[postingawayonhn]

NATO as has existed is already over. Nobody has any faith that the US will follow through on its Article 5 obligations.

[ozim]

The fun part - US is the only country that called Article 5.

[PartiallyTyped]

The clown in the oval office claimed we wouldn't help them. More Danish men died per capita in middle east because of article 5 than men from the US...

[gotts]

80+ countries to USA: "we want our money back, money spent on your war that shouldn't had happened in the first place"

[sovietmudkipz]

If that’s the case that “NATO as has existed is already over” then maybe it is wise for the USA to pull out. Maybe that’s the endgame for Europe? Europe defends Europe (or gets taken over by Russia I guess), and USA isn’t on the hook for its defense anymore.

[bad_haircut72]

Americans all have this attitude that theyre "on the hook" for everyone elses defence as if theyre the white knight defending the world against evil. Its more like the local mob tough guys who have been taking protection money for the last 40 years backed down when a rival gang finally decided to make a move

[jfengel]

America is pulling out. That is the only reason that NATO is ending.

[KaiserPro]

NATO is there to make sure that the dollar is the dominant trading currency.

NATO is the reason why saudis are trading in dollars.

NATO is the reason that the US has credible nuclear deterrents

NATO is why america doesn't need to have a physical colonial empire in europe (otherwise it'd need to subjugate cyprus, and somewhere like saaremaa, and that costs a shit tonne of money)

NATO isn't about playing for defence of europe, its about keeping the USSR and russia far enough away to keep trading routes open.

[JKCalhoun]

If Europe is taken over by Russia, you don't think the U.S. will be next?

[tim333]

I'd say it's on hold for four years till they get a new president. In the meanwhile I guess the other members will have to try to manage.

[AlecSchueler]

In 4 years another administration could come in but there's still damaged trust. If something happens in 5, 6 years from now and article 5 kicks in then even if the US comes to help what is there to say they won't suddenly pull out again 2 years into a war when Vance takes charge? The reliability is gone.

[jfengel]

But what about four years after that? It's just not a good idea to depend on someone who is aligned with your enemies, even intermittently.

[51Cards]

The US has burned trust well past 4 years. This has shown how the US political system enables this. Every 4 years they elect someone who has the power to just toss out everything the previous administration did or committed to. Every 4 years... and the US is so politically divided that it only takes a few percent of opinion change at each election to swing to the other party with polar opposite views. As a result, why would any other country now trust the US in any agreement? (not to mention the large number of agreements they have signed then just abandoned later) Four years is nothing time wise.. barely enough time to get an agreement fully implimented before the US can just say "Nah..." There will be significantly less trust for the US even beyond the Trump era.

[eigenspace]

It would be delusional to think that this can be patched up with a new president, or that any of America's former allies will be willing to wait around twirling their thumbs, hoping that the next time America flips a coin, it turns out better.

The relationship is over. Maybe in 4 years America can start making some initial steps towards patching things up, but even that seems increasingly unlikely at this point.

[scarface_74]

Why would another Republican President act any differently than Trump after they see how well that works? A majority of the US either doesn’t care about international affairs or they are actively isolationist.

[outer_web]

Ukraine is already quietly divisive in Congress. If Russia were to roll into Poland I could see a legislative declaration of war.

In any event, maybe NATO just needs go squeak by four years without an Article 5 invocation to be back to normal.

[jgilias]

With the current pace of how things are developing, we might not be able to squeak by four years.

[hackinthebochs]

Does anyone think a country not already involved in a nuclear war would willingly expose itself to being annihilated? NATO works best when all member states are stable, ideologically aligned, and its Article 5 resolve is untested. Here the uncertainty works in its favor. But when NATO expands past deep ideological alignment towards a maximal expansionist strategy, and openly courts states its rival signals as core security interests, NATO becomes something else entirely. When it became a tool for maximally isolating Russia, it undermined its own credibility as a unified security entity. There is a genuine question whether the US would go "all in" to defend eastern european states. The fact that we can credibly ask this question about a NATO member just shows how far it's gone from its initial ideals.

[robwwilliams]

We need to remember the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance and not forget that Ukraine was coaxed to give up its nuclear weapons in 1993 by a guarantee of territorial integrity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum