Trump certainly provoked widespread outrage when he made his comments about not protecting NATO members who hadn't paid their fair share against Russian attacks. But how seriously should we take suggestions that he would withdraw the USA from the organisation if he wins another term? Do you support his views? And even if you don't agree with the idea of NATO leaving, are his criticisms at all justified? As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.

One thing you left out of the video Prof is that the US Congress recently passed a bill which ensures that the President can not unilaterally leave NATO without the full approval of the US Senate. So even should he win, he would need a 2/3rds majority within the Senate to authorize it, and the approval of the house to pass that into law.

A problem Europeans have in general, when discussing NATO is never actually thinking about US interests in the matter. The fact of the matter is that the US is impossible to invade, or seriously attack given the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. Europeans try, unconvincingly, to tell Americans that their participation in NATO keeps them safe from the Russians, but no one, not even the Europeans I suspect, actually believe this. US interests are increasingly shifting to countering China, no European powers can project any military power in Asia any longer after the collapse of their overseas empires. This makes NATO a dead weight in our eyes as Russia is still in decline and couldn't touch us even if they tried their best, outside of mutually assured destruction. Europeans don't actually understand that the US is 100% capable of pulling back its world empire and watching the fireworks as the world erupts into conflict. Bad for business and the US economy? Yes. But much worse for the rest of the world, especially Europe. In addition, European powers do not seem to make any economic concessions to the US, and make constant noise about decoupling, strategic independence, and turning the EU into a competitor against the US on the international stage. This combines with EU protectionist policies that have existed for decades with the explicit intent of keeping out US competition. So what exactly does the US gain from staying in NATO with free-riders that will never offer anything in return that a neutral country would not offer? Our Asian-Pacific allies, ROK, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, do not demonstrate this hostility and desire to create a parallel sphere of influence to the US. This is mainly for western Europe though, the eastern Europeans to my knowledge do not express this neo-imperialist mindset, as they were the subjects of empire until recently.

Russia refuses to stand by its commitments in CSTO in regards to the attacks on Armenia by Azerbaijan and now Trump says he wants to withdraw from NATO. I wonder if this is just a coincidence or part of a larger pattern of changing geopolitics

Usa shouldnt leave NATO, but europeans and canada really should be raising their military budgets.

US is 2/3 of NATO defence spending.

So far it remains that the only time Article 5 was enacted was by the United States immediately following 9/11.

First of all, American expenditure for NATO is not 3% because the military budget included the more than 800+ military bases which are non-NATO bases.

It would be good they cut back support to force the Europeans to do more. The Europeans have been taking advantage since the end of WW2 which was more than 70 years ago

America has protected Europe long enough for Free.

love how you can talk about these topics without watering anything down while still being easy to understand and interesting!! great video ❤️❤️

I like how the mainstream media is triggered by Trump on a daily basis. All Trump meant is that NATO member states need to contribute 2% of their budget. Europe needs to pull his own weight.

At the risk of sounding like a historical determinist, I do think the crumbling of NATO (i.e. America leaving) is inevitable. The alliance made sense when the USSR was a threat to the interests of the US and Europe post-World War, but the world has changed since then - Europe is no longer a bombed-out husk, but a community of strong nations with interests (naturally) tied to their continent (not the Pacific.) I think it's more likely that the Anglosphere will develop their own alliance system in the long-term (Canada, Australia, US, New Zealand, UK) whereas NATO will morph or rebrand into a sort of European-community alliance.

Raise it from 2% to 5%, the EU has a lot to pay back!

Most people don't realise that the US gains a net benefit from Nato . Firstly, Nato provides a huge market for US arms, secondly it means any conventional war against Russia is fought in Europe and not on the US homeland. Thirdly it means a rival European block cannot emerge to challenge US hegemony. The situation is a lot more nuanced than Trump understands. Being a hegemonic power comes with costs.

Excellent issue to discuss. The topic of US presidents commenting on the "free riding" nature of NATO allies goes back to President Eisenhower in the 1950s. Thirty years after that another example is in the 1980s when NATO was facing the massive & real threat of the Soviet army across the IGB, many NATO nations for example had less then a week or two weeks of war stock ammunition ready to be used to respond to a Soviet attack. So the concept of "free ridership" started when NATO was established. To paraphrase Dr Mearshimer "states do not have alliances, they have individual intrests." This reality needs to be an understood fact in a pragmatic analysis & assessment of US-NATO relations. The US has global commitments and for example Belgium & Portugal do not, so of course those nations will never spend to the percentage of GDP on Defense as the US does. However, we can look at what happened with Defense spending in the Baltics & Poland after 2014 & 2022. Their rapid expansion on defense spending as well as significant policy changes show their seriousness of demonstrating to the US their efforts to provide for their defense and not being seen as a "free rider". Bottom line nations such as Germany, Portugal or Belgium have & are making conscious choices not to meet agreeded levels of spending. These are internal political choices these nations are making, thus it communicates to others their lack of commitment to collective defense to deter. Trump's political allegorical story at a campaign event is essential politcal "red meat" being said in order to win the primary election. In reality the long held Jeffersonian political philosophy of isolationism is foolish given the realities of US history and economics in the world today. And to be honest the US doesnt take its own defense responsibilities serious when it is relying on a failed volunteer military service model versus consription. This, like some NATO spending levels, it is a internal political decision the US makes which absolutely shows the complete lack in the US body politic to provide for its own defense needs. The American people, like spending levels in some NATO nations, are "free riders" in their comfortable illusion that military service is important "as long as it is not me serving" Again pragmatic analysis is necessary and seeing Trump is a theatrical stage actor replicating the "crazy man Nixon" role. Him playing this role is intended to get NATO nations to make different internal political choices.

NATO could have been much stronger today if they took their own defense seriously in past years. They chose socialism and other liberal policies instead like green energy. If Ukraine relied upon Western Europe alone for help they would have lost long ago. It is time to grow up and pull your weight regardless of what Donald says or does not say.

Isolationism is an easy sell politically and has a long history in US politics. Even if Trump loses, I expect this issue to come up repeatedly in the future. Europe is wise to prepare for it!

I hate agreeing with Trump, but Luxembourg really need to up their game.

I think it makes no sense for the US to leave NATO. Right now, the Military Industrial Complex only has Russia as a competitor. But if Europe has to seriously increase its Military Industial complex. Suddenly, the USA would be facing a new competitor. Obviously, defense spending is a big part of the US economy. Otherwise, they would not have like 700 lobbyists in Washington.

US leaving the NATO would be the same as US leaving UN after ww1, but we know what happened afterwards 1933-1945

He doesn't even need to pull out of NATO. All he needs to is not do anything or very little when Article 5 is invoked.

It's time for those rich and snooty Europeans to get theirs.

This is a wanibg for us, Europeans. We need to invest in our defence industry. Thats it. We must be able to defend ourselves from any external threat.

I think funnily enough Trump actually said something that was true but in a very unproductive way. Too many members of NATO have been getting a free ride for too long with not meeting the defence spending target of 2%, its only now after the invasion of Ukraine that some have bothered to increase it but there are still some very wealthy nations who arent meeting the 2%.

Why should the United States help countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us? Let them fight their own wars. Maybe they’ll get involved in less if they know we won’t bail them out.

trump says things in an alarmist way but he is right. EU countries had pledged to spend a certain amount of GDP on defence and were blatantly NOT doing this but at the same time expecting the US to pickup the shortfall.

The us leaving nato would be great. There is no need for us protection of Europe. Europe should be self reliant without us taxpayer money.

I don’t think Trump will actually withdraw from NATO. Love or hate him, he is right in saying a lot of members have dragged their feet on military spending. But most NATO members seemed to have gotten the memo now that most have met the 2% target.

He can't leave NATO - Just old campaign trail talking point - There was a bill passed recently because of Trump. That no President can leave NATO, it would have to go to the Senate for a 2/3th of the vote. Looked it up. Part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Thank you, professor. Very few commenters have mentioned the fact that Article 5 was invoked the first and only time in support of the US so thanks for bringing that up. Also the story of Trump telling off a fellow NATO leader has all the ‘tells’ of him lying.

To start out, I am not opposed to NATO or US membership in it. I also do not necessarily see NATO as being essential either. Its continued existence and goals are fair game for a discussion that has not been had since the end of the Cold War. The last US president that was willing, and probably capable of, leading such a discussion was George H. W. Bush, and he left office in 1993. All presidents since then have been progressively more populist, and I mean that in the strictest sense. While bringing up Trump's issues with NATO is fair, you leave out that Obama also chided the allies for their failure to meet their spending commitments. In fact, President Kennedy also complained about "lazy Europeans". So, this is a long-standing issue. Obama also initiated the "pivot to Asia" and considered himself the first "Pacific" president. He pushed deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the US never ended up joining. It didn't help that the corresponding deal with the EU, TTIP was derailed by the issue of chlorinated chicken. All this predates Trump. You have to understand that in a democracy the leaders do not have carte blanche to pursue any policy they want. They need to be receptive to and in sync with the desires of the electorate. That is why the idea of the "bully pulpit" is often applied to the US presidency. The president can cajole and persuade but cannot make unilateral decisions. The issue of disproportionate payment by the US into international organizations is one that exercises the populace and has done for some time now. There are also significant portions of the US population that question UN membership and the level of the US contribution to it. In the case of Trump, he is just the most vocal proponent of reassessing US commitments to some of these organizations. Finally, you mention alternative security arrangements, such as an EU alliance, or as some in the EU have been pushing, an EU army. I just have to remind folks that Macron once lumped the US with China and Russia as threats.

The EU has a population of roughly 450 million people the US only has 333 million. The EU needs to get its act together. Funnily German is now meeting it obligations, first time in a long time.

My question here is if USA wanted to leave Nato because their allies are not contributing enough, why now? Why not leave in the 1990s and early 2000s? Sorry for bad english

I hear a lot of reasons from this gentleman to vote for Trump.

If the eu wants some sort of alliance to secure their borders, it would require European nations to pay their share, if they can’t do that in nato, what would you expect!

Dear Professor. Can a "depository state" leave an international treaty? If so how? Isn't that also an issue here? Thanks

Europe does not pay their fair share. Plain and simple

Credible deterrence is necessary for productive negotiation among hostile parties, and that's ultimately what the alliance is for -- ensuring that wars don't happen due to a preponderance of power. "Let's work this out! Or else...". Americans are tired of being the face and paying the price of the "or else". The call for 2% military spending among the alliance is a call to strengthen credible deterrence and also share the burden. It's not rocket science -- people hate feeling like they're getting taken advantage of. Those grievances will ferment into contempt, which will result in anger and consequences. "Let's work this out! Or else..." is what Trump is saying to NATO. You can try to dress it up as much as you want, but Trump is right that these countries are delinquent and not meeting the commitments they made to the group. And that is a problem we care about and need Europe to solve. The motivations are not just emotional; there are real strategy concerns about being in an alliance with weak members. Defending a weak country definitionally means the US will pay a higher price than they would if they were helping to defend a strong country. I see an obvious danger for NATO countries under 2%, which is Trump's design. If a foreign adversary wanted to fracture the alliance, they'd attack the lowest spending member and cause a humanitarian catastrophe requiring international action and testing article 5. If a dirty bomb went off in Madrid, would the alliance hold? How long would it hold? With enemies on the horizon, it's not in these countries' interests to remain weak -- they're putting a target on their back, inviting an enemy to test Article 5 and potentially call the "NATO bluff." Additionally, what happens before any attack will influence what happens after the attack. Even if the US agrees to defend, there are priorities in war around what to bomb and who to let die, etc. Scarce resources (due to chronic underinvestment) means sacrifice, and the people who pay the least will likely be asked to sacrifice the most, whether explicitly asked or simply forced to accept due to their own weakness. And those people won't have any recourse because they did not invest in their own protection. It's dark, but when any of the alliance's members are weak, the alliance is weak, and so the US is weak, and that's what we don't want. Whether the US enjoys more pros than cons in the status quo is kind of irrelevant. If the US can successfully pressure weak countries into strengthening themselves and therefore the alliance, then we can have our cake and eat it too. And again, it's in these countries' own interests to be strong, so I think it's likely to happen. Non-US countries are playing with fire -- the US defense complex is doing just fine. This gives the US options, including betraying Europe to save ourselves, which we absolutely will do if we need to. I agree it wouldn't be in US interests to leave NATO, but I think it is in our interests to pressure our allies to strengthen themselves for their own good and our collective good.

In the long run, it will be better for Europeans to pay for their own defence expenses. They have enough people, enough money and the know-how to do this. The Europeans appear to lack the political backbone and the will power to do this.

Just out of interest if the US withdraw from NATO wouldn't Europe start to buy weapons for each other. Britain produces various weapons like wise the Swedish fighter jets thus reducing weapons bought from US manufacturers. Also if the US withdraws then shouldn't they leave the various bases situated in Europe it would also show other American allies in say Asia that they aren't reliable and thus withdraw from security arrangements with them. It's far more complicated than Trump thinks and would have consequences for the US too..

2:40 Why isn't Austria marked as neutral?

James, you may be too polite to say this, but all the talk about countries having to pay their fair share is just talk. If everyone spent 2% of GDP, he would find another excuse. The other thing to remember is that even without formally withdrawing membership, he and his allies in Congress could cripple NATO from within. Like refusing to accept a country's accession. Like not sharing intelligence. Like cancelling exercises. Like refusing to respond to a provocation. If Russia were to invade some sparsely populated region of a NATO country and Trump didn't respond, then everyone around the world now knows that Article 5 is empty talk.

That is what we all expect.Ending of NATO is now matter of time.Imagine there were some countryes who even paid for entrance.

It's difficult to think of a single global or even regional organization that is not desperately crying out for very serious reform and NATO and the UN would be high on that list. It has also been the case that this reform has been both needed and called for for many, many years and it has not happened. We can therefore conclude, that none of these bodies will do a damned thing that they are not forced to do. Trump's comments, like Trump himself, were brash, loud and inelegant but they were hardly the first of their kind to come from a US president, only the latest and the most direct and blunt. You'll notice though, that they sure as hell got Europe's attention so to that end, they were effective. NATO is an important alliance but far too many of its members have fallen into the deadbeat category and I say that as a citizen of Canada; perhaps the biggest deadbeat of all. If we want to keep this thing going; and I certainly believe we should, then Europe is going to have to shake itself out of the comfortable stupor it's been in for 30+ years, recognize reality and start taking matters seriously. These nations of Europe were supposed to be partners in defense and deterrence, not dependents. A block as big, rich, diverse and advanced as Europe should be wholly capable, in 2024, of seeing to it's own defense without any input from the US beyond things like logistics, intelligence, nuclear deterrence and so on. There is NO reason why, with so many, many challenges facing them at home and around the world that the US military, and the US taxpayer, should still have to come running to the aid of the 2nd richest block of nations in the world who together are more than capable of doing it themselves but just don't want to.

Hopefully. NATO doesn't need to exist for the United States to help any country it wants to help.

We shouldn't withdraw, Nato is a key part of our control and military projection in and from Europe. However we really do need other Nato countries to pay their fair share.

Having two audio tracks on at the same time is confusing. When showing b-roll lower the audio A LOT. Other than that good vidyas! +1+1+1

I do have a degree of sympathy with those in the US who are unhappy with European NATO members spending less on defence than them, especially given that we have healthcare when they only get aircraft carriers. But, I think there is an argument that the US NEEDS to spend a higher proportion of GDP on defence than Europe, because the US US operating on two fronts - we don't have the same vested interest in the Pacific that the US does. I understand it's impossible to separate US NATO defence spending from non-NATO, but if they didn't have defence agreements with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea etc, would they spend nearly as much? I doubt it, and the pro-NATO lobby in the states should emphasis this more

I sure hope they will! Time to care for our people and not fight in no mans land.

I support the farmers, good on them . I've been following closely, and spreading the word. I live in the Czech Republic, but as yet have not seen to many protests.

The other countries should pay their share

While it is legitimate for the US to question European countries’ spending in defence, let’s not forget that Europe only faces one threat (Russia) while the US has to be ready militarily to operate on multiple fronts (eg Pacific, Middle East). The USA’s military spending reflects this multi-pronged geopolitical view. Not all of these are necessarily relevant for Europe, however.

Maybe we should also consider that all kinds of high tech defence industry in the world is dominated by American companies. So, when US spends more money, it backs to US economy with a technology leverage..

No other KZfaq channel has such an objective, unbiased, and insightful approach as this one. What I particularly like about it is the accurate historical background of each story, the brief analysis of the current situation, and then the future prospects. There is no propaganda here; the Professor gives you different points of view, tries to unravel the essence of each political, social, or military problem, and leaves you to judge and evaluate the situation. I have been following the channel closely for over three years, and it has never failed to inform, educate, and even dispel some misconceptions I had before watching the videos. Well done! Keep up the great, unprejudiced professional work, Professor!

There’s no doubt that Trump’s anti-NATO rhetoric will stop as soon as all NATO members will start spending minimum required percentage of their GDP on their defence. The biggest security threat for the NATO countries located in Europe comes from Russia and this has been so for centuries. So, it’s logical that these countries spend enough money for their defence while US should be supporting these efforts as much as they think is beneficial for their security and geopolitical goals.

He wasn't wrong about the free loader tho I'm pretty sure he was throwing a tantrum to look tough to his base It looked a bit like a high schooler when they say "go on, like I care"

Let's keep in mind (not you professor, but the TDS people) that now he only disclosed that extravagant threat, he made it many years ago. Of course , in a way, the disproportionate US spending complain is very laughable, since it goes into their own military industrial complex, not to foreign countries. Like a large part of the aid "to Ukraine". So if they want to complain , they should complain about their internal transfer of public funds, from the poor (things like public infrastructure and "the wall") to the rich (Raytheon, Lockheed etc) , not about how they're being suckered by allies. It's the same in Russia , transfer of tax money from civilian uses to the military industrial complex. I'm starting to think that is what this war is all about. More tax money to certain companies in the West and Russia. While the West and Russia simply don't care about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that die in the war, they're not people, they're a means to secure those funds. And anyone of us is potentially that. We're slaves. It's even clear that the more people die, the more funds can be secured by both parties. It's quite genius, actually. Evil genius.

Thank you ☆

Hi professor, I think some other commenters make some good points. Trump was correct in his first term that many NATO members were not meeting their obligations while they were simultaneously empowering Russia through business deals (ironically Trump’s intended effect being to draw closer to Russia and pull them further from China - a policy I admittedly thought prudent at the time - resulted in the opposite: NATO countries upped their spending as Trump ostensibly wanted and Russia, partially encouraged by the US Congress tying Trump’s hands on making a deal with Moscow, cozied up even more to an increasingly-belligerent Beijing. As far as Trump’s recent comments, they are likely campaign rhetoric appealing to his isolationist base (an issue seen in the populist wings of both parties), but it is important to remember that as president Trump mostly acted in whatever fashion prevented him from looking weak. For example, when the aforementioned NATO increases in spending occurred, Trump didn’t reject it, instead calling himself the “savior of NATO” and promoting Stoltenberg’s praise for his ability to increase spending. He even recently said that if Putin rejected a peace deal he would arm Ukraine “way more than what Biden is currently doing”. In another example, despite his populist rhetoric, in office Trump had a far more robust policy in the Middle East than the Biden administration, becoming Israel’s “most popular American president” and acting against direct Iranian assets such as Qassim Soleimani. A further, and even more paradoxical, example is Beijing, where Trump oscillated between conciliatory trade deals and realpolitik-driven trade and geopolitical conflicts; ie he both was the first president to acknowledge the “new Cold War” with the CCP while at the same time downplaying Covid for months (which probably cost him re-election) for the sake of selling his recently signed agricultural deal with Beijing. Trump is above all unpredictable and is liable to say something different every day, while generally acting in a robust fashion that isn’t always reflected by his rhetoric. He is most of all driven by the need to be perceived as strong, and that has, at least in his first term, resulted in a mix of both conciliatory and confrontational policies based on the time and place. This is in contrast to the Biden policy which, although often perceived as weak and misplaced, is at least predictable and strong in the areas where America has treaty commitments. Another important issue to note is that the NATO countries bordering on Russia’s new sphere of influence all meet their spending obligations, so the entire discussion would likely be a moot point in practice. That being said, I am of the personal opinion that all member countries should meet their 2% obligations (individually, not collectively), and I’ve been encouraged by the increased spending since Trump’s prior term as well as Russia’s aggressive actions. And unspoken factor here is the hostility shown by Western European leaders towards Trump personally, which definitely got them off on the wrong foot. It would be intersting to see how the new crop of European leaders handles the issue, especially those like Chancellor Scholz who has recognized the need for more military spending and has accordingly committed to 2%. Relations with France will also be an interesting question; Macron has waffled on the issues of both Russia and China as well as 2% obligations (as a side note I’m not sure how France maintains its global empire on such a shoestring budget, but then again their sphere of influence in West Africa is crumbling in favor of Russia for a reason), and was fairly new to office when Trump was last in power. Overall I think there is simultaneously too much being made of this remark as well as not enough serious discussions in Europe regarding national security (yet too many straw-man discussions regarding collective European security, which is both impractical to actually implement and ineffective due to diffuse national interests). Thanks as always Dr. Ker Lindsay for providing a solid basis for discussion!

Don't worry it is just rhetoric. He is right although that every country should take care of its defence by spending. US taxpayers should not be the idiots of the story and what Trump is saying resonates with them.

I think Trump's rhetoric in from 2015 onward about members needing to meet obligations was actually correct for the time. But it is less salient now. We do not live in the same strategic environment that existed then. Conversely though, if you look into the ad-hoc aid pledges to Ukraine vs. what has actually been fulfilled, it makes clear that to many countries within the alliance, much of their rhetoric is still empty. Many of the same countries which have had no issue meeting NATO obligations have actually come pretty close to delivering on their pledges completely (unlike, say, Germany). Resultantly, I think this sort of rhetoric is actually still helpful in a way (from an "atlanticist" perspective) despite the need for greater trans-atlantic unity now vs. 2015. It encourages NATO countries to continue to get their act together, but it is only helpful because Trump's credibility on just allowing Russia to attack a NATO country is very high, sadly. For me, it is mostly unfortunate that we have to pick a side here. Personally I would like to see substantially more aid to Ukraine, but a stricter line with NATO allies - more stick and fewer carrots. A few countries still really need to put their money where their mouth is to satisfy the concerns of many US voters. To that end, I feel that the consternation about Republicans and Trump that we are seeing currently ought to be encouraged to a degree as it may lead to quick course correction on the part of some NATO countries who are currently falling short. There does, however, need to be some reward from the US and other countries that have met their obligations consistently towards countries which have or will shortly shape up to encourage this behavior long term, and there does not seem to be the political will to do that in America. As an aside, it ought also to be recognized that a continental Europe which relies entirely on the U.S. for defense matters is argued by many to be in the U.S. interest. They may be right, but the way in which all parties need to be thinking about the issue would need to change. Could the U.S. and to a lesser extent Britain accept payments for defense services rendered perhaps? This is already de-facto how Japan operates and it may be easier for smaller countries with limited administrative capacity. Just spitballing.

Trump is right,let others who are in EU to pay there DGP needed,not to depend from America to give his help.

the EU is not a NATO member so if it's attacked, us ansd uk are not treaty-bound to help.

I also see that the fall of the EU and therefore the NWO interesting

If any changes would love to see the US tell the UnElected UN to go Pound Sand

Professor .! Brow. ! Just want to say . All those troubles ,we are living ,..coming from NATO ..! Mistakes or pre planned actions

Trump speech benifits NATO security fund and treat to pay 2% gdp.

7:50 LIE 😂. NATO, a pilar of international security? Are you kidding? Did you forgot the Carnage that NATO did in Lybia and the tragedy in Afghanistan? Europeans and Americans really live in a parallel universe haha... They simply forget their war crimes and massacres as someone that forget the keys while going to work 😂

#NEXIT #USMCA #AmericaFirst #VivaTrump

It's the rightful duty of daddy states to take care of all it's children

Well said. Thank you. Go Democracy.

Thank you.

Eu dwarfs Russia in money and population. They can definitely defend themselves without any problems. But why bother when we do it for them? They’ve had 30 years to prepare Time is up

Ask yourself this: If the USA left NATO tomorrow what would Putin do? Would he curse or would he open a bottle of Champagne? I submit he would open a bottle of Champagne. That tells you if it's good for the USA or not. If leaving was good for the USA then..... he would act accordingly and curse.

I had a conversation with someone on Quora a few days ago and it was about the idea of an EU army. He basically said that Europe shouldnt bother with this and let the americans do most of the work. I am against this idea. We shouldnt be very depedent on the US espscially when one of its current candidates would have the audacity to throw some of its members under the bus. Thats not an ally you should trust. Thats the opposite.

People saying congress passed a bill requiring a 2/3rds vote too prohibit the president from withdrawing from NATO are missing a key issue the constitution as the president is the commander and Chief so a president does have constitutional authority too pull out as NATO is a military alliance after all

I think the EU, plus the UK, are currently enjoying a cold shower of 'realpolitik' and are having to reassess their dependence on the US as the world's police force of last resort. Of course some of the alliance members are behind with their 2% membership subs and should immediately pay back their missing contributions, back-dated to their accession. It's a bit late in the day, but some members of NATO are finally realising that they need a European military deterrent independent of the USA, if they are to wave the big stick of MAD in the face of would-be aggressors (including those threatening economic warfare). IMHO liberalism, democracy and unrestrained market-led capitalism are not natural bed fellows ... China's economic rise and the post-communist reign of Russia's oligarchy have shown that. R (Australia)

Great video, like all of them ;) Being in the alliance provide them an access to the european defense markets. So far I remember they sold around 500 F35 to european countries. Leaving it would probably make european countries focus more on their own industries, or maybe Korea and would be a huge loss. And I am not even sure they would save some money, since they would anyway have a huge military.

A couple things I wish to ask; since NATO was formed to stand against the Soviets, wouldn’t it stand to reason to review and revise the charter since its original purpose has died? Trump made a valid point that if a majority of NATO members have not or will not contribute to its spending, what is the purpose of the USA contributing a majority when there isn’t a crisis? Finally, how does the EU and Brexit fit into this as well?

Brilliant 👏

What a difference since Reagan was president

What I'd say to NATO is better accelerate Sweden's accession before a new player joins the Hungary-Turkey axis within the group.

For every argument and counterargument there is a counterargument. For example, on the intelligence front one of the most important for the US is the Five Eyes network. Two of the five are not NATO members, are indeed in the Pacific. The US has also been strengthening its alliances in the Pacific region.

Happy Friday Professor, thx again for the thorough and neutral explanation of the situation. You can bet money trump would pull the US out of NATO. At the same time however, his chances of winning another election are greatly over blown. Obama only had a 18% chance of winning a second term. I could give my reasons why I think trump has 0% chance of winning if requested but I'm trying to keep it short. As for NATO, of course the US pays more than any other country, what does being a world leader mean? You lead by example and not through dictation. Pulling out of NATO would be a bigger mistake than brexit. Take a deep breath and relax, trumps a has been.

While I support NATO and am American, I think it would have been smarter for us in the Cold War and even prior to it to have prioritized our relationships with Central and South America before Europe. For obvious reasons, because, I mean, duh. Maybe in addition to NATO, maybe instead of NATO. In hindsight, probably would have greatly helped with our current border problem or even prevented that from happening. Maybe even given us permission to simply obliterate the cartels when they first started cropping up instead of dick-waving getting in the way.

The arms industry is massive both in R&D and production, smaller countries cannot afford the R&D costs, the US can, massive wealth is generated from the arms industry mainly in the US. The US imports very little arms from other NATO countries but exports huge amounts to NATO countries and globally. Therefore 2% of GDP is not just spent by a NATO country on its own defence but goes into the coffers of the US companies.

Then: Viktor Orban was pleased to join NATO. Now: He has fallen in love with Putin.

How likely do you view it, that if US were to withdraw from NATO, that countries like Germany and Poland would look to develop a nuclear deterrent? I am mindful the Poland also has a bilateral defence agreement but still. If I were Japan seeing a US withdrawal from NATO I would strongly consider developing nuclear weapons.

Didn't France and Germany deny Ukraine NATO membership in 2008? President Bush, President Obama and President Trump all brought up European NATO members lack of investment in their own military. Most NATO members were even downsizing their military.

trump is my guy hate him or love him Nato know what time it is.. PAY YOUR BILLS!!!!!

Of course my comment gets deleted. All reasonable, effective suggestions always are. Fuck KZfaq.

Russia was never threatening Europe. We always have been good friends. and we had the advantage of having very cheap Gas from Russia so our economy grew greatly. Since we joined the european union, it has been a disaster. The government has to borrow money for the needs of the country from the central bank which is a private bank and we have to give back with interest. To keep the Allianz with NATO, we have to borrow the money. Russia is not a training but the european union. There are not european trups but only Italian trups , frenc trups or germens trups and so on. eu are not the United States of Europe. there is only europian union and not all the nations in the union have chosen to use the euro monetary system because it is a disaster. They prefer their own sovereign currency so they do not have to give the money back with interest and they can print their own currency more importantly not all the European states are in this Fxxxxg union because they like to be their own country, not slaves of a private central eu back..

🙏🏻✨️

Thanks Prof 👍🏻👍🏻🇦🇺

interesting

World’s most important alliance 😂😂😂

R.I.P Baltic Chihuahuas. Do not bark ever again

The US spends a tiny fraction of its defense budget on NATO support. The issue has been completely blown out of proportion.

The US threatening to leave NATO is just a means to get European countries to invest more in their own defense. If you expect the United States to defend you, you should be demonstrating the will to defend yourself first. It is amazing this is a controversial concept. There should be fewer videos discussing the US threatening to leave and more videos being made attempting to persuade European countries to fulfill the commitments that they freely signed onto.