NATO would allow the US to go home; it’s more than strong enough. Though the US power would certainly be missed, especially since it was partly their idea to have friends against common enemies and stay safe.
The rules exist for very good reasons and are the cornerstones of what ensures NATO is a peace-keeping.defenaive pact, not a biased empirical-style alliance. Also, keep in mind that all countries of NATO are free to involve themselves in the Ukrainian War, they just cannot do so under the NATO banner. And if their homelands are attacked in retaliation, NATO will be less oblige as they fundamentally are anti-aggressor.
If Trump left NATO, the US actions will be remembered and it’s unlikely they’d get back in with the same powers.
Without the agreement of the US a lot of the weapon systems NATO members have cannot be used. That’s the downside of using common components and platforms throughout the alliance.
The weapons “cant be used” in the diplomatic sense, it not like the bombs phone up the pentegon to ask permission to be used. If we’re talking about the US ripping up all its commitments I think other countries might be less inclined to pay attention to those.
NATO would allow the US to go home; it’s more than strong enough. Though the US power would certainly be missed, especially since it was partly their idea to have friends against common enemies and stay safe.
The rules exist for very good reasons and are the cornerstones of what ensures NATO is a peace-keeping.defenaive pact, not a biased empirical-style alliance. Also, keep in mind that all countries of NATO are free to involve themselves in the Ukrainian War, they just cannot do so under the NATO banner. And if their homelands are attacked in retaliation, NATO will be less oblige as they fundamentally are anti-aggressor.
If Trump left NATO, the US actions will be remembered and it’s unlikely they’d get back in with the same powers.
Without the agreement of the US a lot of the weapon systems NATO members have cannot be used. That’s the downside of using common components and platforms throughout the alliance.
The weapons “cant be used” in the diplomatic sense, it not like the bombs phone up the pentegon to ask permission to be used. If we’re talking about the US ripping up all its commitments I think other countries might be less inclined to pay attention to those.
… which would cause Trump to cancel trade most certainly. I’m a citizen of a European Nato member and I don’t believe we can take that risk.
Probably yes, but if its at the point of European NATO having to fight directly that’s likely a second order consideration.
That’s literally the opposite purpose of having common munitions.
Yeah. We’ve learnt a lot from how countries have acted when we’ve tried giving weapons and munitions to Ukraine the last few years.
The Swedish Gripen airplanes are still not in Ukraine. It’s not due to Sweden or Ukraine …