Who wins between the wildly incompetent, untrained, unmotivated and ill-equipped Russians and the largely imaginary NATO-sans-US forces? The drunken assclown Russians might run out of fuel before they can get to the Polish border (assuming they can find it), but IF they get there, will any Europeans show up to mount a credible resistance? When I think of the non-US NATO forces, I think of the song "But then I got high".
So, if we leave NATO...
4,233 Views |
48 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Got a Natty!
If Russia gets in a real war with other NATO countries without the US - I would assume if it got serious that these other NATO countries would go straight for Russias refineries and basically take their fuel away. Ukraine has been "nice" to a certain point on going after Russian refineries and crude transportation methods and storage
My guess is that in a clash between two large militaries that are poorly led at the General Staff level and have logistical reserves of little to none is that there would be a shockingly high and apparently unnecessary level of civilian casualties and destroyed infrastructure wherever there is an offensive. The arrival of an unopposed army in a major population center would be followed by a period of relative calm and confusion and then a lot of atrocities against civilians fir no apparent reason.
The reaction in Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states would be different. They have etched the lessons of the WW II and the Cold War occupation into their national memories. From the first shot fired, those countries would be 100% committed in an existential fight for survival.
The reaction in Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states would be different. They have etched the lessons of the WW II and the Cold War occupation into their national memories. From the first shot fired, those countries would be 100% committed in an existential fight for survival.
Very well said.
The same Europe that continued to do business with Russia while demanding the US send money to Ukraine? If they were committed they would have stopped buying from Russia immediately. They didn't and the Texans warhawks defended them
backintexas2013 said:
The same Europe that continued to do business with Russia while demanding the US send money to Ukraine? If they were committed they would have stopped buying from Russia immediately. They didn't and the Texans warhawks defended them
This. Crazy how people blind themselves just to sound smart or to root for team red/blue.
European leaders might be forced to act rationally and in the interests of their own countries/people if we withdraw from nato entirely (there is a one year period to do so which Trump can initiate).
Russia can't even take more than a sliver of Ukraine in 4+ years so I really don't get the fear mongering about them rolling across Europe at this point. The real invaders are the muslims, but our presence only allows the euro's to subsidize that more.
Europeans regularly try to vote for security and sanity (as we did in 2020 also, but was similarly stolen), but the EU rarely allows that to happen, whether in the UK, Benelux, Germany, Romania or Hungary. Nato is just a decorative body really, perhaps irrelevant at best, though clearly comprised of nations hostile to the American people.
Russia can't even take more than a sliver of Ukraine in 4+ years so I really don't get the fear mongering about them rolling across Europe at this point. The real invaders are the muslims, but our presence only allows the euro's to subsidize that more.
Europeans regularly try to vote for security and sanity (as we did in 2020 also, but was similarly stolen), but the EU rarely allows that to happen, whether in the UK, Benelux, Germany, Romania or Hungary. Nato is just a decorative body really, perhaps irrelevant at best, though clearly comprised of nations hostile to the American people.
NATO has some very real value to us regarding global force projection for us that lets us exercise substantial economic influence. Base access and logistics are important.
We definitely need to address the TERMS of the treaty, however. If we are carrying so much of the load, we should also have privileges, and our demands for aid should carry more weight.
We definitely need to address the TERMS of the treaty, however. If we are carrying so much of the load, we should also have privileges, and our demands for aid should carry more weight.
MouthBQ98 said:
NATIONAL has some very real balue to us regarding global force projection for us that lets us exercise substantial economic influence. Base access and logistics are important.
We definitely need to address the TERMS of the treaty, however. If we are carrying so much of the load, we should also have privileges.
Only when your "allies" grant you the ability to use them. And when you've reached that point, then the entire raison d'etre of NATO becomes moot.
nortex97 said:
European leaders might be forced to act rationally and in the interests of their own countries/people if we withdraw from nato entirely (there is a one year period to do so which Trump can initiate).
Russia can't even take more than a sliver of Ukraine in 4+ years so I really don't get the fear mongering about them rolling across Europe at this point. The real invaders are the muslims, but our presence only allows the euro's to subsidize that more.
Europeans regularly try to vote for security and sanity (as we did in 2020 also, but was similarly stolen), but the EU rarely allows that to happen, whether in the UK, Benelux, Germany, Romania or Hungary. Nato is just a decorative body really, perhaps irrelevant at best, though clearly comprised of nations hostile to the American people.
Russia has been bogged down in Ukraine for 4 years because of us. This goes entirely different if we don't feed the Ukes weapons the way we did. I don't know if 2022 Russia was capable of taking the continent but that's never been their goal so it's an irrelevant question. Their goal is the old Soviet borders that can actually be defended and I absolutely think 2022 Russia could have achieved that sans US support for Ukraine. Whatever failure of the Biden administration actually led to Russia invading, the decision to turn it into a proxy war by giving them largely old and obsolete weapons was a good one. The Russian army has exhausted itself trying to defeat our surplus munitions which has prevented a much bigger war in the long run.
I don't think Russia would go after Poland but I could see them blitzing Lithuania to connect Kaliningrad with mother Russia.
See my second paragraph
Poland is the Texas of Europe. Russia goes around and runs out of gas at Vienna
LOYAL AG said:nortex97 said:
European leaders might be forced to act rationally and in the interests of their own countries/people if we withdraw from nato entirely (there is a one year period to do so which Trump can initiate).
Russia can't even take more than a sliver of Ukraine in 4+ years so I really don't get the fear mongering about them rolling across Europe at this point. The real invaders are the muslims, but our presence only allows the euro's to subsidize that more.
Europeans regularly try to vote for security and sanity (as we did in 2020 also, but was similarly stolen), but the EU rarely allows that to happen, whether in the UK, Benelux, Germany, Romania or Hungary. Nato is just a decorative body really, perhaps irrelevant at best, though clearly comprised of nations hostile to the American people.
Russia has been bogged down in Ukraine for 4 years because of us. This goes entirely different if we don't feed the Ukes weapons the way we did. I don't know if 2022 Russia was capable of taking the continent but that's never been their goal so it's an irrelevant question. Their goal is the old Soviet borders that can actually be defended and I absolutely think 2022 Russia could have achieved that sans US support for Ukraine. Whatever failure of the Biden administration actually led to Russia invading, the decision to turn it into a proxy war by giving them largely old and obsolete weapons was a good one. The Russian army has exhausted itself trying to defeat our surplus munitions which has prevented a much bigger war in the long run.
Unfortunately, their real goal is Eurasian domination politically, per Aleksandr Dugin, who represents the ideological cabal led by Putin in Russia. They have long term imperialism as an ambition, not to restore the Soviet Union, but rather the Russian empire as a geographical entity, and to make it a hegemonic competitor to the USA.
Can they do it? No. Are they bent on trying? Yes. Think more like Eurasia vs The Anericas. They view the USA as their prime long term global prestige rival, China was an interim long term goal for subversion but as useful tool in the meantime to distract the USA, and recapture of domination of all the "Stans" and then dominance of Europe as closer term goals. That's why they have been relentless. Their ideological leadership is existentially as committed as someone like Adolph Hitler was.
Ulysses90 said:
My guess is that in a clash between two large militaries that are poorly led at the General Staff level and have logistical reserves of little to none is that there would be a shockingly high and apparently unnecessary level of civilian casualties and destroyed infrastructure wherever there is an offensive. The arrival of an unopposed army in a major population center would be followed by a period of relative calm and confusion and then a lot of atrocities against civilians fir no apparent reason.
The reaction in Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states would be different. They have etched the lessons of the WW II and the Cold War occupation into their national memories. From the first shot fired, those countries would be 100% committed in an existential fight for survival.
Agree with this. And I don't think Russia wants to tangle with the Finns so that northern route is likely off limits for Russia. If Russia somehow got through the Eastern European countries it might actually get easier for them though. Western Europe is fat, lazy, and without the gumption to defend itself considering their current, white guilt cultural suicide drive. There does seem to be some flickering flame of survival happening right now there but it may be too little too late.
Quote:
Russia can't even take more than a sliver of Ukraine in 4+ years so I really don't get the fear mongering about them rolling across Europe at this point. The real invaders are the muslims, but our presence only allows the euro's to subsidize that more.
Why would the US leaving NATO mean we wouldn't help Euros should the need arise? OP's premise is flawed. We would help the Euros as we always have but they need to do much more to strengthen their position instead of counting on us to dissuade aggression.
93MarineHorn said:
Why would the US leaving NATO mean we wouldn't help Euros should the need arise? OP's premise is flawed. We would help the Euros as we always have but they need to do much more to strengthen their position instead of counting on us to dissuade aggression.
Yes, I don't think Trump is abandoning Europe. People need to constantly remind themselves that in Trump's mind (right or wrong) he sees a business arrangement in NATO where the vast majority of the burden is born by us and to him that is simply unfair.
If we were to actually leave NATO, which I don't think would ever happen, we would still help Europe if it made strategic sense.
The bottom line is that if Europe wants to be a collective entity that can rival the US, as they claim to desire, then defense of that entity should be a critical component that is funded and valued. Unfortunately, it's not. It should be a logical position by anyone who is objective that Europe should take the lead in defending western ideology, values, and integrity on their continent and in their hemisphere. They have 100M more people than us and should easily be able to equal our GDP and support their own defense, if they desired.
And we should be that entity in the Western Hemisphere which we've largely abandoned until Trump came along. And in that arrangement we can still be close allies and help one another on a more equal cost sharing footing.
**** Europe! They're on their own now. We pull out and if an aggressor goes after them they can use their stay puff soft armies to try to stop in on their own. Of course they've already capitulated to islam without a shot being fired so they're cooked anyway.
ts5641 said:
**** Europe! They're on their own now. We pull out and if an aggressor goes after them they can use their stay puff soft armies to try to stop in on their own. Of course they've already capitulated to islam without a shot being fired so they're cooked anyway.
Now now, they still have key strategic allies, such as Canada.
This is the Canadian navy raising the trans flag on our warships. In the description they are adamant that "transphobia" will not be tolerated & could lead to a "criminal justice process". This is what Canada has come to. Our military threatening citizens to comply with ideology. pic.twitter.com/MNVNagR4EN
— jorgge 🇨🇦 (@gndr_atheist) April 3, 2026
And the issue in my mind is this; Canada is so weak, and critically right next to us in a strategically important position in CONUS, it really is more important that we protect it than Europe, and it really is just about a dichotomy as we can't do both.
Securing our own continent matters more than securing Europe, Japan, Hormuz, or even Hawaii.
— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) March 28, 2026
In the age of hypersonics and submarines, the northern routes matter most.
That means Canada & Alaska are not side theaters. They are MORE important than most of CONUS. https://t.co/Fa4EqPCNPq pic.twitter.com/IOne4mRSKS
Hear, hear. Securing and fortifying the Western Hemisphere should be our civic and military priority going forward.
I don't think we need to leave NATO altogether...
But, I think we should reward Spain, the UK, and Italy for their ****ty behavior with regard to our bases by moving them all out of their countries and to countries more in sync with the US, such as Poland, the Baltics, Czechia, etc.
Maybe some Morocco.
But, I think we should reward Spain, the UK, and Italy for their ****ty behavior with regard to our bases by moving them all out of their countries and to countries more in sync with the US, such as Poland, the Baltics, Czechia, etc.
Maybe some Morocco.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
23,258
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
NATO has some very real value to us regarding global force projection for us that lets us exercise substantial economic influence. Base access and logistics are important.
We definitely need to address the TERMS of the treaty, however. If we are carrying so much of the load, we should also have privileges, and our demands for aid should carry more weight.
What base access?
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
23,258
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
93MarineHorn said:
Why would the US leaving NATO mean we wouldn't help Euros should the need arise? OP's premise is flawed. We would help the Euros as we always have but they need to do much more to strengthen their position instead of counting on us to dissuade aggression.
I hope not one service member ever dies for Europe again.
**** them
I see no reason to stay in NATO. If we can't use our shared NATO bases to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, then what's the point of NATO for us? To only defend Europe from Russia but not defend America and the world from a nuclear Iran? No thanks!
After the way we were just treated by Starmer, Macron, and the Spanish socialist, I'm not 100% sure who I would be for in war of Russia against Spain, France and England!
After the way we were just treated by Starmer, Macron, and the Spanish socialist, I'm not 100% sure who I would be for in war of Russia against Spain, France and England!
The greatest danger and threat to our country is the elitist white male. And that's a fact.
The Chicken Ranch said:
The greatest danger and threat to our country is the elitist white female. And that's a fact.
Fifya
nato stands for Needs America to operate.
I've said it once Ill say it again. *****nato and their holy than thou morals. Only reason nato was around was becsuse of Russia and the fear of the eastern bloc nations. 80s are gone. Like one poster said, Russia cant even take Ukraine and its been 4 years. The real threat are the muslims and the European countries are doing zero about it.
Time to stop wasting billions of dollars on those ungrateful sons of b*tches, bring all of our Military gear and soldiers home and tell Europe to either man up or get bent. I for one could care less what happens to them, nato has been sucking on America's tits for to long and Im tired of protecting liberal karens.
I've said it once Ill say it again. *****nato and their holy than thou morals. Only reason nato was around was becsuse of Russia and the fear of the eastern bloc nations. 80s are gone. Like one poster said, Russia cant even take Ukraine and its been 4 years. The real threat are the muslims and the European countries are doing zero about it.
Time to stop wasting billions of dollars on those ungrateful sons of b*tches, bring all of our Military gear and soldiers home and tell Europe to either man up or get bent. I for one could care less what happens to them, nato has been sucking on America's tits for to long and Im tired of protecting liberal karens.
Can't decide if I want to be cute & cuddly, or go blow some sh*t up.
Decisions decisions.
Decisions decisions.
Quote:
Unfortunately, their real goal is Eurasian domination politically, per Aleksandr Dugin, who represents the ideological cabal led by Putin in Russia.
He's very popular among the fake America first grifter crowd.
Your reminder that Jack Posobiec is a Dugin fanboy and deleted the tweets below once they were discovered https://t.co/YskO4P2DSO pic.twitter.com/8tmMGvflex
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) April 3, 2026
I'm Gipper
Good lord.
"All the news that's fit to print" - Exhibit A
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Might as well start the planning to vacate NATO bases soon, as half of Europe will be sharia states within 20 years. Western Europe is suicidal and I see no point in trying to protect something that is bent on suicide. It would be interesting to know what the terms are on the US's acquisition of additional territory in Greenland. Would that agreement be invalidated if we chuck NATO? I would be surprised if Trump weren't already negotiating with some Easter Europe nations on developing joint bases.
I always wondered how most nations would be aligned against Israel in the end times, per the Bible.
It never occurred to me that Europe would allow itself to be taken over by Muslims.
It never occurred to me that Europe would allow itself to be taken over by Muslims.
Logos Stick said:
I always wondered how most nations would be aligned against Israel in the end times, per the Bible.
It never occurred to me that Europe would allow itself to be taken over by Muslims.
It's not the first time...
Featured Stories
See All
Jones aspires to join A&M's lineage of great defensive ends
by Olin Buchanan
14:22
1d ago
7.9k
Doubleheader sweep clinches second straight SEC series victory
by Richard Zane
Spring Football Snippets: Practice No. 8
by Olin Buchanan
13:35
1d ago
3.4k
Ford & Co. wins top-15 SEC series with UGA
by Kayla Gaither
47:54
1d ago
2.6k