there is a reason why talk is so fixated on “NATO” when in reality solely mutual defense is benefitial and interesting and therfor not what name is used for. If you’d talk about capabilities of single entities of members to be able to defend themselves without alliance you get an reality check very quick. Hence hiding behind that name avoids acknowledgement the cards are not solely in washingtons hands. Neither good nor bad, unless you want to compete directly.
Does nato need to endure? – yes when you assume the US home made incompetence discord would allow the US to discover the beneficial idea of the organisation and then holding up to that. Which is redicioulus to even write, is not the case. So leaves the question, *what* to endure, not *if*. And answering that is possible. The nato idea based on US as militar and economical leadership is finished by lack of confidence in mutuality! US playing around with that confidence will erode it and logically trigger hard reckoning, because the result will be a formidable independent Europe which will be a pain in the A* for russia and for US too.
Smooth_Imagination on
NATO I think, free of USA, would have to disband and reform. The reforming can permit different conditions and even allow for UA to join.
What is NATO without the US?
It is a league of mid-Nations, all of which needs cooperation against major dominant powers.
The defensive pact a league of mid nations could form would replace NATO. It can include southern hemisphere nations.
Membership might include similar standards of living, democracy, and include relative free trade.
Most of these nations are coastal and would have strong and potentially threatening regional powers, so they may be linked as an alliance with a common naval capability. This all might happen faster than people think, but not without some turmoil.
Weve already had Canada talking about joining the EU. That nations are recognising they are mid-powers and looking for new alliances is a sign this could continue to grow, although I doubt EU is expanding much more than Ukraine, NATO could become such a framework and help facilitate another network alongside the EU and more global in nature.
2 commenti
there is a reason why talk is so fixated on “NATO” when in reality solely mutual defense is benefitial and interesting and therfor not what name is used for. If you’d talk about capabilities of single entities of members to be able to defend themselves without alliance you get an reality check very quick. Hence hiding behind that name avoids acknowledgement the cards are not solely in washingtons hands. Neither good nor bad, unless you want to compete directly.
Does nato need to endure? – yes when you assume the US home made incompetence discord would allow the US to discover the beneficial idea of the organisation and then holding up to that. Which is redicioulus to even write, is not the case. So leaves the question, *what* to endure, not *if*. And answering that is possible. The nato idea based on US as militar and economical leadership is finished by lack of confidence in mutuality! US playing around with that confidence will erode it and logically trigger hard reckoning, because the result will be a formidable independent Europe which will be a pain in the A* for russia and for US too.
NATO I think, free of USA, would have to disband and reform. The reforming can permit different conditions and even allow for UA to join.
What is NATO without the US?
It is a league of mid-Nations, all of which needs cooperation against major dominant powers.
The defensive pact a league of mid nations could form would replace NATO. It can include southern hemisphere nations.
Membership might include similar standards of living, democracy, and include relative free trade.
Most of these nations are coastal and would have strong and potentially threatening regional powers, so they may be linked as an alliance with a common naval capability. This all might happen faster than people think, but not without some turmoil.
Weve already had Canada talking about joining the EU. That nations are recognising they are mid-powers and looking for new alliances is a sign this could continue to grow, although I doubt EU is expanding much more than Ukraine, NATO could become such a framework and help facilitate another network alongside the EU and more global in nature.