CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

With the demise of the Soviet Union and the subsequent behavior of our allies (like buying pipelines full of gas from the enemy we are trying to protect them from), I'm challenged to understand how our automatic financial and military obligations driven by nato outweigh the alternative benefits of non-obligatory actions. It's pretty straightforward….why are better off to shackle ourselves to nato vs acting unshackled by obligations to nato.

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.

Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?

So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?

When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.

---

I don't believe I said that the United States should not be involved in NATO

Not sure how you inferred that

No, but we should contribute to assert ourselves within it. NATO has been much more often than not a provider of peace that prevented conflict or enabled the rare just conflict to be carried out in a way that shared the responsibility broadly. NATO greatly enhances US military power and reach which slows us to project power at a distance, often without ever having to actually use that power. It isn't without faults and problems, but I think it best to fix those instead of abandoning a defensive alliance that still benefits us despite its flaws.

Cut our funding to match our commitment.

NATO countries are supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defense spending. Calculate the GDP number, take 2%, set that as the defense budget for NATO.

Cut US spending to match the % of non-us defense spending as a % of budget.

So, if the defense budget is 2%, NATO allies spend 1%, then cut our NATO support by 50%. Keep it at that level until our partners meet their commitment.

"You have to pay your fair share" - Trump 2025

93MarineHorn said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.

Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?

So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?

When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.

---

Why is it only on the US to stand up to Putin. The EU could easily do it if they were forced to make it a priority. They don't because they know we're a sucker. They know our corrupt pols would love an endless, profitable war for their donors.

---

I think that a number of European countries are providing aid and assistance to the Ukraine.

93MarineHorn said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.

Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?

So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?

When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.

---

This is comical. Ukraine is NOT a NATO member. NATO doesn't "disappear" if the US leaves. Russia is mired in an almost 3 year long stalemate with Uke and you think they have the wherewithal to take over all of Ukraine, Poland, Moldova & Finland? Please.

Removing ourselves from NATO membership doesn't mean we don't respond to threats, we're just not legally obligated to. Also, you are making the point that the US should leave NATO if it will collapse when we do. It has become a one-sided deal and the US is on the wrong end. We get all the risks, most of the costs and none of the benefits.

---

Ukraine is holding Russia off and has been largely because of our support. Take that away, and Russia likely would have rolled them 2 years ago. The may have still gotten support from Europe, but probably nothing like they have because the Europeans know that we're protecting them and there's less risk to donating equipment and munitions. If we're not in the equation, Europe probably keeps its weapons and Ukraine folds.

Take us out of NATO and yes, those other countries are likely to fall because there's no way in hell we're directly responding. We didn't for Ukraine, so I don't see why we would anywhere else we're not obligated to. You also have a ton of "America First" sentiment here that's going to work to block any kind of intervention. If we're not in NATO, those countries are all on their own. Don't pretend like there's any other reality.

Staying with NATO is stupid recency bias. We've fought wars against

England twice
France once
Italy once
Germany twice
Spain once


We've also fought for Russia once.
Fought along side Russia once.


The entire NATO premise defend Europe from Russia is a grift to steal money from the respective citizens.

There's no reason why Europe including Russia and united states can't all be Allie's other than special interest groups make a TON of money continuing the "Cold War".

The only reason we ended up allied with Russia in WW2 was because Hitler crawfished on Stalin. Russia was no less rotten and but for Hitler's stupidity would have been our outright enemy from the jump instead of shortly after WW2 when Russia returned to its imperial pursuits. And apart from their economic vision, the mindset of present day Russian leaders aren't terribly far removed from those of the past.

There are precious few shared interests between the US and Russia, not to mention the rest of their BRICS allies.

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.

Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?

So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?

When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.

---

Europes GDP is 15x that of Russia and their population is 4x of Russia.

They can handle this if they want to. The problem is that they are maxing out Daddy's credit card as adults and don't want to lose that.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.

Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?

So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?

When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.

---

This is comical. Ukraine is NOT a NATO member. NATO doesn't "disappear" if the US leaves. Russia is mired in an almost 3 year long stalemate with Uke and you think they have the wherewithal to take over all of Ukraine, Poland, Moldova & Finland? Please.

Removing ourselves from NATO membership doesn't mean we don't respond to threats, we're just not legally obligated to. Also, you are making the point that the US should leave NATO if it will collapse when we do. It has become a one-sided deal and the US is on the wrong end. We get all the risks, most of the costs and none of the benefits.

---

Ukraine is holding Russia off and has been largely because of our support. Take that away, and Russia likely would have rolled them 2 years ago. The may have still gotten support from Europe, but probably nothing like they have because the Europeans know that we're protecting them and there's less risk to donating equipment and munitions. If we're not in the equation, Europe probably keeps its weapons and Ukraine folds.

Take us out of NATO and yes, those other countries are likely to fall because there's no way in hell we're directly responding. We didn't for Ukraine, so I don't see why we would anywhere else we're not obligated to. You also have a ton of "America First" sentiment here that's going to work to block any kind of intervention. If we're not in NATO, those countries are all on their own. Don't pretend like there's any other reality.

---

I reject the premise that the EU can't defend itself without massive assistance from the US. Why would those countries be on their own if the US left NATO? Wouldn't they still have all remaining NATO members?

Ukraine is not in NATO and they are receiving MASSIVE aid from the US primarily and others to a lesser extent. Claiming that the US leaving NATO leads to further Russian invasions seems to ignore the reality of how pathetic and depleted the Russian military is right now. It also erroneously assumes we wouldn't lift a finger because we're not in NATO. The massive aid to Ukraine suggests otherwise.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Nope!

NATO was established to counter the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact!

Those two entities no longer exist!

Most of the Warsaw Pact countries are now in NATO!

There is no longer a requirement for us to be a member of NATO!

The Europeans can handle their own problems with Ukraine and Russia!

That is the answer moving forward.

The format for which NATO was written was for economies devastated by WWII. The US did we will help defend you in exchange for no questioning US moves against the Soviets.

NATO in its current form needs to be demolished. The Ukraine War has exposed how poorly prepared most of Europe is to fight. A defense treaty needs to be written to included production mandates, troop/armor/aircraft #s and trade with US included. Its not the 1950s, the entire global calculus has changed and the treaty should be updated to reflect this.

GAC06 said:

---

No, we should not leave NATO. That's ridiculous. Now if enough countries flat out refuse to do their part, then we can talk about it.

---

Sooooo....we should talk about it?

Rossticus said:

---

The only reason we ended up allied with Russia in WW2 was because Hitler crawfished on Stalin. Russia was no less rotten and but for Hitler's stupidity would have been our outright enemy from the jump instead of shortly after WW2 when Russia returned to its imperial pursuits. And apart from their economic vision, the mindset of present day Russian leaders aren't terribly far removed from those of the past.

There are precious few shared interests between the US and Russia, not to mention the rest of their BRICS allies.

---

Russians are the 4th largest Christian nation. I think we have far more in common with the Russian people.

It's the communists and Bolsheviks and another special interest group that are the enemy.

We had the US army inside Russia fighting against the Bolsheviks. Americans died for Russia. Let's not be so hasty to paint with broad brushes. Like my first post in this thread. Much of the geopolitical ideology on who the bad and good guys are is just recency bias's.

That graphic is terrible. The bars are GDP $$, but the labels on the right are GDP %. It should be 2 charts, not that ugly amalgamation.

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

That graphic is terrible. The bars are GDP $$, but the labels on the right are GDP %. It should be 2 charts, not that ugly amalgamation.

---

I didnt make it, but I'll make sure to send them a strongly worded letter

Every graphic, for NATO defense spending, is shown as a percentage of GDP.

A trade where we withdraw over 10 years from Nato and Russia is offered membership would be a great deal. We need to focus our security spending on our own borders so that it is not so easy for the next treasonous democrat to facilitate millions invading us the next time one is elected.

If Russia accedes to nato after playing friendly for 10 years they will be too economically involved to pose a threat, and the other members will have had plenty of time to ramp up their own spending/tradecraft without our interference.

TRIDENT said:

---

Yes

---

No and hell no. Dumb idea and a knee jerk reaction to recent events Everyone wants to return to 1919 isolation, 'just cause its kool'. Sorry to tell you its a different world and has been for only 70 years.

Edit: I do think its absolutely fine to pressure Germany , Italy and the other slackers to get of their butts and contribute.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Russians are the 4th largest Christian nation. I think we have far more in common with the Russian people.

It's the communists and Bolsheviks and another special interest group that are the enemy.

We had the US army inside Russia fighting against the Bolsheviks. Americans died for Russia. Let's not be so hasty to paint with broad brushes. Like my first post in this thread. Much of the geopolitical ideology on who the bad and good guys are is just recency bias's.

---

The religious leader for the Russian church is also nothing more than a puppet for Putin. They had a lower % of people claiming Christianity than Ukraine.

Is Russia really somewhere that is close to the US? No freedom of the press, they are rapidly nationalizing private business, have a dictator, and just put in a law very similar to the article 58 law that existed under Stalin where any kind of negative remark against the government can send someone to jail. I'm always surprised when people who claim to be conservative seem to support the nationalizing on private business. Gun rights are also restricted there compared to the US.

They also have invaded or demanding land from most of their neighbors in the last 105 years, plus held eastern Europe under their boot for decades. When under their rule, they practiced the Russification or other cultures trying to wipe them out.

Logos Stick said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

---

Uh, Ukraine is not part of NATO.

---

I don't see where I ever said Ukraine was a member of NATO.

I said NATO provides Putin's only fear. If the US pulls out of NATO or even fails to pay more than their share then NATO dissolves. When NATO dissolves then Putin moves without fear and goes all in on Ukraine instead of half a$$ing it. Once Ukraine falls Poland and Moldova follow. Then he takes Finland to get their ports.

YouBet said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

Putin actually respects and slightly fears the whole NATO idea. He wants Ukraine as they will become an oil nation in the next few years and they are the path into Poland. He wants to develop the oil fields rather than give them to Exxon. His current border is a very difficult one to defend but by adding the western Ukrainian mountain ranges, he shores up that border and has easy access to Poland. So you take us out of NATO and expect those countries to fall fast. From there he will build the pipeline across Syria and shore up his resources for the next 25 years.

Taking Ukraine would also allow him to open the water supply to the Crimean peninsula and turn the crops back on. ALL Crimean water came from a single canal that the Ukrainians filled with concrete. Now it is trucked in. Putin steps in and it is rebuilt quickly. Do we want to help him do that?

So what is cheaper, foot more than our fair share of the NATO bill, or watch Putin rebuild the empire?

When would you want America to stand up to him? Do we let him have the Ukrainian oil fields and defensible border? Do we let him go into Poland followed by Moldova? Do we then let him step into Finland? Better answer this before you give up on NATO.

---

Europes GDP is 15x that of Russia and their population is 4x of Russia.

They can handle this if they want to. The problem is that they are maxing out Daddy's credit card as adults and don't want to lose that.

---

So much this

Quote:

---

I said NATO provides Putin's only fear. If the US pulls out of NATO or even fails to pay more than their share then NATO dissolves. When NATO dissolves then Putin moves without fear and goes all in on Ukraine instead of half a$$ing it. Once Ukraine falls Poland and Moldova follow. Then he takes Finland to get their ports.

---

This isn't true. Nato is not the EU, and can continue in our absence. Second, if it's defensive by nature, the best way to assuage Putin's fear (if true) would be to bring him into the organization. However, it has proudly proclaimed it is also a political organization now. This isn't a secret at all.

Reminder NATO’s major self-announced pivot is to interfere, more and more, in civilian political affairs, rather than strictly being a military alliance that must let the chips fall where they may in terms of what civilians vote for and decide https://t.co/Dt1amWN64x

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) November 27, 2024

The EU has however talked at length about establishing their own 'standing army' and drives programs that are fiscally adverse to total capability, so that they don't spend money on US weapons (see: their discussions about an A320-based maritime patrol aircraft, among many, many others). They don't want to spend on our systems, which is fine, but yet more reason we shouldn't be spending to defend them from some mythical Russian threat they don't even take seriously as evidenced by their spending priorities for the past 60 years.

Poland is spending real money buying US systems, fine, but the rest aren't, by and large, except where unavoidable. Let nato evolve further without us. It's a dinosaur due for extinction. Europe existed before the US, and it can exist without our subsidies or basing there again.

DCPD158 said:

---

NATO stay

UN leave

---

It's better to be in the room where decisions are made.

The compromise position here should be that we drop our spend to 1% or the smallest share of the total. I would be good with that.

But I would exit the UN and kick them out of NY.

Yeah, sure. Has nothing to do with the guy who's ruled Russia for the last 20 years and assassinated and imprisoned countless political rivals and dissidents. Putin is practically the second coming of Stalin, but it's the US that's bad. Guess we're going to ignore the whole Soviet communism thing, or maybe you're one of those that think it would have been successful is not for evil capitalism...

hoopla said:

---

Even if NATO allies don't "pay their fair share"?

---

only if ALL members do not put 2% of their GDP into the pot.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Yeah, sure. Has nothing to do with the guy who's ruled Russia for the last 20 years and assassinated and imprisoned countless political rivals and dissidents. Putin is practically the second coming of Stalin, but it's the US that's bad. Guess we're going to ignore the whole Soviet communism thing, or maybe you're one of those that think it would have been successful is not for evil capitalism...

---

When people saying something X is practically Y is a big red flag they are just making up stuff. Putin hasn't killed millions upon millions of his own people. He's nothing like Stalin. Doesn't mean he's a good guy. He can still be a bad guy. But your comparison is silly. And we shouldn't view an entire nation and people group via the lens of their one temporary leader.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

hoopla said:

---

Even if NATO allies don't "pay their fair share"?

---

only if ALL members do not put 2% of their GDP into the pot.

---

My issue with this is just why we care what they spend? I don't really give a crap what Denmark's budget is.

The underlying premise is that we need to protect Europe from itself, based on WW2. It's really insane, when you think about it. Why wouldn't we focus moreso on protecting South America from the Chinese and itself? Or minding our own business?

If Ukraine joins, the U.S. must leave.

Stop. Thats too much logic. The board can't handle anything other than Russia is worse enemy of all time forever.

nortex97 said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

hoopla said:

---

Even if NATO allies don't "pay their fair share"?

---

only if ALL members do not put 2% of their GDP into the pot.

---

My issue with this is just why we care what they spend? I don't really give a crap what Denmark's budget is.

The underlying premise is that we need to protect Europe from itself, based on WW2. It's really insane, when you think about it. Why wouldn't we focus moreso on protecting South America from the Chinese and itself? Or minding our own business?

---

NATO is a bureaucracy and bureaucracies do whatever they can to continue existing regardless of their original purpose and scope. Russia could disintegrate and NATO would simply rebrand itself and manufacture a boogeyman so as not to lose its funding.

Massive shame that Clinton squandered the opportunity to bring Russia into the fold.

But 2 percent of Luxembourg's (or Latvia or whatever) budget should determine whether we spend another trillion dollars basing folks in Europe over the next decade!

It's all so funny. Fend for yourself, bro's, that's how the world works and always has.

Couldn't agree more! Very well said