military(well not military but Navy)
Russia despite its huge and insanely capable Army is unable to match US navy and US logistics

rest as you speak about their movie glory is nothing far from the truth

 

[brokk]

US capabilities have been exaggerated................. True
but the fact is they still are the most potent Military(well not military but Navy)
Russia despite its huge and insanely capable Army is unable to match US navy and US logistics

rest as you speak about their movie glory is nothing far from the truth

I would categorize today's Russia as a regional power with nukes. Sort of a "regional power ++", which has a very big Achilles heal, that works both as an advantage and as a disadvantage, and that is its size...

The US military, navy, air-force does very poorly when they don't have superiority in the air plus either on water or on land, and when they find themselves fighting against foe that is not weak in moral and in armament. The reality is that they've run out of money to fund their military.. which is why they are playing from far using chopsticks to control their puppets, gunning for colorful regime changes, springs, and what not..., sending small sized forces, pressuring allies to do the work for them.. the drone tech development has skyrocketed, as some pilot sitting happily in Germany, UK, or US flying with zero danger to this life to kill people in their zones of interest is cheap warfare in comparison to the alternative, usage of terrorists is another form of cheap warfare....

As for logistics, they depend heavily on allies, this includes providing safe harbor for them during their attacks on other countries... imagine a hypothetical warfare against an enemy that has over 1000 tanks,1000 planes and millions in soldiers, could the 100-500 or so military equipment make any dent against such a foe? I doubt it, as I always say, you cant run a watermill with just buckets of water... which is why the US will always fail against enemies that have a substantial amount of population and equipment..

 

[ebrahym]

I would categorize today's Russia as a regional power with nukes. Sort of a "regional power ++", which has a very big Achilles heal, that works both as an advantage and as a disadvantage, and that is its size...

The US military, navy, air-force does very poorly when they don't have superiority in the air plus either on water or on land, and when they find themselves fighting against foe that is not weak in moral and in armament. The reality is that they've run out of money to fund their military.. which is why they are playing from far using chopsticks to control their puppets, gunning for colorful regime changes, springs, and what not..., sending small sized forces, pressuring allies to do the work for them.. the drone tech development has skyrocketed, as some pilot sitting happily in Germany, UK, or US flying with zero danger to this life to kill people in their zones of interest is cheap warfare in comparison to the alternative, usage of terrorists is another form of cheap warfare....

As for logistics, they depend heavily on allies, this includes providing safe harbor for them during their attacks on other countries... imagine a hypothetical warfare against an enemy that has over 1000 tanks,1000 planes and millions in soldiers, could the 100-500 or so military equipment make any dent against such a foe? I doubt it, as I always say, you cant run a watermill with just buckets of water... which is why the US will always fail against enemies that have a substantial amount of population and equipment..

again nothing you describe is any far from truth
but the fact is US still has mind blowing logistics aka Allies
part because of strategic issues
part because of hollywood
they dominate culturally
about doing nothing against well equipped foe
we have seen it that the not only US but the biggest power of west does not come from their Army or courage or equipment
it comes from their unity in war
be it Serbia, Iraq or Afghanistan
the biggest backlash right now in syria is their disunity

 

[brokk]

again nothing you describe is any far from truth
but the fact is US still has mind blowing logistics aka Allies
part because of strategic issues
part because of hollywood
they dominate culturally
about doing nothing against well equipped foe
we have seen it that the not only US but the biggest power of west does not come from their Army or courage or equipment
it comes from their unity in war
be it Serbia, Iraq or Afghanistan
the biggest backlash right now in syria is their disunity

Syria, Arab Springs, Ukraine, Egypt are mere repeats of what played out in Yugoslavia, and that was in the middle of Europe right next to these allied countries, who couldn't even unite to do jack sh@t about it for how long?

lol.