US Exit from NATO?

[Norgy]

My take on this is that it's more intimidation tactics. Diplomacy seems to be limited to threats or slurs these days.

The Americans I know are very nice people, perhaps much more than Europeans are in general. That is why I have such problems understanding how nice people elect such a poor leader whose only tactic is that of a real estate developer in debt: Trying to scare the shit out of people to make a deal.

[The Brain]

Rutte has to go. And maybe next time don't put a MAGA guy in that role.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Rutte has to go. And maybe next time don't put a MAGA guy in that role.

Afaik, with Rutte one has to remember his words mean nothing. They're just wind and he'll pivot into whatever direction is required.

So in that regard he may be perfect to keep the thing on lifesupport until someone reasonable replaces the orange blob.

But that only works if the euros stop dawdling and build up that army. Ideally even reworking and streamlining the things so that they also get the benefits of scale.

That means some red lines will have to be crossed and 'holy houses' torn down.

In the mean time the optics of Rutte suck.

[The Brain]

Why would someone reasonable replace the orange blob? And even if it happens, you can't be allied to a country that is on and off constantly.

The US is a write-off as an ally.

[Maladict]

Rutte has to go. And maybe next time don't put a MAGA guy in that role.

Afaik, with Rutte one has to remember his words mean nothing. They're just wind and he'll pivot into whatever direction is required.

So in that regard he may be perfect to keep the thing on lifesupport until someone reasonable replaces the orange blob.

But that only works if the euros stop dawdling and build up that army. Ideally even reworking and streamlining the things so that they also get the benefits of scale.

That means some red lines will have to be crossed and 'holy houses' torn down.

In the mean time the optics of Rutte suck.

The optics suck, but he doesn't care about that. He's a human-shaped lubricant, which can be very effective in holding a coalition together. Just don't expect any kind of vision or long-term strategy.

[crazy canuck]

Why would someone reasonable replace the orange blob? And even if it happens, you can't be allied to a country that is on and off constantly.

The US is a write-off as an ally.

Yes, for the foreseeable future

[Duque de Bragança]

Cuba has less climate constraints.

True.  But there's all kind of tropical diseases to be caught in these climates.

I know modern medicines does wonders, with vaccines and all, but that's not in the current philosophy of this MAHA movement at the head of the US currently.  Drinking raw milk and running in the rain ain't gonna save you from every fever.

I suppose you could say as well that Greenland being a very cold climate is (much) healthier than a tropical climate, as long as you are prepared for the cold. 

[viper37]

Cuba has less climate constraints.

True.  But there's all kind of tropical diseases to be caught in these climates.

I know modern medicines does wonders, with vaccines and all, but that's not in the current philosophy of this MAHA movement at the head of the US currently.  Drinking raw milk and running in the rain ain't gonna save you from every fever.

I suppose you could say as well that Greenland being a very cold climate is (much) healthier than a tropical climate, as long as you are prepared for the cold. 

Yes.  As the Vikings explorers and their later colonizers have proven, the initial visits are alright, it's only the longer stay that is the problem

[Sheilbh]

Trump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.

We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?

Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.

Not just Tusk - all the Baltic leaders too have adopted a very similar position.

It's one of the reasons I'm less bullish about NATO's capacity without the US is that broadly speaking the leaders of countries close to Russia seem to be going out of their way to placate/work with Trump. I think there's a reason they're doing that and - as with the Polish and Baltic warnings about Russia for 25 years, dismissed by more sophisticated Chancelleries in the rest of Europe as slightly hysterical - I trust their strategic assessment of their neighbourhood.

The leaders taking a more strident stance towards Trump generally seem to be further away from Russia.

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.

We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?

Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.

Question Tusk and Europe should be asking is why Congress puts up with this.  As President, Trump has a duty to enforce the law, and that includes the NATO treaty.  His judicially made up "foreign policy" powers not actually in the constitutional text don't extend to unilaterally abrogating or ignoring sections of ratified treaties. In the specific case of NATO, the treaty itself is reinforced by federal statute, passed in 2024 and sponsored by Marco Rubio, prohibiting US presidents from attempting to withdraw from NATO without explicit congressional assent.

Yet Congress (the majority) is silent. And that should set off alarm bells that the problem goes deeper than DJT's own deep personality flaws but a much broader fecklessness and indifference in the broader American public.

I don't like it.  I think NATO has been a very good arrangement for both the US and Europe and it would be very bad for the US if it weakens further.  Self-interest would say I agree with the Tusk pray and wait approach. But if I were a European, I'd be making alternative plans and fast.

[Sheilbh]

In fairness, Tusk (and the PiS government before him) are making alternative plans. Poland's working to get their army to 500,000 and has increased defence spending from about 2% in 2022 to about 5% now, including long-term commitments with many partners (Korean, French, British etc companies) to build factories in Poland (and worth noting this started in 2022 - the wake-up call for Poland to increase its defence was Russia's invasion not the vagaries of American domestic politics).

If all of Europe was behaving like Poland I'd be a lot more relaxed about everything. I'm more worried by the bits of Europe that are already post-American while still spending very little on defence, or are talking a lot about alternative plans but not actually making them.

[Tonitrus]

Trump is not forever. Tusk knows this and so far is apt at delaying.

We always act like a US administration is permanent. It really is not. How far are we from the Obama years of hope?

Trump saying he won't act on article 5 is only a possibility for 3 more years.

Question Tusk and Europe should be asking is why Congress puts up with this.  As President, Trump has a duty to enforce the law, and that includes the NATO treaty.  His judicially made up "foreign policy" powers not actually in the constitutional text don't extend to unilaterally abrogating or ignoring sections of ratified treaties. In the specific case of NATO, the treaty itself is reinforced by federal statute, passed in 2024 and sponsored by Marco Rubio, prohibiting US presidents from attempting to withdraw from NATO without explicit congressional assent.

Yet Congress (the majority) is silent. And that should set off alarm bells that the problem goes deeper than DJT's own deep personality flaws but a much broader fecklessness and indifference in the broader American public.

I am not sure that is a very good or effective question to ask.  Even if the Democrats win majorities in the House and Senate, they would still not be able to compel the President to enforce the NATO treaty or utilize and deploy the military.  They can pass lots of bills complaining about it, as could the courts could make rulings, but they cannot force the Commander in Chief to act.  They could potentially do the reverse...passing War Powers acts to defund undesirable military action...but there is zero way to compel positive military action. 

Only with a 2/3rds majority in the Senate could they "enforce" it by impeachment.  And even then, ok, let's say you manage to impeach Trump (let's say the House passes it on majority vote, and the GOP in the Senate is fed up enough to convict him)...you would probably need to follow that on with impeaching Vance as well, because I think he is just as likely to ignore the NATO obligation.

I understand why they may be concerned about the broader American public (which is almost always non-caring when it comes to robust or effective foreign policy)...but even a highly sympathetic Congress would have almost no value in this case.

[Tonitrus]

Additionally wasn't there fairly recent polling (going to hunt for it now) that the "broader European public" is not much interested in actually supporting the NATO treaty either?  Outside their own country being attacked...

[Grey Fox]

I think is that some expect Congress persons to also discuss things and not disappear. But the American Congress hasn't been a space for actual speeches in a wild and that hurts the opposition.

[Tonitrus]

Additionally wasn't there fairly recent polling (going to hunt for it now) that the "broader European public" is not much interested in actually supporting the NATO treaty either?  Outside their own country being attacked...

Better than I thought (if one would trust NATO's own polling)...I may have been thinking of pre-Ukraine war polling:

https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/public-opinion/240705-pre-summit-polling-results-en.pdf

But even here the US is right on par with Canada in the middle of the pack.  Legbiter's people are not very supportive.