US Exit from NATO?

[Jacob]

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260408-trump-to-discuss-leaving-nato-in-meeting-with-rutte-white-house

Washington (United States) (AFP) – US President Donald Trump will discuss the possibility of leaving NATO when he meets with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte on Wednesday, the White House said, accusing Washington's partners of "turning their back" on the American people.

[mongers]

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260408-trump-to-discuss-leaving-nato-in-meeting-with-rutte-white-house

Washington (United States) (AFP) – US President Donald Trump will discuss the possibility of leaving NATO when he meets with the alliance's chief Mark Rutte on Wednesday, the White House said, accusing Washington's partners of "turning their back" on the American people.

Whatever gives him the biggest rating* boost.



*viewership/attention.

[Valmy]

Pretty sure it is illegal for Donald Trump to do that unilaterally.

But Constitutions and treaties and just scraps of paper now. So why not? Saves the Canadians and the Europeans the pain of getting rid of us.

[crazy canuck]

I can hardly wait until Donald Trump gives NATO a two week ultimatum.

[Norgy]

I dunno, seems like just another bully tactic to extort something. The Donald operates more like a don than a president.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Don Trumpione 

[The Brain]

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

I don't see how the US fits into this.

[Tonitrus]

Pretty sure it is illegal for Donald Trump to do that unilaterally.

But Constitutions and treaties and just scraps of paper now. So why not? Saves the Canadians and the Europeans the pain of getting rid of us.

I know Congress passed that law limiting NATO withdrawl, but that just means Trump would do it anyway and start a court/legal fight.

And even if he lost all of that (which is actually questionable if he would)...the entire enforcement mechanisms of Article 5 requires the Executive branch (through the military) to act on it.  The President can simply decline to do so, and the result is the same.

[Sheilbh]

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

I don't see how the US fits into this.

Also slightly mad for an organisation that included Salazar's Portugal, various military coup regimes in Turkey and the Colonels' Greece. Was it maybe added later or amended?

[Tonitrus]

Like our own documents written with the hypocrisy of chattel slavery still around, perhaps it was meant to be aspirational. 

[Valmy]

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

I don't see how the US fits into this.

Also slightly mad for an organisation that included Salazar's Portugal, various military coup regimes in Turkey and the Colonels' Greece. Was it maybe added later or amended?

Nope. That was the original preamble to the original treaty in 1949. Though Turkey and Greece were not signatories yet.

[Sheilbh]

Like our own documents written with the hypocrisy of chattel slavery still around, perhaps it was meant to be aspirational. 

Yeah and I suppose that very Cold War meaning of "democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law" I feel like that language was used a lot in Latin America.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's true that Trump can't withdraw from NATO in a legal sense--in fact even before the newer law he likely couldn't.

But what he can do is simply exercise powers as Commander-in-Chief. He can order troops out of NATO countries, he can also simply make a very public proclamation "I will not adhere to Article 5 of NATO if any NATO members are attacked."

So sure, we'd still be "legally" in the organization, but that has no real meaning after that.

Although despite the general incomprehensible decline of the British Navy and Army, NATO would still mean risking war with two nuclear armed states, and 3 of the top defense spending countries.

If the rest of the alliance stays together, the combined armed forces of Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Poland and Italy is certainly stronger than Russia, the only real threat to the region.

[The Brain]

It's true that Trump can't withdraw from NATO in a legal sense--in fact even before the newer law he likely couldn't.

But what he can do is simply exercise powers as Commander-in-Chief. He can order troops out of NATO countries, he can also simply make a very public proclamation "I will not adhere to Article 5 of NATO if any NATO members are attacked."

So sure, we'd still be "legally" in the organization, but that has no real meaning after that.

Although despite the general incomprehensible decline of the British Navy and Army, NATO would still mean risking war with two nuclear armed states, and 3 of the top defense spending countries.

If the rest of the alliance stays together, the combined armed forces of Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Poland and Italy is certainly stronger than Russia, the only real threat to the region.

Exactly. I don't see why a US exit (they're already de facto out from an Article 5 perspective) would mean the end of NATO. The NATO treaty only mentions the US for some admin.

[Jacob]

Exactly. I don't see why a US exit (they're already de facto out from an Article 5 perspective) would mean the end of NATO. The NATO treaty only mentions the US for some admin.

Good point. I changed the thread title.