Here’s what happens if the USA leaves NATO
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2024
- This happens if the US leaves NATO
Support me on Patreon:
/ oliverbahl
Video Producers:
Oliver Franke
Charles Street
Research & Writing:
Omar Garcia, Oliver Franke
Edit & Animations:
Arun Singh
The US will never leave NATO, the military industrial complex would lose hundreds of billions in income, and a lot of the global economy is dependent on the stability in Europe, so a lot of multinational corporations will force politicians to stop that from happening.
You’re assuming the US won’t see significant internal chaos in the future. The 2030s are likely to be crazy, and that assumes we make it out of the 2020s. It’s entirely possible the USA will lapse back into its historically normative position of international neutrality, if not embrace full blown isolationism, following a violent internal reorganization.
That gives Americans even more of a reason to end our participation in NATO. I will not be drafted to defend people who will never return the favor and probably even look down on me.
It also doesn’t help that many NATO “partners” underspend on defense.
@@o_o825it’s pretty far fetched to act like Americans getting drafted to defend a NATO ally is a likely scenario lol
@@o_o825 the only time Article 5 was triggered, it was triggered by the US and countless ppl from NATO countries died fighting in America's situation in Afghanistan
@@o_o825don’t worry. You won’t get drafted. Unless NATO was really on the back foot which is an extremely unlikely scenario but in which case we would obviously ALL get drafted everywhere - Americans and Europeans both.
I do however agree that Europe should spend much more on defense and become independent of Americas protection. Thing is the American political elite doesn’t want that because its elite makes far more money having vassals like us than potential military rivals.
Sometimes even if you are the most powerful nation on earth it’s still good to have friends
Europe needs to be better at being a friend
USA can pay less for nato
You also have to see how much of spending is going towards American company’s.
But yeah Europe has homework to do and we demand it from our politicans
@@randomuser5443 What did we do?
@@randomuser5443 We aren't the ones pulling you guys into wars for fun. I get your point, but my god you have enormous concessions to make, if you want to make that point stick.
Getting arms economics explained via an Eminem lyric was NOT on my 2024 bingo list 😂
Never Say NEVER 😎 Justin Bieber
Great stock response.
Also NATO serves US geopolitical interests
US geopolitical interests are not American national interests. The growing disconnect and hostility between the American people and the globalist political class of the US is what’s driving us to end these alliances in the first place.
North Korea serves geopolitical interests of 🇨🇳
thats its sole purpose... lol you think americans are going to fight for estonia lol
yes they will they fought for my people once @@rebuilt11
There will come a time when Americans truly see that we get very little in return from Europe.
We should have pivoted to Asia sooner instead of continuing to guarantee the security of an E.U. that regulates American exports out.
The US doesn't spend 800 billion on nato. That's the total military budget of the US. You need to figure break it down to which money is for Nato, the east were Japan, SK and Taiwan are. And the middle east.
I don’t know about that, and posted a comment asking about this very thing. I’m inclined to believe our NATO budget is separate from our defense budget. I don’t see how ‘only’ $800 billion is enough to cover our defense plus NATO plus the Pacific region.
I guess I just don’t know - there’s no way my brain can wrap around these numbers.
@@ronjon7942 Around 2017-2018 US military budget was around 600-640 billion dollars, and according to an estimate made by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, only 30,4 billion were specifically allocated to boost European security (weapons, stationed troops, etc...), roughly 5% of the total budget; unfortunately, I couldn't find anything more recent.
@@zaalf432 When it comes to NATO, all of each country's military spending is NATO spending to some degree. The main premise of NATO is that in the event that a NATO member is attacked, every other NATO member will defend them. If the U.S. military budget was only $400 billion, that defense and its deterrent effect wouldn't be as valuable.
@@ronjon7942 Please look up how NATO actually works. There is no separate NATO budget and one for the Pacific.
Each NATO member pays a fee for the administration of NATO, less than $1B. Then they fund their own military. There is no separate NATO military in any country at all.
Now the US also keeps some bases and equipment over seas, but those are not NATO weapons. They can be moved around or out as the US pleases.
It’s about percentage of gdp
Really enjoying the content, but just a quick note: the music is a bit loud at times, making it a tad hard to hear you. Maybe a slight adjustment could enhance the overall experience. Keep up the great work!
Yea the U.S. can leave and the members that paid the 2% can make NATO 2.0
All the other members that don’t want to pay their fair share can get new treaties with different agreements.
Only nations that are being invited to NATO 2.0 that don’t pay the 2% are Turkey and Bulgaria because we need their geography.
Everyone else tuff luck.
@@AG-yc7vt given your unrelated comment, you're clearly a bot
@@DeFraans ...
@@DeFraansnah, youtube ui is just bad
I said it before and I will say it again, Money spent does not mean money well spent.
Although small and not part of NATO, Australia spends hundreds of millions a year on NATO defence via its satellite monitoring bases. It’s a thankless task that the Europeans reward with a punitive trade embargo on Australia that has been inflicted for generations. It’s more than just America that wants out of the burden of the Europeans.
The budget comparison with China is a little bit misleading as the cheap labor and purchasing power are completely different.
And we're seeing that already with their insane and booming naval industry
yep true. making ammo in Europe or USA is approximately 27X more expensive than in China. S o simply means that 800 Billion $ of NATO does not mean 500 Billion $ of China is making less ammo etc.
China is not doing as good as some people portray them as, there is alot of quality issues, problem with corruption on the lowest levels, exploitation of goods by low level officers.
Their internal economy is suffering from heavy deflation meaning all profitability is being squeezed out. They are over producing goods. Their construction industry bubble pooped in January - February and they are feeling the effect. It is not all good china they suffering economically and won't be experiencing massive growth for while. Income inequality is rising between urban rural environments to insane levels.
@@ssStolengrad not to mention they almost completely rely on oil and coal imports. the coal mainly coming from here in Australia which as china found out a couple years ago they cannot live without when they blocked imports briefly then almost ran out of power.
When it comes to high-tech military equipment the differences in purchasing power between different countries is actually not that significant... Just because Chinese steel is relatively cheap doesn't mean they can churn out 5x more fighter planes equivalent to F-35 for the same price.
Pretty sure China is getting most of their coal from Indonesia @@R3verse301
Ruin US reputation by leaving NATO? In my eyes it’ll speak the famous saying: Not gonna help you if you’re not willing to help yourself.
TO FREEDOM 🇺🇸
The first graph is not how much countries spend for NATO but how much they spend for the military in general. Very different.
One interesting thing would that it could lead to EU millitary integration and eventually an EU army.
Already happening to some extent with coast guard/anti-piracy missions
EVENTUALLY being the operative word. Too long for it to be truly effective.
Europoors can't even save Ukraine. You think they're going to fund an army from the Brussels bureaucracy?
7:23 should have listed this on pros. He was not honest enough 😊
The irony of this video being made by a European…. Lol
lol
Made sense.
Something bad probably - Tzen Shui Feng
Never Say NEVER 😎 Justin Bieber
For American orligachs.
Main issues is without US the glue of NATO is done. Greece and Turkey would not see much benefit in cooperation. French interests, German interests and all do not align entirely with each other. Right now it's the American way which everyone follows without US the existing NATO structure will not exist as it does.
but...but...what about Canada?
@@LoremIpsum1970
I really really want to know why the hell Canada is there
I got Europe they want security
US want to be the big guy
but why the hell Canada is there? on one next to them anyway
Like most Americans couldn't care about the so called superpower status lmao all they want is to live a peaceful life.
Calling the US a superpower, after afghanistan and rising prices is a ruse
Regular Americans may not care about superpower status, but their leaders do care and want to remain influential power in Europe.
If that breaks and Europe become its own superpower, then the US has to play by the rules equally instead of making them.
And that's something that the US simply doesn't want, even Trump understands this as Trump is very good at playing bluff games to scare its allies.
I feel like most Americans (myself included) would start caring once it starts affecting our pocket books and comes knocking on our door via Mexico.
There are plenty of nationalists who care, including myself
To be honest, from my perspective (Norway 🇳🇴), it's a bit difficult. We need NATO because our incompetent politicians haven't really invested in the military before now recently. At the same time it feels like Norway kind of has become America's bitch. It has for a long time been policy to not allow foreign military bases on Norwegian territory during peace. However, the government has allowed the US to build large installations on our own bases. These areas are exclusive access areas for americans only, and it's quite sketchy how we are not able to know what happens in there, because they are allowed to kill you if you trespass, without getting into legal trouble...
Where is that pfp from.
A friend had it I'm curious
Okay I'm sick of hearing this one okay you don't like more US troops that's understandable but that whole thing about we don't know what they're doing in there it's none of your business what they're doing in their that military base is officially foreign soil so even if you did know what was going on in there you wouldn't be able to do anything about it neither would your country without causing some type of international incident so is childish to think that they could
@@cartrellsplunge1525american detected
@@realgoogleuser hahaha you're right I am an American but I'm also speaking a little thing called common sense
Not incompetent, just loyal to daddy)
It's easy to have affordable healthcare and social benefits when someone else pays for your defense.
yeah but not for the one who’s doing all the paying, fair share
In Germany you pay your healthcare yourself through taxes, so yeah.. Doesn't really have anything to do with military spending
We brits and the french have Nukes... nobody is gonna fuck with us unless they want to see their country become an irradiated wasteland.
As for the rest of Europe? They should build their own nukes because the US is an Unreliable ally and ruzzia is an extremely agressive neighbour.
@Philjamin just wait till you have to pay 25+% more taxes to cover your own defense...
The US leaving NATO is not a good idea. But persuading the other member countries to bear more of the burden of defense spending is an idea whose time has come. Europe is no longer lying in ruins from WWII.
We Americans had to pay for that to.
there time has not come it came in the 50's and never left yall have just decided not to pay your fair share since the wall came down and "history ended" ;)
@@matthewkimble964 history has not ended
That time came back in in the 2000s.. '04 I think? Or '08. NATO agreed to a defense budget commitment of 2% of the partner nation's GDP. Every member of NATO is supposed to be investing 2% of their GDP to their defense budget. This was later reinforced in 2014 when our allies in Europe realized that of all of the non-US NATO members, Germany, the UK, and France, made up over 50% of the collective defense budget. So they got together in Wales and essentially told everyone else in NATO to get their crap together and start investing that 2%. They were given 10 years. It's been 10 years. Only about 4 other countries have reached their 2% commitment..
Europeans: US leaving will harm the military industrial complex 😠
Americans: 🥳🥳🥳🇺🇸
That too simplistic and not true in the short term, because we would still buy from the usa besides that the usa reputation would be damaged and usd as the world reserve currency put in jeopardy
Wow, I love how this is very one-sided. If you flip the scenario on its end, do you think Europe would be unified in its current state? If the United States left NATO, Europe would have to defend itself. And in the long, long, long history of Europe, when has Europe been this stable or prosperous? Yes, the United States economy would shrink, but it would also start to grow. The 80s globalization has led to many jobs leaving the USA for cheaper workforce elsewhere. But if the US starts only focusing solely on its interests, we will be just fine. Why so arrogant? Because we have done it before. Here is the major issue that Europe seems to forget. You laughed at Obama when he said Europe needs to invest more in its security. Mocked Trump when he said the same thing. European arrogance is what led to the current situation going on right now. You expect America to fight China and Russia at the same time while Europe does nothing? Token gestures don't count. I thought this was a partnership? Where is Europe's end of the bargain? Are they going to do work, or do you expect Americans to spend their children's lives and future on Europe's defense because Europe is too lazy and arrogant to do some of the work?
NATO issue is that th US is throwing money in as other nations are doing the bare minimum. That needs to change
You make good points, but bad point in that we can’t use US tech anymore. The US wants to make money, so selling US weapons, tech and service will continue.
This guy thinks we’ll go from allies to sanctions.
Believe it or not there are other non NATO countries that the U.S. still has defense treaties with. (Japan, South Korea, etc) and the treaty is basically set up just like NATO, except it is only the U.S. and the other country tied together if an attack happens. Not some big conglomerate of nations.
The US military industrial complex may want to make money, but Europeans won’t want to be dependent on an increasingly hostile foreign power. Likewise the American people won’t want to supply the anti-White/anti-Christian regimes running w3stern Europe.
For a time, yes, and for specific systems, sure. But why would an area as rich as Europe want to stay dependent on the then unreliable US. It's just gonna use its position as military supplier for political and economic pressure. So best transition away ASAP. It's not like Europe is incapable of this either.
@@gerritvalkering1068we by far build the best stuff.
Europe can't make an F-35 for the price on their own and if they did it would be 2 generations behind what the US is currently using.
@@nuba16can you only need the best if you want to police the world. If you just want to make sure people won't attack you, good enough will do.
I think the best argument for leaving is because the cost for the US and lack of spending from of defense from other members. But i dont agree with the us leaving
Its rabbit hole, but to put it short. Its not really a lack of spending when EU on its own spends more than china and russia. The thing is US want people to buy weapons from them, so they can feed their ever growing military complex. Priority number one should be for US to stop waring and dragging their allies in to those wars in order to deflate the need for spending.
US military budget has nothing to do with NATO, your Presidents proposes it your Congress accepts it and as I recall before the Iraq war the budget was 1/5 of what it is today.. after that it just started skyrocketing. The EU members cumulatively spend a lot on the military, could be more, but it doesn't look like much because there is no united EU army. Every state is still sovereign and does its own thing so you look at Italy for example that has around 120 fighter aircraft in service, that doesn't sound like much but add in 200 from France, 300 from Germany, 150 from Spain, 100 from Poland etc. etc. you get what is probably the 3rd largest air force in the world only behind USA and China. Same goes with tanks, IFVs etc. etc.
@someidiotwithnoname yeah but the thing is what you just said. They are not a collective army. But in that case you make maybe nato doesn't need the US anymore.
@@Bubajumba the only war nato members had to join was Afghanistan because the US was attacked. That's how nato works
@@user-vs2oh6qx3n NATO was practically built by USA post WW 2 so its not the question of "Do the NATO members need USA?" but "Does the USA need NATO?" and the answer is - Yes.
The original conditions for its formation still exists.
“It wouldn’t even save [the US] money by leaving the alliance”
Bold. Claim.
You can tell this European moocher is scared of leaving Uncle Sam's basement. It's pathetic. ..he has no idea that it is also not just Trump....Kennedy wants the USA out of NATO...hope the day comes!
The key is logistics. The us logistics apparatus is simply unmatched
I think the best question is “How can the US get other NATO members to pay their fair share?”
I know people freaked out when Trump talked about abandoning countries who didn’t pay up, but he had a point: we can’t just let other countries outsource their defense to us. It’s supposed to be an ALLIANCE, not a puppet show (in that Europe would be the puppets).
That's a logical hole that can be sticky. What would be considered "fair share"? You have to remember that these other country economies are nowhere near the size of the US. The largest european GDP, Germany, has about 15% the size of the US.
@@billywest1307 A “fair share” would be the spending threshold set out in the North Atlantic Treaty itself: 2% of a country’s national GDP. The only countries that hit that are the US and any country in NATO with hostile neighbors (so mostly just the eastern flank)
"their fair share?" is the dumbest statement ever. Firstly, United States spent 3.73% of GDP on , the cost of Nato being a small fraction of that (640M USD for running costs in FY22). So a fair share of what? Personel and equipment? R&D and Procurement? 2% of Estonia's GDP is not as much as 2% of Germany's GDP. What's not mentioned is the US sales to Nato, without standardisation Nato could procure from anywhere including RU (like Turkey wanted to). The other benefits are global reach and Article 5 being invoked after 9/11. I think it would have been very dificult to mount any campaigns in the Middle East with only a carrier group or two and no land bases, not to mention medivac facilites in Germany... The 2% agreement is really just a distraction.
Sounds like europe had been getting a free ride
They will never admit it though
@@dfdf-rj8jr some of us do actually - the Eastern flank has been calling out our Western European neighbours for their attitude towards increasing expenditure
@@nik_yeEastern Europe Best Europe.
The strongest argument to me is emotional; many U.S. voters it's an insult to pride to be in an alliance where the U.S. commits more than other nations do, even if the U.S. degree of commitment is voluntary and could be scaled back without leaving the block altogether. Many voters think in binaries that don't permit a gray area between "maintaining current levels of commitment" and "completely leaving".
There's also the argument that while the U.S. would lose money in the short term, if the status quo holds, it *might* save money if a NATO member state is invaded and the U.S. does not legally have to spend any resources in a war of intervention.
I think, as a U.S. voter myself, these are lousy arguments, and am very strongly in favor of the U.S. staying in the alliance, and helping member states get technical assistance and financing set up better ammunition production institutions and facilities.
To add to your point, I will also include all the Americans' lives that are sacrificed. Americans are tired of sending their sons and daughters to fight wars that don't even come close to our homeland, and then we get accused of being warmongers and get comments like all we do is start wars. But we are their best friends when Europe is in trouble; it's a bit hypocritical. Europe should put their sons and daughters on the front line, not just blame Americans for not doing enough. I am frankly sick of the world always blaming us for everything while at least we try to make a difference instead of just complaining about it. Do we always do things the right way? Absolutely not! We have made mistakes 100%, but we try.
It also doesn’t help that other NATO countries benefit from the U.S. defense guarantee and nuclear umbrella, but still under-contribute towards mutual defense.
Clearly, they do not care about lives lost as long as it’s ours.
Theres also understanding just how much certain countries in nato hate us, especially France.
@@o_o825 While this is an issue, it's not equally present across NATO members. The U.K., Poland, and Estonia definitely care about lives lost and actually lost quite a few in Iraq and Afghanistan. Germany and France are a bit more guilty slacking off.
@@augusthoglund6053 agreed
The others should pay their fair share
🤣🤡
@@LoremIpsum1970 Europoor
MEGA - Make Europe Great Again
China is looking for friends 😂
Nobody pays into anything. everyone just pays into their own military. USA money stays in the US military.
@@santostv.Authoritarian regimes love company
The amount of military equipment Britain used to produce compared to now is embarrassing.
Japan and South Korea would never be abandoned, so the European fear doesn't extend to them. Guam, Samoa, Hawaii and Alaska are vulnerable if we abandon the Philippines, so we'd never abandon them either. Germany understands this and doesn't want to give theirs up by following France's anti-American rhetoric. But France seeks its former glory, so I feel bad for the EU.
it's not as much anti-American as it is pro-European, but I do agree the French rhetoric somewhat reeks of post-colonial revisionism
Honestly seeing russia's performance in europe I think the germans,brits,french,italians etc etc have a pretty good chance at beating them if not atlteast holding out. Americans should focus on asia
Military expenditure isn’t NATO’s budget… fumb duck
Probably the most succinct answer so far 🤣
@@LoremIpsum1970 room temperature
Now show with country whose companies benefit the most from the expenditure
That’s misleading and not completely causal. Of course the answer is our nation; America has the largest economy. In practically any high technology scenario, America will benefit the most because America invests and spends the most. And most of the industries that have been offshored were either invented or substantially improved by the US.
And the European defense industry is no slouch, although most of their beginnings are directly traced back to American investment in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
@@ronjon7942 "And most of the industries that have been offshored were either invented or substantially improved by the US" and "lthough most of their beginnings are directly traced back to American investment in the 50s, 60s, and 70s" .
wtf are you talking about the USA IS NATO
Don't make the mistake in thinking that Trump gives a fuck about the US reputation or what would happen to the world if the US pulled back. He doesn't and you can't assume policy changes based on some kind of rational actor making the decisions.
I voted for Trump, and I fully expect Europe to crumble and hate us after we leave. Suck it.
He wants the US to stop paying the 80%. The media at first made a big deal about it. Then Trump pointed out we have been since NATO was formed.
Apparently, people do not get what we said then. We said we would take up the bill because it was after the end of WW2, and countries were rebuilding after the war and had economic issues. We just never stopped.
By the way. He was respected by the majority of the leaders of other NATO countries for telling them to pay there damn share. Also, because nobody before him had the balls to come out and say it for literal decades.
Military spending is mostly personal salary so China/Russia….will get a lot more value for money spent so one can’t directly compare them.
It's also not good practice to compare official military spending. What is counted in one country is not in another. For example, Sweden says they do not spend 2% of their GDP on defense, but if you account for how military spending is counted by NATO, then they do. China is similar, with a lot of what is counted in the US not counted there. Accounting for this, and purchasing power, China's defense spending is more like $600-700 billion by US standards.
True, but on the other hand China and Russia see significant amounts of value lost to corruption.
They also have technology from 20 years ago so they would have to invest multiple times the money to even be on the same level as EU or US.
@@killzolotI wouldn’t say it’s at 700 billion it’s more likely at 500/600 billion.
@@omarionbayley9721 My guess is $700 billion is too high too. It is what a congressman said the intelligence community estimated, but I think it was a China hawk so it is probably on the higher end of the estimates, and rounded up
"NATO nukes have been crucial in dissuading Russia from invading the Baltic countries".
I see now.
Nato only has 200 air dropped warheads dispersed throughout Nato in Europe. The French and British nuclear arsenals are independent and can be used without Nato/US approval. And there are no nuclear ICBMs in Europe.
Wow! Now that's a sinkhole thumbnail to be concerned about!😂😂❤
big mistake considering money = superiority
just to give you an idea: in russia an inmate cost 2,5 euros, in western europe 128. the result is the same
It's not a direct straight ratio, but of course money matters and a lot.
That's right, to a major degree - but nothing buys nothing. If you have the comitment, strength in numbers and keep your equipment simplified you can make all your enemy's investment in tech pretty worthless -- Ukraine has more of a threat from running out of personel than running out of weapons and October 7 proved that to IL. Also, it's like Kelsi Sheren said, when you enemy doesn't fight by the rules (GC) you have no way to defeat them.
The US has the highest nominal GDP in NATO so they would anyway spend the most even if everyone was spending the same percentage. However, the US overspends and some NATO members genuinely spend less than a proper percentage on defense. For lack of invasions, the nations became complacent. However, with Russia's invasion now, they are waking up. Very poor foresight really.
Military spending is not equal, even when finances on paper make the suggestion.
What can be done in the Chinese or Russian economy with 1 billion is very different than what we can do in the 'western' circle.
Beyond that, wages is a significant proportion of these funds, and it doesn't take a PhD in macroeconomics to understand that we can employ less people for the same amount of total wage output.
Love the content as always, just wish there was a more nuanced explanation of the meaning of the military funding itself.
I don’t think the intended audience was nuanced people; there just wasn’t much depth to it. I don’t think it was intended to invoke an emotional response, but it probably appeals mostly towards people who tend to respond thusly - and for one dimensional people who don’t get past the immediate cause and effect scenario. Longer term thinkers who are more interested and aware of geopolitical interdependencies aren’t going to be that impressed.
@@ronjon7942 what?
The nuances are in the difference in worth of currency over country lines, not in the people watching this video?
“I don't do nuance,” George W. Bush to Joseph Biden... There was no depth at all to these numbers, it's just a regurgitation of what a number of Republicans and channels have stated to non-thinking people who can't look at the numbers themselves and who can't differntiate globlal US defence budget spending with what the US actually spends on and within Nato (it's a very small number in comparison btw).
F That! Leave NATO now!
as soon as he started comparing dollars he lost me
The part about nukes is set in a vacuum while reality is not set in a vacuum. In no world would there be no response from the US even if it leave thus even if they leave there would always be the looming of MAD
Das Worst Chase Szenario für Europas Sicherheit und Stabilität
Well, it is going to happen. I voted for Trump, and unless you guys get your shit together and stop acting like useless ingrates, you’re going to be on your own come the next Russian invasion. I thought the European Union was some big superpower now, lol. What happened to the European bravado? Have fun alone, and I hope for your sake that the others don’t just turn to Germany to leech off next.
Then pay your fair share not 20%. This is not hard you freeloaders
Usa will be fine... usa army factories will not be fine.... 😂😂😂
military is 4% of GDP and we'd rather have that go to education or infrastructure
The problem isn’t even that because we would still buy from them for a while, but they would have been seen as weak considering the eu is a major bloc and not the brics, also i bet the usd would lose value,then we would stop buying usa lpg, diminish Hollywood presence in Europe ect as a retaliation, like the uk that is doing worse than the eu although they fool themselves thinking they are not.
Oh not only that but you think nations would still trade at the same levels with America if they left NATO look at the Brexit and what happened with the EU
unlike UK leaving the EU, it still a commited member of Nato and to the Wests defence , US leaving Nato would sever relations way harder, the whiplash the Trump prob hasnt thought of is if US leaves Nato, it suddenly struggles to justify its bloated militery spending
Of course they would. Comparing Brexit and leaving NATO is comically idiotic.
NATO and the EU are different types of organizations. The US would never be part of an organization like the EU.
Still, regardless, would you trade with someone who just turned tail and ran from your defense ?
@@Knockdown-mu4pk Businesses don't care about geopolitics. UK-EU trade declined because the laws changed. Businesses care about the law.
If this would happen i think this would happen after that: Canada and the UK will still work with the US and the other countries will use the EU instead of NATO.
Only reason to keep Canada is because we don’t want the Chinese meddling in their affairs.
Also all the other nations that meet the 2% goal can make NATO 2.0 with the U.S.
Poland and Hungary would stick with the US. Turkey would grift off to Russia, and the rest would become leeches/puppets of Germany. Fine by me, we never needed or wanted y’all ingrates.
Uk is in Europe although they seem to not consider themselves as such and Canada I don’t see the reason they would leave unless the usa forces them
@@santostv.We consider are self's to be european but just not in the institutions of the undemocratic and corrosive EU. No united states of europe.
An interesting exploration, but you forget that the US cannot leave NATO without authorization from Congress. What a certain future US president CAN do is to cripple NATO from within by not doing or contributing anything should a dire situation arises.
This is a really good point
I like that you ended this video with how preposterous this would be, because it would be the mother of all bad ideas.
Slowly and gradually reduce spending.
Money spent is not a good measure of capability. A weapon might cost 4 times more to produce in the EU than in China or Russia. Military personnel are paid much less in Russia and China than they are in the West. Most of the defense budget in the west goes to make a few military contractors rich.
Even if the us leaves NATO it would still be a thing just with a smaller budget with a less scarier military . Why? Because NATO consitists of major and key us allies the us would literally be trying to isolate itself if it just let Russia invade France or Germany for example
Why dont any of those countries pull their own weight? Would they not be stronger with their own military force that can act in their best interest instead of being conscripted to fight in pointless wars for the sake of US arms dealers and the US military industrial complex under NATO?
We’re Allies with France?! I jest, but only in part. The French are enemies who occasionally pretend to be our friends. If Russia invades France, we should send RUSSIA aid.
US is not isolating itself, its just trying to focus more on the Pacific.
Why doesn’t your Denmark have a big military?
If USA leave NATO, wouldnt Canada leave too?
Canada would just join AUKUS
why the hell was Canada in NATO at all?
I don't think Russia will invade them nor Maxic
is it because they knew the US disabled friendly fires? so they Joined the same team
The only reason I can think of why the US could leave NATO is that the alliance could be used to drag America into war, similarly to WWI, where alliances were triggered bringing other nations into the conflict. If America were to leave NATO for the reason I stated, it would signal to the world that US is incapable or too afraid of fighting.
There was no NATO in WW1 or WW2. And only dragging could come from USA. Yes, US leaving NATO would be open season. If US wouldn't sit back when Hitler took over all Europe and would help with troops to stop him, Japan wouldn't have balls to attack Pearl Harbor and there wouldn't be no WW2, maybe. They showed weakness for not stopping Hitler.
Article 5 was used by the US to bring Nato allies into Iraq and Afghanistan, but there's no reason why Article 5 has 'drag America into war', if other member states could provide assistance without needing direct US involvement, it just depends on circumstances.
@@gwaldman6546 BUT you have to look at US politics at the beginning of WWII as it was overshadowed by US involvement in WWI, isolationalism, America First, etc. Look at the background for what happened before 'Lend-Lease'.
No I Think We'd Lose Israel If The Us Vetoed NATO
Why should America fight for Europe? The Europeans haven’t even repaid any loans from two world wars or even made an equitable contribution to the costs of the Cold War. Protecting the Europeans is a thankless and expensive task, and Americans are tired of being taken for suckers. By the way, America leaves, and Canada is out, plus you can say goodbye to Australia providing Five Eyes.
The US leaving NATO is not the same as US cutting all ties with all NATO countries...? A lot of the points raised in this video doesn't work if the US just keeps cooporating after leaving NATO
If the US leaves NATO, cooperation will take a serious hit. He told it perfectly clearly, trust will be gone and with it, cooperation.
Plus, a lot of the cooperation takes place within NATO structures, so that part will be gone for sure. Intelligence cooperation within the ( eyes and the extended version may remain.
It would still be idiotic, and limit their actions of foreign intervention
I certainly wasnt expecting an eminem reference in this video...
4:58 how can you just glance over this point? So it DOESN'T end mutually assured destruction because of submarines...so your previous point is negated.
Not a single aircraft carrier in NATO can rival the US
So?
@@shafsteryellow You dont think naval power is important? You dont think aircraft carriers are a major part of that?
@@matthewkimble964 fr
I doubt that would be relevant in the European theatre unless you think all Nato airforces would have been wiped out? Otherwise, what would a carrier bring to the table? It's Europe not Syria... Personally, I'd be more interested in missile cruisers, SLBMs and SAC capabilites...
@@matthewkimble964 I'm saying so? What's the point of that comment? The US has more aircraft carriers then the whole world combined.
What happens if the US leaves NATO?
Nothing good...
For Europeans
Nothing good about our money being wasted on european bullshits, pay your fair share for once
@@johnsonfromml8662 USA will lose their influence on the world and china and russia will fill it. After europe and east asia fall to the russo-chinese influence, America will be next.
You need to consider a military budget in context of purchasing power. When normalizing for PPP, China actually has the largest military budget, and Russia’s budget surpasses that of ex-US NATO.
Nah the US still.
Excuse me but why are the comments turned off on the Rothschild video ??
Why is it so hard for the Europeans to pay what the agreed to? Mutual defense only works if we are all able to mutually defend each other. We Americans are being taken advantage of and have every right to be angry with CA, and the EU. If y'all are unwilling to uphold your end why should we uphold ours?
If the US leaves NATO, you will get a nuclear armed Poland, Japan and S. Korea within 5 years. If this occurs, Iran and Saudi Arabia will very likely follow suit with Germany, Italy, Sweden and Turkey right behind. All these countries have the technical means to develop and field nuclear weapons (except Saudi, who would buy them from Pakistan). Do you really want a nuclear armed Japan, Germany, Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Japan already rejected the idea when given the green light to do so during Trump era. Germany would lose election left and right if they ever go nuclear. Iran would love to have nuclear weapons, they arent there yet...or are they? Saudi Arabia enjoy the US protection as always, NATO or not. Poland would go nuclear if possible, they don't have the means due to a large standing land force. South Korea might not go nuclear since they are too close to another trigger happy Korean.
Second nuclear arm race
I'm not following your take. The USA's membership in NATO has nothing to do with any of these countries' nuclear capability development. There is literally no connection. I certainly can see Poland's POSSIBLE desire for nukes as a result of the departure, but the cascade you have described could happen regardless of the USA's NATO membership status. In addition, I'm curious why you added Japan and South Korea into a nuclear arms race as a consequence of the USA's NATO departure? Those two nations are not part of NATO.
@@Denebreusyes it does actually the American nuklear umbrella has stop them because well no one wants a nuclear arms race again it if the umbrella is gone then there is nothing to stop the eu from getting there own nukes
@@Denebreus The US has been moving closer to the Pacific, do to the expectation of Europe being able to mostly hold its own front. Korea and Japan individually are much closer to the US than the EU member states are besides maybe Poland and Britain.
😂😂 Did you seriously just use Eminems bars 🤣
Yes plz leave nato
It’s simply unacceptable that extremely rich European countries refuse to pay for their own defense. If we’re the main party in NATO and fund the whole damn thing, we should get something in return. Like no tariffs on American goods exported to Europe but 25% duty on European goods sold in America. I would even settle for a monthly free bottle of Balvenie 18 and some dammsugare from Sweden. Fair is fair.
Which country are you referring too?
BUT you don't "fund the whole damn thing"...maybe you should look it up! How about using European bases for your own combat missions and medivac? What about invoking Article 5 after 9/11 dragging Nato into Afghanistan and Iraq?
😂😂😂
You can be strong but without friends you are nothing.
The question must be asked differently.
Does it still make sense for the US to maintain NATO if it takes its national interests into account?
Countries in Western Europe such as Germany pursue a mercantilist economic model.
To do this, they depend on cheap energy from Russia and large export markets such as China.
The US is currently "protecting" Germany with thousands of soldiers, a nuclear shield and hundreds of military bases.
The resulting political influence that the US has on Germany has not been able to prevent economic relations with China from becoming even more intense in recent weeks.
Chancellor Scholz's trip to China in April was, in my opinion, a clear sign that Germany is not prepared to cut its economic ties with China.
And given this reality, the US will sooner or later give up its military involvement in Europe.
Great point
The US should make up no more than 50% of the NATO budget. The other countries need to step up and put their money where their mouths are. The US can no longer be the worlds ATM.
EM idk
I don't get it; we were doing all our hardest and best to break off of and get away from Europe in the 18th century. Why are we with them again? They don't even like us. Break off!
Washington advised caution between the British and the French due to the power the nations held at the time. Don't make this difficult, grow up.
If we leave NATO it’s to focus on our own nations security.
Nato should have been disbanded many years ago when the soviet regime fell apart. The new russia even wanted to join nato at one point, but were refused.
Nato is worthless without an enemy lol
Exactly. At this point NATO is just the US being forcibly dragged into the European - Russian rivalry. We haven’t been enemies with Russia in decades. It’s no business of ours what they get up to, and there’s no point keeping a system created to defend against Russia when we are not at risk and we foot the whole billz
@@alfredhaugen2266 Ai is your friend.
Make a video on what happens if the US extradites John Cena to China, and the social revolution that may come with that
alliances are equal relationships. US abandoning Nato wouldn't be abandoning allies. It would be cutting their vassals.
There are plenty of benefits to the US leaving NATO.
First, the US provides NATO nation with the funds to buy many of the weapons they NATO nations use. Even though a lot of that money does come back to the US since a lot of the weapons NATO uses come from US manufacturers, it is still like paying a quarter to get a dime back.
Second, our military personnel wouldn't have to spend so much time overseas supporting, protecting, and risking their lives for a country that isn't their own.
Third, our taxpayer dollars won't be going to essential handle a responsibility that each sovereign nation is supposed to handle on their own. This is especially true of countries as wealthy as many NATO nations. We could use that money on things that Americans need like publicly funded healthcare and higher education (which many NATO nations have because they don't have to spend a lot of money on defense) or give every American a hefty tax break.
Fourth, it would make each NATO nation a less secure place for business. This would make it so that American companies would have less competition on the global marketplace. It would also make American companies think twice about sending American jobs overseas to those companies for fear that those companies might be a risk from destruction from war or takeover from Russia or China causing them to loose money. This would cause them to have to keep their jobs here in the US to stay secure.
These are some of the pros for leaving NATO. The US doesn't need military allies. It can defend itself all by itself. As shown from this video, the US has all the capability to do all of that without help.
They never gonna leave. We would greatly increase our own arms industry. Bye bye usa weapons
Never Say NEVER 😎 Justin Bieber
PLEASE! Do so. The glorious Dutch arms industry, oh I TREMBLE in fear…
AHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!! If that was the case you would have already done so and made ungodly amounts of money.
@@matthewkimble964 usa actively lobbied against a big European defense sector. Looking at history we would definitely dominate again If we really tried.
@@drpepper3838 Then try
American lobbing hasn't been enough to overcome massive European potential profits. Just look at the massive Rush to invest in Iranian oil after President Obama negotiated the nuclear deal or German relations with Russia over natural gas.
This is no different
Billions and billions and billions of dollars of potential profit and I'm supposed to believe you're just leaving it on the table to benefit Raytheon and Boeing and halliburton?
Why the hell does NATO still exist after the early 90s?
Firstly, in small part, the Russian Federation invading and occupying neighbors, starting in 1993 with the Transnistria War.
Secondly in large part, 9/11 happened, and member states chipped in to the War On Terror, especially Central European and Baltic members.
The U.K. and France being hit hard by terrorism after 9/11 made it clear that terrorism by Al-Qaeda and the Da'esh/ISIL was an international problem that demanded a coordinated international response.
As an American soldier, I would gladly come to help my European allies. Democracy, home or abroad, must be defended.
democracy dictatorship is way better
lmao u love getting used , right?
Did you personally swear to protect the constitution’s (or whatever they may call them) of those European allies?
Think you for your service
My Uncle lost his leg in Iraq. I lost relatives in Afghanistan. Myself and my whole family agrees it is pointless. Our ‘Allie’s’ abandoned and continue to abandon us. Defend democracy? Please. Why does it matter if some random European is free to vote? I’m sorry, but unless they’re a US citizen, I couldn’t care less if they are free or not.
Pretending that out of control spending is wise, this is a lie.
Threaten to leave to encourage contributions
more like threaten to leave to please Putin
Well this seems unfair for America lol
why
@@kingsofdeathclan4797did you not watch the video. US tax payers pays for the natos lack of defense
Im surprised you're posting pro-US content for once. Normally you like to do comparison video between Europe and USA declaring how good the infrastructure/health care is in Europe (subsidised by Americans taxpayers)
It depends on the politician that the people elected. Same as the case of Brexit, why would the UK leave the EU when it enjoys so many benefits in the block?
Because Russia influenced the UK's politics.
🤯
I love the US and hate the EU. Cheers from Finland
Why?
If the rest of your country were like you perhaps we wouldn’t be so close to leaving now… I apologize to the grateful Allies we might end up stranding due to the endless swamp of arrogant European ingrates thinking they are so much better than us. If we end up leaving NATO, maybe we can make some arrangements with Finland.
Ooh hello from America 👋 😁
Am I first? Had to click the SECOND OBF dropped a video.
The fun begins soon
For some reason I feel there wanting to build something around the us but who knows
The US should not leave NATO because the Europeans can still milk it some more, maybe until it's dry!
🤣🤡
The Europeans came to your aid after 9/11 as well as buys American weapons.
If you're in a relationship, but it's always your wallet being drawn-and-quartered, I'd consider leaving too. And i'm a European. FUCK Macron's idiotic idea of a EU-army, thats just a prelude to "The United Nations of Europe", and hells-to-the-no for that. Europe, and especially our weak politicians need to step up, and raise army budgets to +2% of GNP. It's just that simple.
Europe can't defend itself against Russia, we already see what happens in Ukraine and Georgia..
@@pablobomgiorno8273sounds like Europe's problem
We are. 20/32 nato members will have defense spending at over 2% by the time 2024 ends.
A European army is actually one of the few very good ideas brought up in the last few years. Everything steering countries in the direction of united nations of europe is good for everyone.
Most younger people identify themselves as Europeans, not with their own country which is a great thing.
@@gro967where younger people identify themselves as europeen ? Which europeen country ?becauses i never heard anything like that in mine, it’s sincere question, i’m suprised to hear this
LEAVE NATO LET EU FEND FOR ITSELF
Simply, USA isn't USA without being USA.
0:16 *🇲🇰North Macedonia is also a member of NATO!*
I would comment the same for my home country.
together stronk
They switched the flag of Austria (not in Nato) and Latvia (in Nato).
The USA will NEVER leave NATO. Period.
Trump seems he would like to
@@loganmancini8759 he said that to get the rest of the NATO countries to pony up 2% of their GDP for defense like they're supposed to.
@@billotto602Just watch. The American people are waking up and are sick and tired of wasting money on European ingrates. NATO provides us no benefit, the only people who gain is Europe. Let’s leave!
@@billotto602 Privately, to aides, he said he would like to leave NATO back in 2018 during a NATO summit. He knows saying that out loud though would leave voters feeling like they have a tough choice.
In your discussion of military budgets (that NATO would still be number two), you leave out the impact of PPP. Put simply: NATO soldiers and suppliers must be paid more than rivals’ soldiers.
Put simply: NATO should not exist. The United States soldiers and suppliers must be paid more than rivals. That’s it.
War is a big business 🙌