I wouldn't vote for that, as I don't believe the United States should be a part of NATO. Being anti-NATO doesn't = being Pro-Russia.
Not being a part of NATO is certainly pri-Russian and had long been a goal of Putin's. NATO has absolutely helped the United States in containing and dealing with Russia and more.
Yeah not true, but still, it does seem like the campaign used a darken filter, probably to make everyone look more black, so odd.
The interests of the American people are not best served by the United States being a part of NATO. It binds the United States to provide a military umbrella to NATO's member states, and for which, we get almost nothing in return. The combined military capabilities of the other members states is almost infantile. See the British/French air campaign in Libya in 2011 as an example. Who gains from the United States being a part of NATO? Everyone else in NATO. The vast majority of member states have routinely failed to meet required spending minimums for their militaries, let alone go beyond the bare minimum. Who loses by being a part of NATO? The American people. Why? Because our membership helps prop up a raison d'etre for a massive military industrial complex we spend $800 billion a year on. That's 100's of billions of dollars every year that could go into health or social services and fundamentally improve the quality of life for millions of Americans. That's what the other member NATO states do with their money. We get to play the forever game of "HTM WhAt AbouT the RuSsianS" - Yea, what about the Russians? "WhAt If THey TakE OvEr the BalTic StatEs?" - yea so what if they do? The American people are not bound to make sure (and pay for the fact) nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever anywhere in the world. We're paying a high and unsustainable price for this MIC we've got going on. It has terrible consequences now and it will have terrible consequences in the future as we continue to spend 25% of the federal budget on this crap. Any part of the United States dismantling this awful military industrial complex is going to involve reducing our international obligations. I'm here for it. We're the suckers. Congrats to us.
I know why putin wants the end of NATO and countries like the US to withdraw from NATO... but curious why you want the US out of NATO? Ahh, you answered above.
If there is ever an attack against the US by China or Russia, the US is significantly weaker without NATO. Too late for regrets. Non-US NATO, due to Russia's aggression will spend much more on defense. The world is so much more interconnected today than during the last two WW. It's a pipedream to think the US can stay isolated by breaking away from NATO at a time when Europe is facing a major conflict. And it's frankly crazy to break NATO down when Europe is at risk of another multi-countries conflict that WILL have wide-ranging global ramifications. NATO was and is still the #1 way to reduce that risk. Here's why the United States needs NATO - Atlantic Council NATO promotes peace within Europe and deters major US adversaries from launching large-scale conventional wars. World War II cost the United States more than 400,000 lives and an estimated $4.1 trillion (in 2011 dollars). NATO has been key to preserving peace within the European continent and preventing other adversaries from launching a major conventional war. According to credible sources, a major conventional war today could cost the United States upwards of $2.5 trillion per year. NATO also promotes the American values of democracy and rule of law. Twenty-six of the twenty-nine NATO member states were labelled as “free” by Freedom House in 2018. By comparison, just 39 percent of the world’s population lives in “free” countries. NATO is a force multiplier that gives the United States access to military tools in greater numbers than it can achieve by itself. Non-US NATO members have 1,857,000 active duty service members and 1,232,290 reservists. The seven largest non-US NATO member armies have the same number of active duty troops as the United States (1.3 million). Non-US NATO members can deploy 6,983 battle tanks, 34,000 armored vehicles, 2,600 combat aircraft, 382 attack helicopters, 252 major naval craft (including submarines), and 1,582 patrol and surface combatants. France and the United Kingdom alone provide 30 percent of the Alliance’s ballistic-missile-submarine fleet. NATO’s European members are beginning to host the first stages of the Alliance’s new ballistic-missile-defense system aimed at preventing long-range attacks by rogue states on the United States and Europe. NATO members frequently share intelligence across the Alliance, aiding US operations and intelligence-gathering. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany alone add 40,000 intelligence personnel to the Alliance’s intelligence capabilities. Non-US NATO members host twenty-eight US main operating bases in Europe, which cut down on the time needed for the United States to respond to a crisis and are critical for US missions in the Middle East and North Africa. In 2009, for example, Germany contributed $800 million to offset and improve its US bases. NATO undertakes numerous missions to protect member states and promote security around the globe. NATO has five active missions around the world deploying 18,000 troops. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has completed thirteen missions including two in the United States (Hurricane Katrina relief and post-9/11 air reconnaissance patrol). NATO allies contributed thousands of troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, including 38,000 in 2011, saving the United States an estimated $49 billion that year. The operation in Afghanistan was the first and only time NATO’s mutual defense commitment was invoked. Non-US members sustained more than 1,000 combat deaths in Afghanistan, with an additional one hundred lost by NATO partners. Non-US NATO members contributed more than 60 percent of assets for Operation Unified Protector in Libya. Non-US Coalition members flew one-third of all coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in Operation Inherent Resolve. NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield against piracy in the Gulf of Aden has been led at different times by Denmark, Spain, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Portugal. NATO supports and protects the economies of Europe, which are critical to the health of the US economy. US trade with the European Union reached $699 billion in 2015, only made possible because of the security and stability provided by NATO. US exports to the former Communist NATO member states (not including East Germany) grew from $0.9 billion in 1989 to $9.4 billion in 2016. Non-US NATO members rely heavily on the US defense industry to supply their forces. Currently, European members are planning to purchase as many as 500 new F-35s from the United States.
Quoting an opinion piece article that lists out every possible benefit to the United States participation in NATO is hardly compelling. It's not as if these factors are unknown to critics of the United States participation in NATO. They are however, largely, cherry picked stats supplied without context or rebuttal. Many, if not all, of these things can be still be achieved without membership in NATO. What's irrational is Americans sitting here talking about "What if China or Russia invades us?" - Good grief. That's how they get Boomers to think spending $800 billion a year on defense is a good idea. Who is launching a large scale conventional war? Russia can't even advance 150KM into Ukraine, a relatively weak country on it's own border. They are going to start a war with the United States? Delusional. The United States couldn't handle any war without NATO? Also silly. $800 billion a year... 100's of billions which could be spent on health, education, housing... very real and tangible benefits to the American people and what are we getting for it? Protection from a Russian or Chinese invasion? Give me a f**kin break with that nonsense.
NATO isn't the reason for $800b a year in defense spending. <$3b of that is spent on NATO. You get rid of NATO and it's MORE LIKELY that the US has to spend more on defense to close the defense gap it lost. I thought it was irrational that Russia would try to attack anyone in Europe. We can't predict the future, we can only prepare for it. There is a saying we all know well - an ounce of prevention is worth a lb of gold. NATO's collective defense is war prevention.
Though NATO's forces have helped the United States missions throughout the world. It actually helped in Afghanistan freeing up our troops and Human Resources for other projects and tasks. So the United States has benefitted from NATO. We far outspend the required amount on our defense. We could cut our military spending many times over and still meet the NATO requirements. In WW2 it would have behooved allied nations had Germany been stopped earlier rather than saying What does France or England care if Poland is invaded, etc. A strong alliance is a benefit.
Hmm... actually, it is a very compelling list of benefits. Great when so many facts are presented in a debate.
I prefer context. Telling me NATO has "X amount of tanks" isn't very helpful in helping me determine how beneficial that alleged benefit is unless I know the age of the tanks and the capabilities of the tanks ... but hey tanks! - I guess that works for you. Not surprising.
