• sidebro@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    12 days ago

    Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It’s not worth it. I 100% agree with everything else you stated, though.

    • MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      In that case, better start preparing for that replacement as soon as possible. Ideally way back when the US invoked Article 5 the first time.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      Withdrawing from NATO doesn’t make sense. It would probably take upwards of 20-30 years to replace what would be lost by doing that. It’s not worth it.

      What are you on about? NATO is comprised of EU countries plus Canada (with rumors of Canada joining the EU)… and the US.
      Withdrawing from NATO would basically mean dropping the US. In this timeline, that’s very desirable, unless you’re selling murican arms.
      NATO is useless now.

      • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        That is only true if you want every single NATO country to be unable to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

        No country want to be part of Russia, even the ones that aren’t in NATO want to join because of how hostile Russia is.

        NATO is even more important now than it ever was. That is why it is growing, not shrinking.

        Putin is the reason NATO needs to exist.

    • DandomRude@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      I understand your point, but I disagree. I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later. The US recently threatened a war of aggression against one of its founding members. Now would be the right time to punish the geopolitical excesses of the criminal US-regime by creating a new alliance. The US is only a world power because of its military apparatus, which is financed on credit.

      I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.

      Edit: There can no longer be any talk of a community of values with the US, as the regime there proves on a daily basis. It is more than unlikely that this will change, as the US population remains passive and will therefore soon be living in a dictatorship that will no longer pretend to be any different from oligarchies such as Russia. Therefore, I think, it makes little difference to orient oneself towards China instead.

      • huppakee@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        12 days ago

        I think NATO effectively no longer exists anyway - better to get rid of it sooner rather than later.

        De facto NATO is dead, because the US - it’s most powerful member - can no longer be trusted. I hope the political leaders of all other Member States see this.

        But that doesn’t mean it no longer any value. It’s main goal has become deterrence, and Russia and China still need to be deterred.

        because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.

        This is totally false, you can argue it has brought misery but you cannot say it didn’t bring any good.

        The 80 years before it’s creation (and the creation of the UN) have been much more violent than the 80 years since. Sure Asia and the Global South haven’t shared in the peace it brought, but it’s not like the west had brought peace there before.

        There might be a better future without Nato, but i don’t think the world as a whole would’ve been better off if Nato never existed in the first place. The Sovjet union would probably still be there for example, and except for the ruling class that was not a nice place to live in.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 days ago

        I see no reason not to let the existing world order collapse, because it has brought nothing but misery since the end of World War II.

        How can you say that when the whole point of the existing world order was to prevent another World War II, which they have been successful at? There haven’t been any wars with as many lives lost as that one ever since, largely in part due to the fact that every time someone looked like they wanted to take over the world again, the rest of the democratic world united to force them where otherwise divided they would succeed.

          • yucandu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            12 days ago

            You said “since the end of World War II” not “since Trump was elected”. How can I hold Trump responsible for things that happened before he was even born?