politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I imagine he'd "pull us out of NATO" like he "pulled us out of NAFTA". Which is to say he'd slap a new "America First" label on the old organization, take a few weeks off to vacation at a bunch of European golf courses, do a big signing ceremony in front of OAN handi-cams, and yell "I Made America Great Again" into the faces of anyone who thinks this is baby-tier bullshit.
I think the real end-game is about goosing US military exports. Trump threatens a pull out, on the condition that all the member states boost their domestic military budgets. Then those member states buy more shit from American MIC contractors. The MIC rewards Trump with political capital. And Trump takes kickbacks in the form of club memberships and no-show jobs for his extended family.
My man loves to bluff about taking his ball and going home. And he'll happily sign a big executive order with an oversized sharpee, proclaiming "We Aren't In NATO Anymore!" whether or not we actually left, because it plays well with his base. But the real influence that the US has in NATO is more about Trump extending/denying France or the UK or Finland or whomever with navy and air support to hold business assets in former colonies.
Trump knows that and he knows it offers him immense leverage, given how much these other countries rely on US power projection. So he'll very likely get a new wave of EU militarization at the enrichment of American MIC, because its the only way the other NATO states decouple their reliance on the US for "free" military support.
That said, that can backfire. Several major member states of the EU are already talking about proper remilitarization that wasn't needed since the wall fell. There are nascent beginnings of a joint European army and a joint European MIC. Why would EU states spend more money on US stuff that it already thinks it doesn't need, if it can just use the same money and pour it into the FCAS project for example, creating jobs and keeping money at home?
Orbán used to be a huge Trump fan, and he actually went and started spending more money on the military when the was Trump's thing. Only it wasn't American F-35s he got, it was a bunch of German Leopard 2A8 tanks and French Eurocopter EC725 helicopters and Norwegian NASAMS launchers. There is also a stated intent to skip 5th gen and get into the FCAS if and when that materializes.
Oh definitely. US military technology is exhaustively oversold and carry enormous overhead costs that dilute their real practical military capacity. Our new war in Yemen (much like our old war in Afghanistan) illustrate the problem neatly, as we launch $10M missiles at $100 targets and still can't get the Gulf of Adan safe enough for traffic to resume.
Because they're buying a relationship with the US Military more than they are buying the hardware itself. The promise of US Aircraft Carriers and US Satellites and experienced US military leadership coming in as the primary driver of military engagement means kicking back a billion or two to keep the Americans friendly is mostly worth it.
But if the EU grows more internally coherent as a military power.... yeah, that could very easily go away. We could be staring at another Great Rival in an increasingly fractured global rat race if the Europeans establish themselves as self-reliant.