Considering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from now

I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.

The perfect excuse for the military industrial complex to move manufacturing overseas.
- So I'm going to say that the military industrial complex is already there, it would simply be a rapid expansion.
Multiple EU countries want to, but they also want to give stuff to Ukraine and it's difficult to do both.
If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help. But the same can't really be said if the US gets into a war. The rest of NATO needs to be able to hold the fort if the US were to get suddenly ....distracted in the Pacific
- If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help.
  How sure are you of that? Sure, if Russia marches towards the Atlantic Ocean, but if Russia decides to create a security buffer zone in Finland? Or the Baltic countries?
  NATO has only survived for as long because of the commitment of the US. Come January NATO is dead as well as a sovereign Ukraine.
- If Europe gets into a war, the US will side with Russia. Trump has been a Russian asset since the 80s, and it's clear that he gave Putin classified documents relating to American spies and informants during his last presidency when they suddenly started dying a few days after he met with Putin. And even more classified documents relating to American espionage against Russia than the ones he requested before that meeting were found in Mar a la Go.
- Are you fucking stupid? Which is the only country to ever invoke article 5? How many other countries listened to the call for this injust war?
The problem is that America has all the money.
- all the unhinged currency but also all the debt.
Cutting off American weapons manufacturers would tank the US economy. Please do it.

Good job to all of the fucks who stayed home because of Gaza, thinking that not voting and letting the GOP rise to power would actually help the situation.

Yeah, because Netanyahu's extreme right-wing policy was a problem with the US's left-wing party, right?

Millions of people stayed home. I really doubt Gaza was the reason for all of them.
- Urgh, even now before the votes are all in (this will take weeks to finalize) this election was the second biggest turnout since 1932. I hate living in this "post truth" world where everyone just goes off of feelings and emotions. People turned up, for trump.
My argument is what did the democrats have to lose for supporting Gaza/Palestinians? It's obvious not running a fully left facing candidate and campaign was a mistake.
We are mad at the wrong people. The reality of the situation is that the democrats can't win without the far left of the party. So why won't we extend an olive branch? If we get a next time, what are we going to do differently?! This is the reality. Either we wake up to that or keep losing. Pick one.
- Fuck the people who didnt vote based on gaza. They are even dumber than Maga hats. They help the candidate that is even worse for gaza win . No one should offer these people any branches. Fuck them. Treat them like the idiots they are just like we do with MAGA.
- I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Why can't we be mad the the DNC for shit strategy and be mad at the folks who stayed home?
Tbh, there’s a very dark part of me that makes me just want sit back, watch Gaza and the West Bank get fully reduced to rubble, and all the Palestinians getting put into woodchippers, and just smirk while saying “wow, good thing we dodged a Harris administration. Who knows what that would have meant for Palestine.”
- We know libs have been saying that for nearly a year.
- Oh look, "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" right here!
Fucking chat bots convinced enough dipshits to stay home that our country was taken by fascists. Humanity is doomed.
So you want me to reward holocaust Harris and genocide joe for not doing ANYTHING to stop it? No, I chose to teach them a lesson. Don't blame us. Blame the dems for not doing enough and putting a shit candidate.
- What lesson exactly? That if the ideal candidate isn't run, a subset of liberals will pick the worse of two options?
  All that does is teach the conservatives that if they can convince you that the democrat candidate fails you enough on a single issue, they effectively have your vote. Regardless of the conservative candidate's stance on that issue.
  You have made the choice to make the problem you care about profoundly worse because there wasn't a way to make it completely better. Have fun watching that play out as you intended I guess.
- No, I chose to teach them a lesson.
  The only lesson you taught them is that the general public wants more right-wing ideas. What you've done is teach trans, blacks, and other minorities a lesson, the lesson that they should be beaten and driven out of their country. You've taught that women should be submissive, treated like property, like they are in Saudi Arabia.
  Good job. I hope you reflect on your "lesson" in the next four years, as your right to vote is systematical dismantled.
- Gloating as the Palestinians receive news that help isn't coming is something that someone who cares more about their own image than a genocide would do.
- I'd rather lose my hearing than vision if those are the only two options, despite not actually wanting to lose neither - which is not an option.
- "Good job to all the fucks who repeated genocide wasn't that big of a deal lmao."
  "You lost. You should really shut the fuck up."
  I don't think anyone was saying that "genocide wasn't that big of a deal." What I repeatedly heard was people rightfully pointing out that the Gaza genocide would be much worse under a Trump presidency. Only bad-faith actors were twisting their words and pretending that that was condoning genocide. You fell for the propaganda... or you're one of the ones spreading it.
- Everybody lost this week. You just don’t realise it yet.
Yeah, that'll teach the do-nothing-dems!!1

It will just be renamed to No America Treaty Organization

Technically not... They'd still have Canada.
- Don’t you dare call us American! Next thing you know we’ll stop apologizing for everything and actually build a military with jets instead of snowmobiles!
- Rename it NUTO. No US Treaty Org.
- It's not the "no americas club," they're allowed 1

Thank fuck we didn’t give up our nukes in the UK.

What does that accomplish?
- Not a lot. The British weapons are reliant on US maintenance. Won't be credible for long if the US doesn't support them.
- Defense
- Putin won't invade you

Nato without USA is still bigger military than Russia.

But with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO
- It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.
- In the game of nukes you don’t really need many.
  You can destroy the world just so many times.
  The rest is just for showing who has it bigger (the arsenal)
- A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point
- But are we bringing nukes to a biological warfare... umm... party? Or hell, AI drones/nanobots?
Yep, and thankfully the EU has seen the way the US is going and started to react appropriately.

It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.

Next stage of russian ops will focus more heavily on splitting Europe now that UK and US have been severed off
- Straight out of Alexander Dugins book...
- It's death by a thousand cuts and nobody seems to care. Smh
Would be nice. Hungary tho 😤
- Hungary can join the Russian union state alongside Belarus.
PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA

NATO will be fine. They'll just have to up their game a bit militarily. If America wants to be insular and wrap a flag of isolationism around them, it'll hurt in the short term, but after four years of being more independent of Americas tit, its more than likely the US that will find itself less relevant globally.

Even before this, there was already rumblings, not just in China, but elsewhere, about ditching the american dollar standard and returning to the gold standard. That's just going to gain momentum as soon as Trump starts trying to wave his mushroom around.

I think that’s unlikely.

But I also thought Trump winning was unlikely,

So what do I know?

Hopefully the EU takes over. It has a lot more economic strength then NATO. Also the UK is strong as well, but that can be managed. Turkey does its own things anyway and I would not trust them. Norway and Iceland are not that important. Canada is going to go with the US anyway. The advantage is easier common funding for projects, due to the EU having more direct access to money. There are also a lot of the basics in the works already.

Norway and Iceland are crucial to European defense - what are you talking about?
Yeah, what is your reasoning behind that statement about Norway and Iceland?

Good.

NATO is a trash organization. It's basically Reich Lite.

It is the Fourth Reich

It isn't credible now. It likely won't exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.

The main point I was making is that Trump is almost certainly going to pull the US out of NATO altogether.
- If not attempt to destroy it outright in an attempt to extort it.
Doesn't all authority already lie with the USA? If we're going to be real, I mean. I'm sure France thinks otherwise but let's be real: NATO was always the "Uncle Sam will protect Europe from Russia"-treaty.
- France knows this, that's why it wasn't in NATO for most its history. This only changed when one of our president needed war crime buddies

Love the implication that the shitty imperialist anglo organization was ever credible.

Let’s just kick America out if need be.

No need, Republicans will leave it at the behest of their Russian handlers.

The biggest thing will be all those nato countries who can't do anything with their US weapons if the US says so.

If only there was a country in europe that had voiced this concern in the 50s, all of that could have been avoided... Oh wait.
That is only if they want to continue to buy new weapons, not if they intend to male weapons in Europe
- No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.

good?

No
- it's pretty good

NATO will kick us to the curb and rise to the challenge. We will need them one day and they will say no.

Wait ... NATO was credible now?

The Baltic states certainly think so. Their entire defense posture relies on it

Can NATO still mean something if the US leaves? I think so, but there is much soul searching to be done.

Sorta, but not really tbh. The US was always intrinsically backstopping the security side of things. Without us in it - and I mean this very seriously - it’s not really a credible threat to Russia or anyone else anymore.
- NATO article 5 will still have use in self defence, but obviously it will be way less impressive

For people outside NATO it hasn’t been credible for a long time now.

For people inside NATO its surprising how much credibility they have considering how much just straight terrorism they've carried out over the years. Defensive alliance my arse

NCD not beating the MIC bootlickers allegations

Let me get this straight, you're siding with the enemy occupation? If not, then why would you have a problem with a sovereign nation retaking their own country.
"A stay-behind operation is one where a country places secret operatives or organizations in its own territory, for use in case of a later enemy occupation. The stay-behind operatives would then form the basis of a resistance movement, and act as spies from behind enemy lines."
They leave spies in their own territory when being invaded in order to get their country back. How dare they‽

NATO hasn't been credible since they helped the US perpetrate a brutally violent colonialist pity party in Afghanistan.

4 years? Try 6 months from now.

Now watch red maga walk back on that too, like all of blue/red maga promises.

The only good thing that could've possibly come out of this, and it won't even happen.

I don't think NATO is in any danger. Trump has a very aggressive and bombastic style of negotiation. You saw this with NAFTA. Trump called it the worst agreement in the history of the world. But the USMCA is just NAFTA with a new acronym and now it's apparently the BEST trade agreement in the history if the world. Its the same with Trump and NATO. The Europeans are the worst freeloaders in the history of the universe...until they up their defense spending by half a percentage point to appease the Donald, and then NATO will be the best alliance ever. Typical bombastic bullshit.

🙏🙏🙏 here's hoping 🙏🙏🙏

NATO colonies deserve their freedom. They need a backbone to stop being US slaves, and Trump demeaning demand terms, is an opportunity for that backbone. It is categorically absurd that Russia threatens to invade current NATO members, and the idiocy of continuing a war on Russia needs to be more obvious to the colonies.

The fuck are you smoking bro
- Their comment reads like a bad MAGAcid trip
Tell this to an Estonian or a Pole or a Lithuanian and they'll punch you. You might not know this, but Russia has been working on a cassus belli (A reason for war) against all those countries. You can read national defense strategies on each of those countries to see what they are concerned about.
- It is so easy to make war necessary from fear. Your rulers get richer the more fear there is, and the CIA is welcome to ensure the right rulers stay, in addition to the direct US military occupation that controls Germany.
  There is zero possibility reality that Russia gains by occupying those countries. But like Ukraine, if fanatical hatred can be enhanced towards Russia, that can make a good CIA pawn sacrifice as your reward. The pure slavery, and the temptation to submit to harsher slavery as a plea for Trump to piss on you less is one path for those eastern colonies most consumed by hate.