[arw0n]

Since everyone here seems to love to argue in (naive) realist terms, here's some food for thought:

Outside of values, China and Europe have very few conflicting geopolitical goals. Core interests don't clash outside of Europe's conflict with Russia, and some rather minor disagreements in Africa. A Eurasian block with a weak Russia and a stable but balkanized Middle East would be very beneficial to both China and the EU. Even India could be largely integrated into that.

Even if the cost of NATO was higher than its immediate benefit, there is a very real risk of not only losing allies, but making new adversaries.

[anonnon]

Europe has already been exposed as a paper tiger. It won't divert funding from its social safety nets to re-arm, even in the face of Russian encroachment into their frontier, and it's too dependent on the American consumer market to go tit-for-tat on trade, and Europe's economy has been stagnant for a decade. Them aligning with China would give every impetuous for the US to align with Russia, on which one presidential candidate (Ramaswamy) already actively campaigned and various rightwing pundits, like Tucker Carlson, advocate (I don't). Also "Europe" will not unite against America; the US could easily win over Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and probably the UK (technically not Europe), and maybe more, if it so chose. Europe's hand is weak, and while the citizens may not realize it, the policymakers (judging by their actions) clearly do.

Admittedly, I don't know how to sunset NATO smoothly, but it ought to be done.

[Sammi]

Europe is bleeding out Russia in Ukraine while barely using much of their resources at all. Europe has revealed Russia as a paper tiger.