Should US Leave NATO???

[Renegade7]

Been thinking about this and occasionally look for articles when its brought up.  I can post two opposing viewpoints from the same source with excepts that got my attention:

 

Yes:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/the-united-states-should_b_11762584.html

 

Quote

In leaving NATO, the United States would dramatically lessen tensions or conflicts with Russia and strengthen our security against external aggression. Among other things, the stage would be set for a new treaty to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the two countries.

 

No: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-hardt-trump-nato_us_5b4c9dfde4b022fdcc5b89d6

 

Quote

Russia did intervene in Georgia and in Ukraine ― two states seeking NATO membership. These actions suggest that Putin perceives Article 5 as a credible commitment by allies to defend its eastern border.

 

 

A lot of times when I see this come up, it feels like the next logical step is for NATO to disband, a worst case scenario as then nations that rely on nuclear members for that umbrella may want to get their own to be safe.  That's a helluva leap to say that would be inevitable, especially given how Europe feels about Russia and now feels about Trump.  I had to look around for what happened between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Putin, because I didn't understand why the reset button that I keep hearing about wasn't pressed then.

 

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

 

Quote

Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall NATO's eastward march as a matter of self-defense.

 

The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. Although what the documents reveal isn't enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isn't entirely fair. Europe's stability may depend just as much on the West's willingness to reassure Russia about NATO's limits as on deterring Moscow's adventurism.

 

This I had heard about and made sense.  It's not to justify the actions of an authoritarian, this was before Putin came to power.  Putin coming to power was a direct reaction to us breaking this promise.  Putin is our own fault, and we have a history of creating Putin's as a result of own screw ups regarding our own self-interests.  But the reality is the only reset button possible with Russia is to re-address this promise.  There is no way we can normalize and deescalate relations with that country if every former soviet republic on their Eastern border is a NATO nation running drills to protect themselves against them, that's why Ukraine was basically the last straw for Russia.  We may not be friends, but if there's a chance we can not be enemies and be able to help focus on more common good for the species like space colonization, counterterrorism, and addressing our nuclear arsenals, I'm not sure how else we can do that the way we need to if we have our guns pointed at each other.

 

As for our relationship with NATO, leaving doesn't mean we turn our back on them. There are a lot of military relationships we need to re-evaluate, while at the same time continuing to be able to keep lines of communication open for all the same issues we already do, especially counter-terrorism.  I guess it does come back to "does Europe really need us" like when we started NATO?  As more countries on the continent start to elect right-wing governments that want to lean towards authoritarianism, how many of them do we really want to have military entanglements with then we already do?  How much of this is Putin trying to break up NATO versus wanting to take over Europe?  Will this or can any of this change if we allow NATO to be more a military alliance among European nations, along the echos of the EU military some on the continent are saying they should do now?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-army-angela-merkel-macron-germany-france-military-european-commission-juncker-a8633196.html

 

Quote

The French president made his call during a radio interview last week: “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.

“We will not protect the Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army.”

 

He added: “When I see President Trump announcing that he’s quitting a major disarmament treaty which was formed after the 1980s Euro-missile crisis that hit Europe, who is the main victim? Europe and its security.”

 

I think Canada should leave as well.  The bigger question is what do you do about the former Soviet states that are already NATO and EU members?  In a lot of ways, US leaving should be looked at as part of an agreement requiring Russia not to try to pick off nations from NATO out of concern they are still an adversary and wanting to exert further influence.  This is why I know a lot of you will say "no" because Putin wants a sphere of influence over the former soviet republics (especially the ones on its eastern boarder) and the current politics in Russia would undoubtedly lead them to becoming authoritarian as well.  But what they want after that seems really weird to explain and had to see it a couple times:

 

https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_what_does_russia_want_7297

 

The way that paper reads gives light not to a justification of Russia's actions (that's not on the table), but how to win them over with first looking ourselves in the mirror in what we are doing.  It talks about winning Putin over, I'm not sure how much of a pragmatist he really is (that's supposed to be his hallmark), but if we want a post-Putiin Russia that even if not westernerized isn't hostile to the west, this is where we start.

 

I can see this thread going a lot of different directions in regards to our role in the world now, which I'm more then happy to chime in on.  What I don't want to see is this to turn into another Trump thread, this is bigger then Trump.  There's a lot that we can still do with Europe after leaving in regards to staying on the same page. This is almost like Captain Kirk dealing with the Klingons in the movie "Undiscovered Country", in which the undiscovered country was the future.  At present, I can see a lot of people saying "no", and I don't blame you. 

 

Going forward, I think we have to re-evaluate our role as world police and I believe it starts with not having everything have to go through us to get done.  Regional conflicts should have regional solutions whenever possible, we should be providing backup regardless of being the sole superpower because we are constantly damned if we do damned if we don't when we step in or step out of the world's business.  This is something why I believe we should be more of a supportive role so we don't have to own it when it goes wrong, like what happened in Libya.

 

As always, I ask people to be open minded and respectful of other's opinions.  This is going to require a lot of serious looking in the mirror regarding our foreign policy of the last 80 years and what it could and should look like over the next 80.  This is a different world then the one our founding fathers made specific warnings about concerning our military entanglements, though history has shown examples of this going right and going wrong for previous super powers over and over and over again.  We should not ignore that any longer, we gotta talk about this.

 

I haven't voted yet because I want to talk about it first.  If I had to pick one, I'd say "yes", and open-minded to "not yet" as I'm starting the thread to help make up my mind.  Ya'll know me, I'm open to challenging conventional wisdom, do not jump to conclusions out of emotions.  If we can't have this conversation here, we probably can't have it anywhere.

 

[88Comrade2000]

Yes. Europe should form their own defense force. We can cooperate from time to time but Europe needs to take care of themselves.

 

We need to focus on Central and South America. We need to work with those countries to solve problems that affect both of us.

[twa]

Not yet, Nato is largely incapable at this time w/o us.

A European army could resolve some of those capabilities, but comes with complications of it's own.

I would love to focus elsewhere

[Going Commando]

Abso****inglutely not.

[Burgold]

The reality is that the world is interconnected. What happens in any corner of it ripples down to us. You see it in the stock market and the stock on the grocery store shelves. To pull out and isolate ourselves out of the world doesn't make sense. We need to strengthen our alliances both military and economic. Right now, we are weakening them and I fear what that's going to do to us in the long run.

 

More, we have seen that a Russia under Putin is interested in reclaiming its Soviet satellite states. We have to decide if that's in our interests. To give Russia a big victory, and the US leaving NATO would be something they've wanted for a very long time, would encourage them not only in the expansionist interests, but make them even more aggressive in their political manipulations re elections.

 

Outside of Russia, Trump has done everything in his power to chill American relations with the UK, France, Germany, etc. Does it really behoove us to make relations even worse? Leaving NATO isn't just tearing up a gym membership. It would create hostility and hard feelings. It'd have a ripple effect seen in any number of quarters. NATO has been part of a stable, largely beneficial relationship for more than a long time.

 

So, at the moment, not yet, but also, maybe not ever.

[Going Commando]

This thread is ****ing insane.  Reads like propaganda from a Russian troll factory.

[Going Commando]

Destabilizing the entire world to placate a tin pot dictator from regional power built on a house of cards is not only cowardly, but a disaster of a realpolitik move.  No credible American expert on geopolitics would advocate for leaving NATO.

 

And to say we caused Putin is a gross misunderstanding of Russian history, culture, politics, national identity, etc.  Russia always produces Putins.  Russia craves Putins.  Russia has a finite limit to the amount of territory they can realistically swallow up and control on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians.  Despite the BS their troll army slings, Russia will never be more than a regional power again.

[LD0506]

Even discussing it serves Putin's ends, he and his kleptocracy would absolutely benefit from the US leaving NATO, not just militarily but by injecting more white noise into international relations, ie. economics, banking oversight, etc.

 

You don't appease bullies, it only encourages worse behavior.

[PeterMP]

First, Putin isn't interested in protecting Russia.  Putin is interested in protecting the his and his friends money and lives.

 

Any argument that Putin is acting in the best interest of Russia as a state or the Russian people is badly flawed.  Putin does what he does it because it allows him to maintain power, which allows him to be wealthy and stay alive.

 

If Russia had a government that actually had the best interest of Russia as a state and the Russian people as its best interest, then us pulling out of NATO might make sense.

 

Second, the countries in Eastern Europe that joined NATO did so jor a reason, and it wasn't because Russia was behaving themselves.  The Chechen war was an important motivator of those countries seeking to join NATO.  I doubt, if it was promised, the western countries at the time expected the Russians to start a war to hold onto territories that were trying to break away.  Putin is very powerful in Russia by 1998, and Russia is already active in Chechenya trying to hold onto it as a territory after having fought a war there in the mid-1990s and by Aug, they've geared up for essentially a full war.

 

Poland and the like joined NATO in March 1999.  Russia was well on its way to what it was when those countries joined NATO and was already showing it would act aggressively to hold onto area it felt was important.

 

Original NATO expansion talk is happening at the same time the first Chechen war (mid to late 1990s).  Expansion doesn't happen for several years when Russia is gearing up for another "invasion" of Chechenya.

 

https://www.rferl.org/a/1080129.html

 

(Yeltsin was a corrupt incompetent alcoholic.  That he lost control isn't at all surprising.)

[TradeTheBeal!]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Abso****inglutely not.

 

As usual, Steve is right.

[PleaseBlitz]

Quote

In leaving NATO, the United States would dramatically lessen tensions or conflicts with Russia and strengthen our security against external aggression. Among other things, the stage would be set for a new treaty to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the two countries.

 

Not one word of this is true. 

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not one word of this is true. 

It might be true for twenty-four hours. Well, it might be true for twelve hours. Okay, for sixty minutes the world would be a better place... there's always a moment where the Coyote defies gravity above the chasm, holds the anvil, and thinks all well be well.

 

Then, comes the drop.

[Springfield]

I don’t like the idea of giving up our sphere of influence to other nations.  That would just allow Russia to claim power given up by us.

 

So no.  I vote that we shouldn’t leave NATO.

[Burgold]

23 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I don’t like the idea of giving up our sphere of influence to other nations.  That would just allow Russia to claim power given up by us.

 

So no.  I vote that we shouldn’t leave NATO.

Heck, even if it weren't Russia to fill the vacuum. I don't really want Germany or China to become the top voices either... though I fear we may be too late to stop their transition to top dog.

[Going Commando]

I want to see a rock solid commitment from the United States to preserve its alliances and stand with the Europeans forever.  These are our ideological brethren and we need to be supporting them.  We are the ones who hold the line on Democracy and Humanism:

 

Two other things I want to see:

- British re-engagement with the continent.

- Continued Franco-German leadership of the continent and a strengthening of political bonds between the two nations.

 

This is where Russian sabre rattling might actually end up being useful in the end--driving France and Germany closer together.

 

Or it could break German resolve and could end up pushing them into Moscow's sphere again.  A disastrous outcome that becomes far more likely if the United States continues down this **** ass bought-and-paid-for-by-Putin foreign policy of senseless isolationism that our disgracefully unfit and corrupt President has been flirting with.  I hope to God that our foreign policy establishment keeps him from committing such a catastrophic mistake.

[PeterMP]

I'll also point out in terms of a re-set, we tried after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  We poured billions of dollars into the Soviety Union and post-Soviet Russia.  Yeltsin even talked about Russia joining NATO and wasn't (quickly) re-buffed.  For a while, that really appeared to be on the table as an option.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/21/world/us-planning-1.5-billion-in-food-aid-to-soviet-peoples-through-moscow.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/04/05/yeltsin-gets-16-billion-in-us-aid/8f07ebfc-97bd-41aa-b93a-7c26cb495880/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d18a2e1520f

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html

 

The invasion of Chechenya in the mid-1990s significantly altered events, and then the 2nd invasion in the late 1990s (and the election of Putin) completely set things back.

 

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

This thread is ****ing insane.  Reads like propaganda from a Russian troll factory.

Specifically asked y'all not to react like that.  "Not yet" is an option, I'll be back later.

 

There's more then one link in the OP, including a major European organization's assessment of Putin's intentions in context.  Instead of cussing me out, just read it.

 

I'm going to vote "not yet", as I expected, most of y'all freaked thinking this was limited to Putin and Trump, this is bigger then Putin and Trump.  This is about what comes after Putin and Trump.

 

One of the biggest differences of being in NATO and not being in is Article 5, right now its not a choice for us or them if one of us is attacked.  Only time it was ever enacted was after 9/11.

 

You said you majored in history and brought up several times previous world powers and there ups and downs.  This isn't about appeasing anyone, this is big picture on what we're doing and how it will effect us in the future.  So we're having the talk, which I didn't expect to be pretty, but is not propaganda.

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Heck, even if it weren't Russia to fill the vacuum. I don't really want Germany or China to become the top voices either... though I fear we may be too late to stop their transition to top dog.

Really had a hard a time confirming that anyone wants the responsibility of filling our shoes on a global stage or wanting to commit the resources to do it.  That's what UN should be for, but few if anyone respects it.  

 

There's should be a middle ground between iaolationiam and world police because I really think it's unsustainable, that scares me more then most of the responses in this thread.

[PeterMP]

Reading, in an election in the fall of 1993, Yeltsin's party loses the parliament to a right-nationalist party.  Yeltsin tries to suspend the parliament to maintain power.

 

That election was probably where things really pivoted.

[Going Commando]

Look ahead to the next 100 years of foreign policy crises and the one that looms largest to me is potential Chinese-Russian conflict.  We get to a point where the Earth warms and China has a massive and cramped up and hungry population right on the doorstep of Siberia and there is very little influence that Europe and the US can exert over this area and thus you have a potential nuclear powder keg.  If anything, Russia should be looking to placate us to help protect them against Chinese growth and potential expansionism.

 

Russia is playing a really dumb game.  They've become a pariah state whose prosperity is 100% reliant on hydrocarbon energy exports.  They've got an illiberal and bifurcated society with a small, unhealthy population and massive regional rivals on their borders.  Their institutions of government are weak and would struggle to survive an economic or foreign policy crisis.  Peter is right that Putin's regime isn't governing in the national interest of Russia, they're a kleptocracy desperately trying to keep their power.

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Destabilizing the entire world to placate a tin pot dictator from regional power built on a house of cards is not only cowardly, but a disaster of a realpolitik move.  No credible American expert on geopolitics would advocate for leaving NATO.

 

And to say we caused Putin is a gross misunderstanding of Russian history, culture, politics, national identity, etc.  Russia always produces Putins.  Russia craves Putins.  Russia has a finite limit to the amount of territory they can realistically swallow up and control on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians.  Despite the BS their troll army slings, Russia will never be more than a regional power again.

 

That's one of the biggest points of the thread and why I started it.

[DogofWar1]

No.

 

NATO being without its strongest member is exactly what Russia wants.  Russia will whisper that oh if only the US left NATO we could all be friends....and then would immediately invade eastern Europe.

[Going Commando]

13 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

One of the biggest differences of being in NATO and not being in is Article 5, right now its not a choice for us or them if one of us is attacked.  Only time it was ever enacted was after 9/11.

 

It shouldn't be a choice.  That's what a military alliance is.  You know what started WWII?  A lack of British and French resolve to honor their alliance with Czechoslovakia.  They were committed to protecting Czechoslovakia, and when when the Sudetenland was occupied by the Germans, they weaseled out of their commitments because they weren't firm enough.  Germany knew they would.  This emboldened them and greatly expanded their military capacity and motivated their invasion of Poland.

 

Peace is ONLY sustainable through strength and a rock solid commitment to protect our European allies.  There can be no doubt about the consequences of an attack on any of our allies.  And our engagement on the continent keeps them united.  A united Europe means wars stay regional.  It's good for the entire human race.

22 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Specifically asked y'all not to react like that.  "Not yet" is an option, I'll be back later. 

 

BTW, you can't be sensitive about this.  If you post something that is not only crazy, but dangerous and mirrors the whataboutism, moral equivocation, and propaganda of our enemies, you're going to get a rough pushback.

[Burgold]

18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Really had a hard a time confirming that anyone wants the responsibility of filling our shoes on a global stage or wanting to commit the resources to do it.  That's what UN should be for, but few if anyone respects it.  

 

There's should be a middle ground between iaolationiam and world police because I really think it's unsustainable, that scares me more then most of the responses in this thread.

I don't know that a lot of people want to fill our shoes, but a ton of people want to be top dog. Now, what they do as top dog may look entirely different than what the US has tried to do, but the question is... will it be better or worse for us Will it be better or worse for the world? Will it be better or worse for the individual and their families in terms of safety, commerse, environment, etc.

 

The US has dropped a lot of balls. Do you want China calling the shots?

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

First, Putin isn't interested in protecting Russia.  Putin is interested in protecting the his and his friends money and lives.

 

Any argument that Putin is acting in the best interest of Russia as a state or the Russian people is badly flawed.  Putin does what he does it because it allows him to maintain power, which allows him to be wealthy and stay alive.

 

If Russia had a government that actually had the best interest of Russia as a state and the Russian people as its best interest, then us pulling out of NATO might make sense.

 

This was the post I was looking for.  It's impossible to take his intentiona for Russia seriously because at the same time hes trying to stay in power like a dictator.  The problem is I dont know if we can sanction Russia into a more moderate government like we did Iran, not when Putin is killing his political opponents.  What do you do?

 

Quote

Second, the countries in Eastern Europe that joined NATO did so jor a reason, and it wasn't because Russia was behaving themselves.  The Chechen war was an important motivator of those countries seeking to join NATO.  I doubt, if it was promised, the western countries at the time expected the Russians to start a war to hold onto territories that were trying to break away.  Putin is very powerful in Russia by 1998, and Russia is already active in Chechenya trying to hold onto it as a territory after having fought a war there in the mid-1990s and by Aug, they've geared up for essentially a full war.

 

Poland and the like joined NATO in March 1999.  Russia was well on its way to what it was when those countries joined NATO and was already showing it would act aggressively to hold onto area it felt was important.

 

Original NATO expansion talk is happening at the same time the first Chechen war (mid to late 1990s).  Expansion doesn't happen for several years when Russia is gearing up for another "invasion" of Chechenya.

 

https://www.rferl.org/a/1080129.html

 

(Yeltsin was a corrupt incompetent alcoholic.  That he lost control isn't at all surprising.)

 

Ya, I think Russia felt the line was officially crossed after former Soviet states started joining NATO in 2004.  I dont blame those countries for wanting protection at the time, but was joining NATO neccessary to get that?