How Can The World Stand By While Trump Sucks Up To Putin?

[Nolieinforme]

OK, so this probably isn't an AIBU, but I'm speechless that Trump is behaving like a bully and seems to be getting away with it.

He just lies. "Zelensky is a dictator" "Ukraine started the war" "Putin has done nothing wrong" etc, etc. I can hardly believe what's been said on the news today.

Why are the rest of the world letting this happen? If America want's to align themselves with Russia, then we should be returning the Chagos Islands without the huge sum of money promised, closing all the US airbases in the UK, closing the US embassy, and expelling their diplomats, etc, etc.

Trump is a madman and what is going to happen if no-one stands up to him? If this was anyone else they just wouldn't get away with it.

@Horriblevirusagain
Ooohhh you are so funny.
Is your tongue firmly in your cheek?
LOL

Ha, no. Not only are you dealing with entirely different administrations, but it’s easy to make assurances to get your way, then renege later when you no longer consider it in your interests to follow through.

See also the Anglo-Polish Alliance, specifically when help was requested when the Soviet Union invaded.

That would imply integrity not MAGA

"Churchill should have held elections. So should Zelensky. Why is this difficult?"

Yes over the last few years when people were discussing Churchill legacy and questionable views through a modern lens much discussion must have taken place over the injustice of his dictatorial refusal to hold elections during total war.

Ot more likely this is revisionism to justify trump's likely capitulation to russian demands.

Elections weren’t necessary in the Uk during WW2 because we had a national government that was made up of representatives of all parties.

"Elections weren’t necessary in the Uk during WW2 because we had a national government that was made up of representatives of all parties."

So by the same token Ukraine does not need elections provided zelensky appoints enough representatives from other parties to positions of responsibility?

We don’t know that he hasn’t. He’s an intelligent man who I imagine recognises that it’s sensible to use the most talented players regardless of party politics.

Yeah, if anything this is a lesson on why military defence agreements effectively only last as long as there's a shared military threat - they have a limited shelf life once you get to the point where they're only maintained because of legal paper agreements.

I think this is also true in the long run for NATO itself. I find it interesting that people are still debating whether to admit Ukraine to NATO. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if NATO doesn't even exist in its current form in 10 years.

Hmmm my own dc are in the military speaks about the poor literacy, poor awareness of world history amongst US personnel.
America i would say has the best equipment

The eu is a huge land mass it's a shame it's not on a stronger military footing.

Hi all. General query

Can anyone link to genuine, realistic data and discussions regarding what NATO would and could look like without USA, and similarly discussing unions for trade etc across the wider western powers who just don't agree with Trump, thinking of Canada, Australia etc.

I think trust has been lost, and that's everything. What could things look like if everyone just moved away from their antagonism?

There was another go at Canada being the 51st state I believe

news.sky.com/story/you-cant-take-our-country-and-you-cant-take-our-game-canadian-pm-hits-out-at-trump-after-hockey-win-13313764

Indeed. Imo it’s naive to think integrity comes into it, either at all or to any significant degree. That goes for all, not just MAGA. Once it’s no longer in the interest of one party to adhere to an agreement, and the costs of doing so is deemed to outweigh any benefit, then they quite simply won’t.

You’ve bought to mind another assurance given but not adhered to - that NATO would not expand eastwards. Russia has a deep rooted fear of encirclement, and rightly or wrongly NATO expansion was always going to create major problems.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if NATO collapses in its current form.

CANZUK is one proposed alliance:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

Wikipedia is good for the overview, but you can use the references for a deeper dive.

NATO without the US:

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/317029949/RAND_Defending_NATO_without_the_Americans_Nemeth.pdf

www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2024-11-15/europes-security-without-america-imperative-moment-or-a

Thanks

@sleepwouldbenice That's a very loaded question and would be difficult to find accurate articles on it.

There is an interesting article on the BBC that looks at funding.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44717074

So with how ourselves and other countries struggle as it is to make the necessary defence spending for NATO, how would the other NATO countries manage to afford to make up the difference in the annual running costs of NATO?
The US currently pay 16% of that... Germany joint top with 16% and ourselves 3rd with 11%
Who would take the split?

Alongside what would be an astronomical increase in defence spending needed to replace the equipment, infrastructure and technology that would be lost due to what the US provides member States. How would it be afforded?

I posted in this thread I believe and an earlier one on our reliance on the US militarily and just how much of our airforce for example would be obsolete without the US. This would be felt across the board with other countries that rely on US technology.

Just ask Turkey the pickle they got left in with being taken off of the F-35 program after signing a deal to aquire Sa-21s from Russia... Trump Mk I pulled Turkey off the program (If Putin is an "ally" why was Trump worried).
Biden (with yet another faux par) pretty much gave the green light to resume Turkey's part in the F35 program late last year. A deal that would pose a risk to the US and NATO as it would be easier for Russia to work out how to counter the stealth features and ensure that it's own SA-21s can now target F-35s because Turkey would be integrating them with their acquired SA-21s.
Allowing Russia that kind of technology essentially means that there would be zero 5th generation aircraft that could operate safely over most of Europe if Russia was to become more hostile with using their air defence (something Putin has threatened if US and UK made missiles continue to get launched at installations in Russia). Again Google can give an idea of range rings for the SA-21 TELs and associated fire control, target acquisition and early warning radars.
It isn't unrealistic to think that this increased threat caused by Biden's incompetence has played some part in what is a already a crazy standpoint from Trump and wrong move to make.

Sorry, got side tracked with the above.

Furthermore, some HQ elements of NATO's military arm actually sit at Ramstein AFB in Germany (biggest US base in Europe... honestly it's huge, mind blowing and crazy that a base is that big it needs it's own shuttlebus).
All that would need to move and find a new home in a NATO without the US.

Without the US, NATO would also lose its organic ISR capability... without ISR you are sitting ducks
https://ac.nato.int/missions/indications-and-warnings/phoenix
Again the capability is US technology whereby the assets would be returned to the US in the event of a NATO without the US.

This is why other NATO members are in a tough spot.

I think it's likely that if the US leaves NATO, it collapses entirely. It's non-obvious that, say, the UK or France feels such a deep connection with Lithuania or Montenegro that they'd send their own sons to die for them, knowing that neither of those countries would realistically be able to reciprocate, and noting that there isn't any particular special cultural relationship with a lot of them. The whole point of NATO is that everyone wants to be on the side of the US.

Replaced by individual specific deals between small numbers of countries for specific engagements or info/resource/technology sharing, not complete mutual defence treaties. Aimed at specific modern threats. I could see bulking up the shared Mediterranean naval defence, for example. Easier visa conditions for CANZUK countries.

It’s a nightmare to try and untangle. There’s a lot of knock on effects that go beyond the obvious too. Restructuring would be a frankly Herculean task, and that’s even if all parties actually agreed on a clear path forwards (good luck with that one).

@OneAmberFinch I don't think NATO will collapse without the US. Change, yes, but collapse, no.

It is also not quite right to say that the Baltics wouldn't send their sons to fight for other countries - they have. Both in active conflicts and as part of multiple peacekeeping missions. If you mean that some member states simply don't have the population numbers to be able to send the same amount of troops as others, like France, for example, that is correct. And whilst it is also true that not all member states share the same level of connection, the strength and breadth of connections held by many states shouldn't be underestimated. Nor should the value and skills provided by smaller member states.

I also disagree that the whole point of NATO is to be on the side of the US. The whole point of NATO is collective defense and security. "Never alone again."

@C152 , it might be just a difference in terminology. I basically discount Canada, so if the US quits NATO it's not really a "North Atlantic" pact anymore and just becomes a new western/central/northern Europe pact.

At which point you'd start asking questions like "hang on, is Turkey really on our side all the time?" and "if it came down to it, we'd wring our hands, but how much manpower are we honestly prepared to commit if Russia took a nibble out of Estonia?" and then it reduces to something essentially non-NATO in character.

I do expect that many/most of the NATO states would continue to be "allies" in the broad sense, even including the US. I think it'll just become a bit more... case-by-case.

Or it may look quite differernt.

I also think the EU is unlikely to survive in its current form.

Putin has powerful allies China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and other ME countries

some of these countries are heavily reliant on Russian gas and oil (as some countries in Europe have been)

why do you think they are going to want to step in it’s a Europe issue to most of the world not a global issue

The world seems truly to have gone mad. To see Musk brandishing a chainsaw and demanding that Trump be returned in 28 is the stuff of nightmares.

@OneAmberFinch Lol, ok, I don't know what any Canadians would think about being discounted, but I understand what you mean now.

I think I understand where you're coming from when you refer to nations coming to agreements or being allies on a case by case basis, and I can see why that make sense to some who feel that threats are far away (like some on this thread who say - and I'm paraphrasing - oh, it's a terrible shame what's happening in Ukraine, but it has no impact on the UK, so I don't see why the UK should be involved at all). But a 'case by case' attitude to defence won't actually work for the countries an increasingly aggressive Russia poses the most immediate threat to. In the medium to longer-term, it won't work for the rest of Europe or other Western democracies either. As some have already pointed out, the nature of war has changed and it isn't just fought by troops on the ground. Russian cyber attacks have already had a significant impact on UK healthcare services, for example. That's why it's important to keep standing - and planning and acting - together. Wars are no longer something that happen "over there", in some distant far away place.

I read this and burst into a fit of hysterical/anxiety induced laughter. It really is, it’s so bad I feel I’ve reached a point of delirium. What the fuck is going to happen next? The last 10 years feel like a bad dream from which there is no awakening.

Be fair, it’s really the last five that have been truly dreadful. Trump was comparatively restrained the first time round, he’s going for broke in the lunacy stakes this time. At least it’s an object lesson that should discourage us from ever letting Reform anywhere near power.