The NATO thread

[Clark Griswold]

"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”

Eisenhower in 1951

I saw this morning refusal to refuel USN ships from a Norwegian company 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/01/mike-lee-calls-for-exit-from-nato-after-norwegian-fuel-company-stops-refueling-u-s-military-ships/

I’m not sure the US doesn’t have interests in Europe or should not have some military commitments/alliances but perhaps NATO really has out lived its purpose, perhaps a more focused alliance of the US and perhaps the UK to the nations of Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltics, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Greece) is realistic and more in our interests.

A smaller very mission focused alliance (territorial sovereignty and nothing more) would be more manageable, sustainable and with this membership be more cohesive as these countries would not be at odds with the US in other areas (economics, political differences, strategic areas in other theaters, etc…)

Edited March 2 by Clark Griswold

[chase]

Although I see your point, what we really don’t want is a strong, militarily independent, near-peer Europe. I see NATO as a strategic tool to keep tabs on both the Europeans and Russia. We just got rid of Russia (basically for free compared to the cost of the Cold War), and thanks to our new friend Putin, we are finally getting NATO in shape (spending-wise).

You really don’t want Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway to join the instant sunshine club, do you?

Also, can we just remove political decision-makers from social media? Yes?

Official Statement:

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/statement-from-minister-of-defence-tore-o.-sandvik-on-recent-reports-concerning-naval-support/id3090130/

 

[Clark Griswold]

17 minutes ago, chase said:

Although I see your point, what we really don’t want is a strong, militarily independent, near-peer Europe. I see NATO as a strategic tool to keep tabs on both the Europeans and Russia. We just got rid of Russia (basically for free compared to the cost of the Cold War), and thanks to our new friend Putin, we are finally getting NATO in shape (spending-wise).

You really don’t want Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway to join the instant sunshine club, do you?

Also, can we just remove political decision-makers from social media? Yes?

Official Statement:

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/statement-from-minister-of-defence-tore-o.-sandvik-on-recent-reports-concerning-naval-support/id3090130/

 

Honestly I don’t fret about them going nuclear weapons capable, doubt they would target us and I doubt they would develop their own capability that would not be entirely regionally and tactically focused all on Russia.  It would be a strategic capability like Israel’s, relevant but small.

Theres just too many Swiss cheese holes to line up and inconsistency in our relationship.  They want to do business with Iran but still have us deter Russia and look the other way while we confront them in the ME, they offer vague maybes to supporting us in a Taiwan scenario but again demand not just a back but front stop every day against aggression.

Alliances are made for reasons and when those reasons change so should the alliances.

Whatever alliance Western Europe would form after a NATO dissolution would not necessarily be a for or frenemy by default.

[BashiChuni]

NATO lost its purpose a long time ago. i'm in favor of telling europe to go fuck off.

[blueingreen]

1 hour ago, chase said:

Although I see your point, what we really don’t want is a strong, militarily independent, near-peer Europe. I see NATO as a strategic tool to keep tabs on both the Europeans and Russia. We just got rid of Russia (basically for free compared to the cost of the Cold War), and thanks to our new friend Putin, we are finally getting NATO in shape (spending-wise).

You really don’t want Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway to join the instant sunshine club, do you?

Also, can we just remove political decision-makers from social media? Yes?

Official Statement:

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/statement-from-minister-of-defence-tore-o.-sandvik-on-recent-reports-concerning-naval-support/id3090130/

Americans often underestimate how much Europeans hate Russia. For the US., Russia is an adversary, but we’ve had some positive albeit brief moments that demonstrated the potential for amicable relations, like the Alaska Purchase in 1867, helping the White Army fight the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War, and allying again in WWII. For Europeans, it’s way deeper. Russia and Europe have been clashing for centuries, long before the US even existed—wars over historical territories and Soviet domination during the Cold War. Some historians like Robert Kaplan have even argued that America and Russia share a similar national spirit stemming from the historical origins of their national formation: Pioneers and settler-colonialists exploring and conquering vast swathes of uncharted lands on the edges of the known world, something he calls "continental powers". For Europeans, Russia is a historical oppressor. The hate runs a lot deeper over there. So in the event of some pan-European military alliance, I think we can safely say that Europe's hate for Russia is much stronger than their current frustrations with us.

Edited March 2 by blueingreen

[disgruntledemployee]

9 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

Americans often underestimate how much Europeans hate Russia. For the US., Russia is an adversary, but we’ve had some positive albeit brief moments that demonstrated the potential for amicable relations, like the Alaska Purchase in 1867 or helping the White Army fight the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War. For Europeans, it’s way deeper. Russia and Europe have been clashing for centuries, long before the US even existed—wars over historical territories and Soviet domination during the Cold War. Some historians like Robert Kaplan have even argued that America and Russia share a similar national spirit stemming from the historical origins of their national formation: Pioneers and settler-colonialists exploring and conquering vast swathes of uncharted lands on the edges of the known world, something he calls "continental powers". For Europeans, Russia is a historical oppressor. The hate runs a lot deeper over there. So in the event of some pan-European military alliance, I think we can safely say that Europe's hate for Russia is much stronger than their current frustrations with us.

Until the kids stop listening to the olds.  History is fading and replaced by SM dance routines and propaganda, IMO.  How many kids side with what should be the obvious wrong side in a situation?  50 Years ago, sure, the hate ran deep in EU.  Today, its probably shallowed out more than we think, and I wonder what it will look like in a generation or 2 when the kids are running things.

[blueingreen]

15 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Until the kids stop listening to the olds.  History is fading and replaced by SM dance routines and propaganda, IMO.  How many kids side with what should be the obvious wrong side in a situation?  50 Years ago, sure, the hate ran deep in EU.  Today, its probably shallowed out more than we think, and I wonder what it will look like in a generation or 2 when the kids are running things.

I can only speak to my own experience, but as a young guy who studied abroad in Europe as recently as 2022, I found that young Europeans hate Russia just as much, if not more than, previous generations. Some of the older Central and Eastern Europeans actually look at the Soviet era with rose-tinted glasses, which younger generations have no connection to or delusions about (except for the typical Marxist / Socialist acolytes you'll find at any university campus). My hope is that cooler heads prevail and we can find some middle ground between communist apologetics and starting WWIII with Russia.

[TreeA10]

I think Nato's biggest accomplishment is the interruption of wars between the various NATO countries that occurred every 20-50 years going back centuries.

[busdriver]

NATO's job: Keep the Russian out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

[gearhog]

 Starmer after giving Zelensky two whole billion dollars:

"The UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air. Together with others, Europe must do the heavy lifting. But, to support peace in our continent and to succeed, this effort must have strong US backing."

Looks like the rest of NATO is finally stepping up to the plate and opening that fat wallet. 😄

[BashiChuni]

ah yes the UK with their 40 main battle tanks must surely be striking fear in the russians! 😄

[SurelySerious]

ah yes the UK with their 40 main battle tanks must surely be striking fear in the russians!

Guess NATO isn’t such a big threat to Russia after all lol #excusetoinvade

[BashiChuni]

1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:

Guess NATO isn’t such a big threat to Russia after all lol #excusetoinvade

the british aren't! NATO backed up by the US is! good thing we have a president who isn't a fool and won't commit us to WW3! lol #UsefulIdiot

[SurelySerious]

the british aren't! NATO backed up by the US is! good thing we have a president who isn't a fool and won't commit us to WW3! lol #UsefulIdiot

That’s not how NATO works, but anyway.

[Clark Griswold]

The problem is NATO has morphed into Team America European Edition
America backing two different European mutual defense systems I think would work
The eastern project would have American forces deployed in each country as they face the greatest and closest threat.
The western project would have coordination, exercises and infrastructure to support reinforcing if the security situation warranted it
Bisecting our European security strategy would get unnecessary and recalcitrant cooks out of the kitchen, allow us to focus on the defense of those nations facing direct daily territorial aggression without having to convince 20+ other countries not facing that to do something about it.
I’m not talking trash about any of them but I find it hard to believe countries with low mil budgets and populations that seem indifferent at best to military service, actions would suddenly go all in for collective action.
I think America would be somewhat skeptical too but more likely to go


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeyEng]

19 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

ah yes the UK with their 40 main battle tanks must surely be striking fear in the russians! 😄

The British Army has more horses (for all the ceremonial duties) than tanks!

[dream big]

Having worked in that arena, NATO certainly has its issues. EUCOM forces do 90% of the work, to include NATO’s own staffing. Not even going to cover the can of worms that is the discrepancy between our military and financial contributions despite being 1/31 countries in the alliance. That said, there are strategic advantages to being an active part of the alliance - just wish it wasn’t so slanted.