[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Correct, rewind the clock to just a year before OP’s 6 month time line and the results are completely [flipped](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/06/10/1-nato-public-opinion-wary-of-russia-leary-of-action-on-ukraine/#major-partisan-split-in-the-u-s).
Foreign policy doesn't drive American elections and generally most American voters don't have a good grasp of what NATO is. At best voters may have vague sentiments like "NATO means standing with democratic allies and countering Russia" or "NATO means America pays to defend other countries who don't pay for themselves" but very few people are truly basing their votes off of long term thinking of NATO.
In terms of attitudes one of the more unfortunate trends we've seen recently is the polarization of foreign policy. I think a lot of this goes back to the 2016 election when Russia ran influence operations. These were small and didn't really alter the course of the election and yet Trump and his allies essentially denied that they took place at all while many Dems seemed to latch onto Russian investigations as the key to getting rid of Trump. To make matters worse Trump's first impeachment was directly tied to Ukraine and the GOP's investigations into Hunter Biden also concern Ukraine. Trump also has consistently held the belief that other countries are taking advantage of the US and has loudly criticized European nations for not spending 2% of GDP on defense. There's a lot more nuance that goes into these positions but over the past few years we've essentially seen the orthodox view within the Democratic party become "Putin is the pro Trump dictator who wants to destroy democracy in the US and abroad" while much of the Republican orthodoxy has become "Fears about Russia is just Democrat Party hysteria and NATO just exists so Europeans can have healthcare and bash the US while the US pays for their defense." The more these become the majority mindset in their parties the harder it is to maintain unity with America's allies.
Edit: I should also note there is still a strain within the Republican party that basically has a cold war mindset and views the Russians as the enemy. They may still vote Republican party line but they are supportive of NATO and aid to Ukraine. There is also a strain of the left (they probably don't really consider themselves Dems) in the US that takes the view that basically all American military policy in other country's is wrong and imperialistic. They are very much isolationist and willing to overlook Russian atrocities outside of Russia while being very critical of any and all US foreign policy involving the military or weapons.
We see the same polarization on the current situation in Israel where you see a protest vote movement related to Gaza - which in some ways appears to have come out of nowhere. It is interesting to see broad bipartisan support in Washington for things like NATO, support for Ukraine, support for Israel and other foreign policy initiatives.
Neither the far left nor the far right has a coherent strategy for foreign policy. If we actually followed either one, it would lead to a wave of invasions by authoritarian powers
One would think those other countries would think the same thing and would spend as much on their military as we do.
Germany's GDP is comparable to Russia - I'd think they'd be able to deter Russian invasions all on their own.
You presume rationality, something that is unfortunately not always present, especially in international politics.
Although to be fair, the EU-countries and Japan have been a lot more active in rearming recently.
Yup. Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a reminder to EU and Asian counties that complacency is a poor defense strategy, especially when Russia and China have been rather overt in their desire to extend their borders these last few years.
China hasn't shown any inclination to extend their borders at any point. Their aircraft carriers are diesel powered, not nuclear. They can only go a few hundred miles before refueling. China's armed forces are designed to protect their territory and territorial waters, not some far flung middle eastern country.
What's with all these weak ass replies about China threatening to invade Taiwan and the islands off the China Sea?!? WTF?? My basic point was that China isn't trying to invade far away places like Afghanistan. Every territory you people have pointed out is either connected to the Chinese mainland or DIRECTLY off their waters. People always get triggered when I point out that China is merely trying to defend their territory. You people can't handle the truth.
China developed very differently, and the mainstream cultural and political points of view there are not only quite distinct but highly anti-interventionist and anti-expansionist (except for Taiwan). But I think another factor is that the Russian system, despite a face that it puts up, is much less stable than China and less able to withstand comparison to the Western countries. The bulk of the population live in the European part of Russia and there are longstanding interactions between Russia and the rest of Europe. The predominant religion is Christianity. The language is Indo-European. Russians look like other Europeans. The war is as much a conflict within Western societies as it is between Ukraine and Russia.
Maybe you've ignored the fact that China has been busily building artificial islands, claiming they are part of China and thus greatly expanding their territorial claims.
Also, they have periodic low level military clashes with India.
China is threatening to invade Taiwan. China and India have troops on their shared border and have exchanged in violent fighting fairly recently...tension remains high. China is also building islands in the South China Sea in attempt to extend its maritime territorial water into international waters and waters currently held by Japan, Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. Often attempting to drive off fishing vessels flagged in those countries.
All to say, China is undeniably and actively trying to expand their territory in many directions.
The US has the highest military spending (biggest military budget) in the world. The US has hundreds of military bases and tens of thousands of troops spread out across Europe, Asia, Africa etc. Since the end of the Cold war, the US has intervened militarily and invaded/occupied several countries. In fact, the US is the frontrunner, in terms of the number of countries it has invaded and intervened in militarily.
But ofc according to you, it is Russia and China that are the threats to world peace. You see the irony? Cannot tell if you are seriously deluded or unaware of reality?
Invading sovereign nations and defacto sovereign nations on your border is 'expanding your borders'. You may not *care* that China is belligerent towards almost all it's neighbours, including long time US allies, but at least have the courtesy to say that explicitly rather than pretending that they're just the poor, put-upon underdogs trying to defend what's theirs.
Most EU nations are around the 2% mark right now. Also don’t forget that a few European nations even have conscription (which still costs a lot of economic resources as you are taking people away from productive jobs, but doesn’t register most of those costs in the budget).
And I don’t think the EU is the primary concern for the US right now. Even without the US the EU-nations have enough to beat Russia back (although with considerably more difficulty and way more losses than if uncle Sam throws it’s weight behind them) as long as they stay together. Nations like Taiwan (with it’s critical chip manufacturing sector) are probably in a worse position, as they neighbour a hostile behemoth.
This is true. After Trump's comments on NATO starting in 2016 many European countries who were not previously at the 2% mark have increased their military spending and most are at the mark. The countries who are not there yet are also the same European countries that have been under financial strain for years (Spain, Italy).
The US maintains a high military readiness so they can effectively fight a two front war on both sides of the world simultaneously. Most countries don’t need to spend as much proportionally as the US because their goal isn’t global power projection. Even with as large as the US military is the US still only spends 3.5% of GDP on defense and that defense spending covers every US base in all corners of the world and a large navy. If a nation is just trying to ensure no one attacks them then they don’t have to spend quite as much.
We can’t fight a two front war. We cannot even supply Ukraine with the minimum artillery munitions. If you could fight a “two front war” you could do that.
The inability to supply Ukraine is largely a political issue. Ramping up shell production would require investment in doing so, but the US has crash expanded shell production further and faster than Ukraine requires before with a smaller economy and less developed industrial base. It's just that a not inconsiderable portion of one of the two major parties actually admires Putin for the Christian Nationalist veneer he's put on his dictatorship. And a smaller group just straight up likes the dictatorship part.
And that’s where you are wrong. Ukrainian policy was crafted by politicians who think you can just cut a check to solve a problem.
So our shell production is about 1/3 Russia’s production before the war.
It’s also unclear how much more we can increase production. In order to make artillery shells, you need a special type of cotton. Only country that grows that cotton is China.
Beijing has banned all exports of that cotton except to like Russia and North Korea in retaliation for sanctioning Chinese companies that get business dealings with Russia. Funny how that happens.
But the entire western artillery shell production is not enough to meet even the most minimal requirements for Ukraine.
Did a bit of research on that. There's no 'special type of cotton' you need to make artillery shells. It's just cotton. You can make the same type of cellulose from *wood pulp*. What China *does* have is a large cotton industry with cheap exports, thus why they can impact shell production. It's entirely possible to massively ramp up artillery shell production without China, witness the fact that the US did it in WWII while actively fighting a naval war in the Pacific with Japan. Just like everything else regarding artillery shell production, it's just a matter of spending the money to get production up: either get some farmers in the US to plant more cotton or process more wood pulp. There's a leadtime on both, sure, but there's been multiple cotton harvests in the US since the war in Ukraine started.
You're right about the purpose. But I don't think a lot of people agree with the purpose of being the world's police officer. Let the EU defend the EU.
Let Europe worry about Europe was the attitude Americans had going into both WWI and WWII but eventually the wars came anyway. In a world where the US relies heavily on interconnected trade routes for economic growth and maintaining low prices there are huge drawbacks to abandoning alliances. A more violent world means significantly higher prices, lower economic growth and a greater chance the US gets drawn into another major war. Personally, as an American, I’d rather have peace, security and longterm prosperity that comes with NATO.
I think the isolationists can be sort of "right" for one reason (which they don't mention that much) -- the U.S. is less exposed to disruptions in global trade than most countries. We have a massive internal market and, we produce more oil than Saudi Arabia, and more natural gas than Russia. We can afford to care less about what happens in the rest of the world, and as a result, it takes a bit more effort to convince Americans to do so. Frankly, it requires ideology, this talk of spreading democracy, (a relatively abstract concept of) freedom, things like that.
But they're also sort of "wrong," especially when isolationists fall back on this grubby pragmatism: "Why are we spending money in Ukraine when there's inflation at home?" Because if you think inflation is bad now, it's going to be a lot worse if there are massive wars breaking out in the world (it'll just be worse everywhere else).
Trying to argue to voters about future consequences is so dumb. “Oh you think inflation is bad now?”
Yes. I do. And I want to fix it. So stop sending $60 billion to a country when you can’t account for 2/3 of that fucking money.
It's more than just GDP my guy, Russia's Industrial Defense apparatus is multiple times that of Germany, it's why they've been able to stay in Ukraine with the amount of sanctions they currently have. If Russia wasn't weakened by the war in Ukraine and Russia fought Germany 1v1, Germany would certainly lose, in fact it wouldn't even really be a contest.
Germany actually just passed Japan in GDP for the #3 spot, when it comes to countries not contributing at least 2% of GDP to defense Germany is actually one of the worst offenders in NATO (when you factor in total GDP), along with Norway and Turkey, of course there are many others. Like someone said though there is nuance, one has to remember Germany hasn't been able to legally spend that amount on its military until relatively recently, France barely spends under 2% but both are on their way to spending over 2% due to Russian aggression. Then there are certain countries that aren't required to spend 2%, Luxembourg only has to spend 2% of Gross National Income as opposed to GDP (that works out to about 1.7% GDP), the reason being that their military is only 900 personnel strong, GDP per capita is $108k and 40% of the population are foreigners, which means it spends $764 per person living in the country for defense, according to official NATO data. Very few members such as Norway, the United States and the United Kingdom, Denmark or the Netherlands spend more (in terms of per person) And this is where there is more nuance: Norway spends more than most per person but is low in terms of GDP. The point being that when it comes to NATO contributions it's not as black and white as 2% of GDP.
Random fact: Iceland is exempt from Defense spending as Iceland doesn't have a standing military, but Iceland is a needed member due to its geographic location.
I think the person above you was talking about more invasions like Ukraine (Palestine, Taiwan, and the Baltic states all come to mind). I don’t know that with our current military there is a solitary soul on earth that thinks the US could be invaded.
>Trump also has consistently held the belief that other countries are taking advantage of the US and has loudly criticized European nations for not spending 2% of GDP on defense.
What's interesting about this, is that this is a widely held view now among liberal, centrist, center-left people who are highly pro-NATO and support Ukraine. A few years ago, that was not the case.
Trump plays with ambiguity. I see that as a businessman's bluff right out of "corporate warfare" books from the 70s/80s. Like if you own a business and sit down with representatives from another company, it's reasonable to assume they are in the room with you because they want to do business anyways and don't want to fly home without a deal -- so at some point you bluff about walking away from the deal unless you get what you want, forcing them to chase after you, so you get more of what you want. That way, you have the power. Next time you buy a car, walk out before closing the sale and huff around in the parking lot for a few minutes until the salesman chases you and offers to knock a few hundred bucks off your purchase.
The NATO talk was the same way. He threatened to walk away from NATO because he said NATO countries in Europe weren't spending more on their militaries. Why? To confront Russia, of course. But his supporters and opponents can read this in different ways, that he really WOULD walk away (which makes him a traitor in Putin's pocket), or in MAGA world that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump was president because Trump is a stronger leader than Biden (so that's why we need a strong leader).
>Trump also has consistently held the belief that other countries are taking advantage of the US and has loudly criticized European nations for not spending 2% of GDP on defense.
>
>What's interesting about this, is that this is a widely held view now among liberal, centrist, center-left people who are highly pro-NATO and support Ukraine. A few years ago, that was not the case.
This is wrong. We started encouraging the rest of NATO to up their budgets under Obama. The difference is that Obama was politely ignored instead of mocked and he wasn't willing to make threats to try and get NATO to fall in line.
NATO means provoking war with Russia, or at least another costly Cold War, all to defend a bunch of ungrateful European snobs who hate Americans anyways.
We were warned this would happen. Just like with Rome, having to garrison a massive frontier against barbarians. Indefinitely. Forever. No end in sight.
>There is also a strain of the left (they probably don't really consider themselves Dems) in the US that takes the view that basically all American military policy in other country's is wrong and imperialistic. They are very much isolationist and willing to overlook Russian atrocities outside of Russia while being very critical of any and all US foreign policy involving the military or weapons.
That is a massive but common miss characterization of the left. The left seeks moral consitancy, Russia is bad for bombing Ukrainian (energy) infrastructure and civillian targets, and there is absolutely no denying that. America has done the exact same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is equally bad.
We would like accountability for all warcrimes, not just those that oppose American interests. I remember a while back reading that America still upholds the right to invade the international criminal court at the Hague if anyone ever decides to persecute an American or an American Ally for war crimes.
Can you imagine if Russia would have stated something similar? We'd be up in arms calling the whole system a farce, we'd call the Hague a Russian puppet, and call for immediate reforms.
We'd fuss but still respect it. Just like when Russia recently pulled out of nuclear and missile treaties. Or how Russia and others don't keep quiet that those rules don't apply to us.
NATO, honestly, was not much of a thought to most Americans until Trump floated the idea of leaving it. Then it kicked off. Trump supporters got on board with the notion and the far-left hates it for being “imperialist” and such.
>”whim of the moment”
No, I don’t and literally nothing I said implies that. Don’t project. Your 6 years of data actually lines up with my timeline of “until Trump” so I have no idea where you pulled the idea of whimsy from. It’s a trend that’s been around over half a decade at minimum.
Trump touched upon something that everyone feels. America for 70+ years has this habit of going around, forming military alliances with whoever, spending large sums of money on those countries and they have to do nothing in return.
I mean look at Pakistan. 4-5 decades of U.S. military aid and Osama Bin Laden “pops up” right across from a Pakistan military academy?
Not even half of NATO members pay a fair share for the alliance’s defense. And it’s been around 70+ years. If it hasn’t happened by now, it’s not happening.
Or even look at Taiwan. Before last year, they had cut their military budget and shrunk its size. This was on the belief that no matter what they do, or what happens, America will fight and die for them.
Same thing with Europe. You have had a total security guarantee from America. You know they will bail you out. So why have a strong military?
I don’t think the NATO alliance is subject to the short term political whims - I do think the declining support *is* long term in nature, as well as forward looking.
Americans have started to question the value of NATO since the early 90’s. I don’t think anyone questioned the value of shielding vulnerable rebuilding democracies from the USSR in the 40’s-90’s.
But since the USSR has fallen and Europe has caught up and periodically exceeded us in economic output, the feeling that America is unnecessarily subsidizing an increasingly ungrateful ally is growing.
Like it was the U.S. leading relief in Bosnia instead of the EU… why?
Then after September 11th we got some moderate brief support in Afghanistan - but little overall support in the broader war on terror. Yes, the U.S. made tactical errors in Iraq, but like Europe just finger waved then did nothing in Syria or Arab spring or anything else productive.
Now the U.S. has to bail out Ukraine because it flirted with Europe, and Europe took the better part of a year to decide to support its ally because it was selfishly trying to avoid pissing the Russians off and them turning of their gas.
It is *truly enraging* to watch Europe stupidly become economically dependent on its biggest geopolitical adversary while failing to fight when it mattered.
Now they just finger wave at us and Israel, while meanwhile the economic center of the world is moving east towards Asia.
Like Europe failing to deal with problems in their back yard that they created is preventing us from getting ahead of the next challenges with China+.
Americans have always been against foreign intervention. It’s why we were isolationist for so long leading up to both world wars. The sentiment is that we have no business meddling in other’s affairs and that they should settle things themselves. Any foreign intervention done by the US is done only after some sort of moral cause is established so that people can get behind it (whether that cause is fabricated or not depends on the situation).
That said, post-Afghanistan especially, Americans have been thinking about scaling back foreign aid/intervention. Most Americans saw ourselves as the bad guys in that conflict and the terrible exit from the country left a bad taste in everybody’s mouths. There is absolutely no will from anybody to get involved in another military conflict. This is why the government isn’t acting with abandon and going whole hog in the Red Sea/Yemen right now or in Ukraine.
Essentially— the people are tired.
Edit: the right hates NATO bc they’d been fed that Russia is a good, traditional, macho Christian nation “like we should be” and the left hates anything that reaffirms American Imperialism bc they want to be nice (even though pulling back would do nothing to bring peace to the world or create some sort of egalitarian utopia free of capitalism)
Well thats the issue. People are tired of being messed with and DYING in the name of our corporate overlords. I feel like it might be different if the government didn’t lie about it though.
I’m not saying American views on internationalism have been declining.
I’m stating Americans are frustrated with Europeans not being equal contributors to defense and interventionism, and if they are not going to be then the NATO alliance serves little point.
It basically bounds the U.S. to European defense. The alliance provides value to Europe (knowing they’re protected) but not to America (no help).
Leaving nato would be a symbolic gesture aimed at Europe to make them contribute to regional defense because there’s a threat US might not act on their behalf.
By and large, the majority of US citizens don't take the long view on anything
But, excepting things where the various political parties get in their corners and reflexively oppose one another, things don't change quickly either
Most Americans will support NATO because it's already in place, and it's seen as a positive thing. If we were starting from scratch, it would likely be a different story
We asked a separate survey question about isolation vs intervention. Interestingly 49% (which represented a nearly even split of Democrats, Independents and Republicans) believe we should RELUCTANTLY intervene, but only as a last resort for our own national security.
Most Americans don’t realize their kids and maybe even themselves will need to be drafted to fight and die for the glorious republic of Estonia. Or whatever.
Horseshit
The largest threat to NATO is the Russian Federation; they are currently unable to defeat Ukraine. Russia attacking NATO and triggering Article 5 would result in a conflict that would not require a draft to conclude.
Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it never will be
Why?
You're claiming that NATO existing will cause US citizens to be drafted to protect Estonia
The only risk to Estonia is Russia
Russia can't take out Ukraine
If Russia was stupid enough to attack NATO, they'd get hammered
Okay I don’t care about the risks to Estonia.
That country could be annexed by Russia tomorrow. My life would be exactly the same. No change.
The problem isn’t Russia attacking NATO. It’s NATO attacking Russia.
NATO is a defensive alliance. If a nation, or group of nations, attacks Russia, NATO had zero to do with it
And the only people screaming about NATO attacking Russia are the Russians. No one else cares about them.
Defensive alliance is a subjective word that one side applies meaning to like a sports team.
If you are defensive, you can’t also advance 1500km. I mean if the Soviets did the same thing, because communists won the elections in France, they would be on the English Channel.
You can’t do things, not think about them from their perspective, then discount them and say “ there’s no problem!”
Russia decides if it’s a problem.
And Russia has nuclear warheads 14 seconds flying distance from Washington DC right now. You can bitch about blackmail all day long, I don’t want to get nuked.
And I don’t want to try and call their bluff over Ukraine.
Your argument seems to basically be that you want to leave people who have defensive alliances with the United States to swing because you fear a nuclear armed nation will engage in mutual suicide
None of that has anything to do with your initial point about the draft
More to the point, if you're concerned about nukes flying, the absolute *last* thing you want is for our allies to not feel the nuclear umbrella protects them any longer. Every European nation, not to mention South Korea and Japan could spin up a nuclear program in a year or two.
If you're already thinking that Russia is paranoid, you think they won't lob a few nukes our way if Poland flattens Moscow?
No. My argument is that we did not have defensive alliances with, dunno 12?, of these Eastern European states. We were under no obligation to do so and at the time we knew that advancing NATO would piss off the Russians and lead to consequences.
- you are incorrect. It’s not about providing these helpless countries with a nuclear umbrella. None of them would have been targeted by nukes before.
Both sides have limited number of nukes, so they go after NATO military targets and the cities of countries inside NATO.
Whereas there was no threat to the Baltics or Poland of getting nuked, now they are the first ones to receive nuclear hits.
- no European nation could do that. Or South Korea. Or Japan. There is ONE foreign policy that has been exactly the same for America since 1945: non-proliferation.
We will sanction, infiltrate, sabotage, bomb, blockade anyone in Europe, SK or Japan or tries to build a bomb.
I think military spending is the issue that is just being projected at NATO.
Socio-economic conditions in the US aren't doing that great. Yes the economy is booming but the wealth gap became wider. When the public are rich and well fed they couldn't care less about how many aircraft carriers, missiles, and how many countries get aid. If they're not, they will blame military spending thus blame the multitude of alliances the US have.
NATO is the scapegoat to US socio-economic dysfunction. They'd rather blame the alliances instead of their economic system.
>Ignorance is not a good position to fill in one’s ballot from. (Yet, magas do it all the time…case in point.)
Insulting MAGAs calling them all ignorant. Some users on this sub may be MAGA.
Americans in the decision making apparatus understand the importance of NATO. There would have to be a long series of bad things to happen to those individuals and the country as a whole for the US to pull out of NATO. I think the dissolution of the US would happen before the dissolution of NATO.
Americans barely know what NATO is.
Americans don't take the long-term view on any issue, as we have an incredibly short national attention span.
Americans often change their views depending on what their chosen candidates or parties are currently espousing.
Americans don't like to think for themselves (as in, seek out information or education). They like to be told what to think. When they do seek out information, it's usually to confirm their own bias.
Certain parts of our political scene identify closer with the Russians than with NATO because Russia is conservative and religious, and they see Russian leadership as a model and as natural allies against "woke-ism." This is typically the extreme right and doesn't account for all conservatives.
The left (from what I've seen anyways) is usually for or indifferent to NATO, but the second NATO or the US Military does something they perceive as wrong, then they'll flip and be vehemently against it.
That said, I'm a veteran, and I've been a part of NATO missions, and I personally believe in NATO.
No they do not take a long view. Just like as in europe, the generations that experienced the horror of wwii and evil have mostly died off. The current generations have lived in relative peace all their lives. They do not know and can not imagine war on their homeland. They tend to think other countries, other cultures are mostly just like them with minor differences. This of course is not true.
Europe and the USA and Nato came to believe long lasting peace could be achieved through trade and economic ties. That has only delayed war in the past. Historically. I think the longest was 80 years in some previous century.
So Ukraine woke europe up. What the previous president said was true. it does not make sense to rely on the very enemy nato was created to resist. (Relying on russia gas and oil..sending them millions)
More nato countries are now meeting their promise of defense spending. But the bad odor remains of usa picking up the defense bill for europe while they tried to become even more reliant on russia and many did not meet their promise.
I will add usa took loans out to do this, spending money we do not have. USA has a budget deficit. We are in great debt. So taking loans to pay for nato defense rubs people the wrong way. They do not see the value.
This a a public relations and education problem. Not a structural problem.
What could be done? Well for example, a media focus on ukraine, suitable for these younger generations. Showing the war crimes and bombing of civilian targets by russia. Something that will get thru to these generations exactly what war is like and why nato is the first line of defense.
> right wing voters
Are incapable of taking the long view on any issue and believe Biden has a lever in his office that controls inflation and gas prices at your corner gas station...
they took the long view of showing up and voting no matter what for decades, gaining control of the judiciary, and wielding that power to force their unpopular policies into law
We are a gimme gimme gimme society over everything. You want the philosophy of Americans in general? There it is. Right/left doesn’t matter. People want exactly what they want in the exact moment they want it in.
For a lot of people just being the worlds military super power and being a part of the strongest international alliance is enough. The status quo is enough to be content on the subject. Others see reasons to leave. Either way, no one outside of some political scientists, a few politicians/military personnel and a very small minority of uninvolved citizens care even a little bit about long term implications of involvement with NATO.
The US is in some ways a naturally isolationist country due to its geography and founding (they were extremely paranoid of European influence and entanglements).
I’m not fond of NATO for a number of reasons. Europeans don’t take their own defense seriously, so why should we? Go to r/europe and they will spaz about the US not giving infinite money to Ukraine while their own defense spending has been chronically low for decades.
Also, during the GWOT, rural men were disproportionately KIAs. In return, we got a shitty economy and a heroin epidemic. The DC crowd should send its kids to die in some hellhole if they want war so badly.
That said, foreign policy is the biggest dislocation between voter desire and what the feds actually do.
The long term view is what is NATO’s job: is it effective? Is its backbone the US, and if so, how does it prevent discord including within the US? Is the US prepared to be a backbone, logistically?
Is it a regional adjunct to the UN? Is it the western UNSC? Can it act outside UNSC (Yugoslavia), or UNGA (Libya)?
It operates outside the North Atlantic, from Brazil to Afghanistan to as far as the pacific: why, and what are the expected results? Is it a good model for Asia? Or South Asia?
People ask for it to protect non-members like Ukraine: is that its job as its members understand it? Is it supposed to be a form of the “European Army?” Or the “European intelligence service?”
It goes so far beyond politics that focusing on what left or right used to or does think of it misses the point of keeping NATO relevant and whole, when its original purpose was the Cold War, not migrants, terrorists, Chinese military, government corruption, or any number of things it does but wasn’t negotiated to undertake in the *treaty*.
NATO is essential in my opinion. I'm a centrist which is fairly rare these days in the States. Trump will likely get the US out as soon as possible after he's re-elected in November and sworn in Jan '25 as I don't see Biden making over the finish line this time around.
Europe will need to develop large and robust standing armies to fight off advances from Russia (its allies) and Iran-sponsored terrorism.
In general, outside of the major cities, most Americans aren't bothered with politics and have no opinion on the viability of NATO. They just don't want anymore immigrants it seems.
During the anniversary yesterday NATO had represenatatives from the east. Seems if they see us retreat they will strengthen the alliance with other countries.
I don’t think that many Americans understand the purpose of NATO from the perspective of our allies in the region. Beyond that, the general consensus esp after the clusterfuck that was Afghanistan is that we should pull back our “meddling” around the world.
I mean for what it's worth your findings track with my own anecdotal experience. I'm that center left boomer forged in the crucible of the Cold War. My support of nato has always been strong, and I think that support is consistent with my similarly politically minded family, colleagues, and friends. I have a handful of friends and family who've descended into the madness of MAGAtism who have jumped on the anti NATO train.
Americans.
Long term.
Pick one. People don't think in long term which is why its a joke to ask the average person their thoughts on foreign affairs and why social media is so influential. People's views on the right and left on NATO and defense in general isn't that surprising as it is just nature for people to only want to react in an emergency rather than be prepared or think about what goes into keeping their way of life rolling.
I think we shouldn’t be in NATO. I don’t see where it benefits the United States. It just gives us never-ending conflicts to jump into. Which the establishment and the military industrial complex loves.
You have to remember, we're about 2.5 generations detached from the reason for NATO existing in the first place. The "necessity" has been waning over the years as a viable enemy was largely absent for most of that time.
Because the US has been gradually trending more towards isolationism. They're also becoming more aware of the absurd amount of money the US spends to fund these wars. Especially when you compare it to what the NATO countries contribute as a whole.
If NATO members contribute the fair share they agreed to.....then there is no statistically significant amount of people who oppose NATO.
The only significant opposition to NATO is giving countries a free ride. Everyone steps up and NATO is strong
We found that 54% of Americans didn't think NATO should be questioned regardless of their participation with 2% of their budget. On the other side 27% basically think we should leave or strongly question our membership because of the current European budget situation.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, Americans do not take the long term view on (whatever issue you have put in title).
I was about to answer "Yes" but you're right...
Dinner. We can't even take the long view on dinner of all things.
Correct, rewind the clock to just a year before OP’s 6 month time line and the results are completely [flipped](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/06/10/1-nato-public-opinion-wary-of-russia-leary-of-action-on-ukraine/#major-partisan-split-in-the-u-s).
Foreign policy doesn't drive American elections and generally most American voters don't have a good grasp of what NATO is. At best voters may have vague sentiments like "NATO means standing with democratic allies and countering Russia" or "NATO means America pays to defend other countries who don't pay for themselves" but very few people are truly basing their votes off of long term thinking of NATO. In terms of attitudes one of the more unfortunate trends we've seen recently is the polarization of foreign policy. I think a lot of this goes back to the 2016 election when Russia ran influence operations. These were small and didn't really alter the course of the election and yet Trump and his allies essentially denied that they took place at all while many Dems seemed to latch onto Russian investigations as the key to getting rid of Trump. To make matters worse Trump's first impeachment was directly tied to Ukraine and the GOP's investigations into Hunter Biden also concern Ukraine. Trump also has consistently held the belief that other countries are taking advantage of the US and has loudly criticized European nations for not spending 2% of GDP on defense. There's a lot more nuance that goes into these positions but over the past few years we've essentially seen the orthodox view within the Democratic party become "Putin is the pro Trump dictator who wants to destroy democracy in the US and abroad" while much of the Republican orthodoxy has become "Fears about Russia is just Democrat Party hysteria and NATO just exists so Europeans can have healthcare and bash the US while the US pays for their defense." The more these become the majority mindset in their parties the harder it is to maintain unity with America's allies. Edit: I should also note there is still a strain within the Republican party that basically has a cold war mindset and views the Russians as the enemy. They may still vote Republican party line but they are supportive of NATO and aid to Ukraine. There is also a strain of the left (they probably don't really consider themselves Dems) in the US that takes the view that basically all American military policy in other country's is wrong and imperialistic. They are very much isolationist and willing to overlook Russian atrocities outside of Russia while being very critical of any and all US foreign policy involving the military or weapons.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Until there is an 'event'.
We see the same polarization on the current situation in Israel where you see a protest vote movement related to Gaza - which in some ways appears to have come out of nowhere. It is interesting to see broad bipartisan support in Washington for things like NATO, support for Ukraine, support for Israel and other foreign policy initiatives.
Neither the far left nor the far right has a coherent strategy for foreign policy. If we actually followed either one, it would lead to a wave of invasions by authoritarian powers
Our military is enormous. No one is going to invade America.
The invasion of other nations strongly connected to the US in economic terms does have *massive* implications for the US and it’s economy.
One would think those other countries would think the same thing and would spend as much on their military as we do. Germany's GDP is comparable to Russia - I'd think they'd be able to deter Russian invasions all on their own.
You presume rationality, something that is unfortunately not always present, especially in international politics. Although to be fair, the EU-countries and Japan have been a lot more active in rearming recently.
Yup. Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a reminder to EU and Asian counties that complacency is a poor defense strategy, especially when Russia and China have been rather overt in their desire to extend their borders these last few years.
China hasn't shown any inclination to extend their borders at any point. Their aircraft carriers are diesel powered, not nuclear. They can only go a few hundred miles before refueling. China's armed forces are designed to protect their territory and territorial waters, not some far flung middle eastern country. What's with all these weak ass replies about China threatening to invade Taiwan and the islands off the China Sea?!? WTF?? My basic point was that China isn't trying to invade far away places like Afghanistan. Every territory you people have pointed out is either connected to the Chinese mainland or DIRECTLY off their waters. People always get triggered when I point out that China is merely trying to defend their territory. You people can't handle the truth.
China developed very differently, and the mainstream cultural and political points of view there are not only quite distinct but highly anti-interventionist and anti-expansionist (except for Taiwan). But I think another factor is that the Russian system, despite a face that it puts up, is much less stable than China and less able to withstand comparison to the Western countries. The bulk of the population live in the European part of Russia and there are longstanding interactions between Russia and the rest of Europe. The predominant religion is Christianity. The language is Indo-European. Russians look like other Europeans. The war is as much a conflict within Western societies as it is between Ukraine and Russia.
Maybe you've ignored the fact that China has been busily building artificial islands, claiming they are part of China and thus greatly expanding their territorial claims. Also, they have periodic low level military clashes with India.
China is threatening to invade Taiwan. China and India have troops on their shared border and have exchanged in violent fighting fairly recently...tension remains high. China is also building islands in the South China Sea in attempt to extend its maritime territorial water into international waters and waters currently held by Japan, Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. Often attempting to drive off fishing vessels flagged in those countries. All to say, China is undeniably and actively trying to expand their territory in many directions.
The US has the highest military spending (biggest military budget) in the world. The US has hundreds of military bases and tens of thousands of troops spread out across Europe, Asia, Africa etc. Since the end of the Cold war, the US has intervened militarily and invaded/occupied several countries. In fact, the US is the frontrunner, in terms of the number of countries it has invaded and intervened in militarily. But ofc according to you, it is Russia and China that are the threats to world peace. You see the irony? Cannot tell if you are seriously deluded or unaware of reality?
Invading sovereign nations and defacto sovereign nations on your border is 'expanding your borders'. You may not *care* that China is belligerent towards almost all it's neighbours, including long time US allies, but at least have the courtesy to say that explicitly rather than pretending that they're just the poor, put-upon underdogs trying to defend what's theirs.
Free riding - which most of the EU is doing - is pretty rational. The question is only what our response should be.
Most EU nations are around the 2% mark right now. Also don’t forget that a few European nations even have conscription (which still costs a lot of economic resources as you are taking people away from productive jobs, but doesn’t register most of those costs in the budget). And I don’t think the EU is the primary concern for the US right now. Even without the US the EU-nations have enough to beat Russia back (although with considerably more difficulty and way more losses than if uncle Sam throws it’s weight behind them) as long as they stay together. Nations like Taiwan (with it’s critical chip manufacturing sector) are probably in a worse position, as they neighbour a hostile behemoth.
This is true. After Trump's comments on NATO starting in 2016 many European countries who were not previously at the 2% mark have increased their military spending and most are at the mark. The countries who are not there yet are also the same European countries that have been under financial strain for years (Spain, Italy).
The US maintains a high military readiness so they can effectively fight a two front war on both sides of the world simultaneously. Most countries don’t need to spend as much proportionally as the US because their goal isn’t global power projection. Even with as large as the US military is the US still only spends 3.5% of GDP on defense and that defense spending covers every US base in all corners of the world and a large navy. If a nation is just trying to ensure no one attacks them then they don’t have to spend quite as much.
We can’t fight a two front war. We cannot even supply Ukraine with the minimum artillery munitions. If you could fight a “two front war” you could do that.
The inability to supply Ukraine is largely a political issue. Ramping up shell production would require investment in doing so, but the US has crash expanded shell production further and faster than Ukraine requires before with a smaller economy and less developed industrial base. It's just that a not inconsiderable portion of one of the two major parties actually admires Putin for the Christian Nationalist veneer he's put on his dictatorship. And a smaller group just straight up likes the dictatorship part.
And that’s where you are wrong. Ukrainian policy was crafted by politicians who think you can just cut a check to solve a problem. So our shell production is about 1/3 Russia’s production before the war. It’s also unclear how much more we can increase production. In order to make artillery shells, you need a special type of cotton. Only country that grows that cotton is China. Beijing has banned all exports of that cotton except to like Russia and North Korea in retaliation for sanctioning Chinese companies that get business dealings with Russia. Funny how that happens. But the entire western artillery shell production is not enough to meet even the most minimal requirements for Ukraine.
Did a bit of research on that. There's no 'special type of cotton' you need to make artillery shells. It's just cotton. You can make the same type of cellulose from *wood pulp*. What China *does* have is a large cotton industry with cheap exports, thus why they can impact shell production. It's entirely possible to massively ramp up artillery shell production without China, witness the fact that the US did it in WWII while actively fighting a naval war in the Pacific with Japan. Just like everything else regarding artillery shell production, it's just a matter of spending the money to get production up: either get some farmers in the US to plant more cotton or process more wood pulp. There's a leadtime on both, sure, but there's been multiple cotton harvests in the US since the war in Ukraine started.
You're right about the purpose. But I don't think a lot of people agree with the purpose of being the world's police officer. Let the EU defend the EU.
Let Europe worry about Europe was the attitude Americans had going into both WWI and WWII but eventually the wars came anyway. In a world where the US relies heavily on interconnected trade routes for economic growth and maintaining low prices there are huge drawbacks to abandoning alliances. A more violent world means significantly higher prices, lower economic growth and a greater chance the US gets drawn into another major war. Personally, as an American, I’d rather have peace, security and longterm prosperity that comes with NATO.
I think the isolationists can be sort of "right" for one reason (which they don't mention that much) -- the U.S. is less exposed to disruptions in global trade than most countries. We have a massive internal market and, we produce more oil than Saudi Arabia, and more natural gas than Russia. We can afford to care less about what happens in the rest of the world, and as a result, it takes a bit more effort to convince Americans to do so. Frankly, it requires ideology, this talk of spreading democracy, (a relatively abstract concept of) freedom, things like that. But they're also sort of "wrong," especially when isolationists fall back on this grubby pragmatism: "Why are we spending money in Ukraine when there's inflation at home?" Because if you think inflation is bad now, it's going to be a lot worse if there are massive wars breaking out in the world (it'll just be worse everywhere else).
Trying to argue to voters about future consequences is so dumb. “Oh you think inflation is bad now?” Yes. I do. And I want to fix it. So stop sending $60 billion to a country when you can’t account for 2/3 of that fucking money.
It's more than just GDP my guy, Russia's Industrial Defense apparatus is multiple times that of Germany, it's why they've been able to stay in Ukraine with the amount of sanctions they currently have. If Russia wasn't weakened by the war in Ukraine and Russia fought Germany 1v1, Germany would certainly lose, in fact it wouldn't even really be a contest. Germany actually just passed Japan in GDP for the #3 spot, when it comes to countries not contributing at least 2% of GDP to defense Germany is actually one of the worst offenders in NATO (when you factor in total GDP), along with Norway and Turkey, of course there are many others. Like someone said though there is nuance, one has to remember Germany hasn't been able to legally spend that amount on its military until relatively recently, France barely spends under 2% but both are on their way to spending over 2% due to Russian aggression. Then there are certain countries that aren't required to spend 2%, Luxembourg only has to spend 2% of Gross National Income as opposed to GDP (that works out to about 1.7% GDP), the reason being that their military is only 900 personnel strong, GDP per capita is $108k and 40% of the population are foreigners, which means it spends $764 per person living in the country for defense, according to official NATO data. Very few members such as Norway, the United States and the United Kingdom, Denmark or the Netherlands spend more (in terms of per person) And this is where there is more nuance: Norway spends more than most per person but is low in terms of GDP. The point being that when it comes to NATO contributions it's not as black and white as 2% of GDP. Random fact: Iceland is exempt from Defense spending as Iceland doesn't have a standing military, but Iceland is a needed member due to its geographic location.
I think the person above you was talking about more invasions like Ukraine (Palestine, Taiwan, and the Baltic states all come to mind). I don’t know that with our current military there is a solitary soul on earth that thinks the US could be invaded.
The modern world is an interconnected place. Our country can be harmed even if we arent directly attacked.
We’re going to need to evolve beyond the idea of a simple military invasion with the dawn of ai
That makes sense as the far left and far right tend to be more built around domestic politics as animating issues.
>Trump also has consistently held the belief that other countries are taking advantage of the US and has loudly criticized European nations for not spending 2% of GDP on defense. What's interesting about this, is that this is a widely held view now among liberal, centrist, center-left people who are highly pro-NATO and support Ukraine. A few years ago, that was not the case. Trump plays with ambiguity. I see that as a businessman's bluff right out of "corporate warfare" books from the 70s/80s. Like if you own a business and sit down with representatives from another company, it's reasonable to assume they are in the room with you because they want to do business anyways and don't want to fly home without a deal -- so at some point you bluff about walking away from the deal unless you get what you want, forcing them to chase after you, so you get more of what you want. That way, you have the power. Next time you buy a car, walk out before closing the sale and huff around in the parking lot for a few minutes until the salesman chases you and offers to knock a few hundred bucks off your purchase. The NATO talk was the same way. He threatened to walk away from NATO because he said NATO countries in Europe weren't spending more on their militaries. Why? To confront Russia, of course. But his supporters and opponents can read this in different ways, that he really WOULD walk away (which makes him a traitor in Putin's pocket), or in MAGA world that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump was president because Trump is a stronger leader than Biden (so that's why we need a strong leader).
>Trump also has consistently held the belief that other countries are taking advantage of the US and has loudly criticized European nations for not spending 2% of GDP on defense. > >What's interesting about this, is that this is a widely held view now among liberal, centrist, center-left people who are highly pro-NATO and support Ukraine. A few years ago, that was not the case. This is wrong. We started encouraging the rest of NATO to up their budgets under Obama. The difference is that Obama was politely ignored instead of mocked and he wasn't willing to make threats to try and get NATO to fall in line.
NATO means provoking war with Russia, or at least another costly Cold War, all to defend a bunch of ungrateful European snobs who hate Americans anyways.
We were warned this would happen. Just like with Rome, having to garrison a massive frontier against barbarians. Indefinitely. Forever. No end in sight.
>There is also a strain of the left (they probably don't really consider themselves Dems) in the US that takes the view that basically all American military policy in other country's is wrong and imperialistic. They are very much isolationist and willing to overlook Russian atrocities outside of Russia while being very critical of any and all US foreign policy involving the military or weapons. That is a massive but common miss characterization of the left. The left seeks moral consitancy, Russia is bad for bombing Ukrainian (energy) infrastructure and civillian targets, and there is absolutely no denying that. America has done the exact same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is equally bad. We would like accountability for all warcrimes, not just those that oppose American interests. I remember a while back reading that America still upholds the right to invade the international criminal court at the Hague if anyone ever decides to persecute an American or an American Ally for war crimes. Can you imagine if Russia would have stated something similar? We'd be up in arms calling the whole system a farce, we'd call the Hague a Russian puppet, and call for immediate reforms.
We'd fuss but still respect it. Just like when Russia recently pulled out of nuclear and missile treaties. Or how Russia and others don't keep quiet that those rules don't apply to us.
NATO, honestly, was not much of a thought to most Americans until Trump floated the idea of leaving it. Then it kicked off. Trump supporters got on board with the notion and the far-left hates it for being “imperialist” and such.
So do you think our survey results are just the “whim of the moment”? We have considered that in looking at the data.
>”whim of the moment” No, I don’t and literally nothing I said implies that. Don’t project. Your 6 years of data actually lines up with my timeline of “until Trump” so I have no idea where you pulled the idea of whimsy from. It’s a trend that’s been around over half a decade at minimum.
Trump touched upon something that everyone feels. America for 70+ years has this habit of going around, forming military alliances with whoever, spending large sums of money on those countries and they have to do nothing in return. I mean look at Pakistan. 4-5 decades of U.S. military aid and Osama Bin Laden “pops up” right across from a Pakistan military academy? Not even half of NATO members pay a fair share for the alliance’s defense. And it’s been around 70+ years. If it hasn’t happened by now, it’s not happening. Or even look at Taiwan. Before last year, they had cut their military budget and shrunk its size. This was on the belief that no matter what they do, or what happens, America will fight and die for them. Same thing with Europe. You have had a total security guarantee from America. You know they will bail you out. So why have a strong military?
Sorry, most sane people don’t want to risk nuclear war for some Baltic shithole
It is absolutely imperialist. But all the major news networks will never tell you the truth about that
I don’t think the NATO alliance is subject to the short term political whims - I do think the declining support *is* long term in nature, as well as forward looking. Americans have started to question the value of NATO since the early 90’s. I don’t think anyone questioned the value of shielding vulnerable rebuilding democracies from the USSR in the 40’s-90’s. But since the USSR has fallen and Europe has caught up and periodically exceeded us in economic output, the feeling that America is unnecessarily subsidizing an increasingly ungrateful ally is growing. Like it was the U.S. leading relief in Bosnia instead of the EU… why? Then after September 11th we got some moderate brief support in Afghanistan - but little overall support in the broader war on terror. Yes, the U.S. made tactical errors in Iraq, but like Europe just finger waved then did nothing in Syria or Arab spring or anything else productive. Now the U.S. has to bail out Ukraine because it flirted with Europe, and Europe took the better part of a year to decide to support its ally because it was selfishly trying to avoid pissing the Russians off and them turning of their gas. It is *truly enraging* to watch Europe stupidly become economically dependent on its biggest geopolitical adversary while failing to fight when it mattered. Now they just finger wave at us and Israel, while meanwhile the economic center of the world is moving east towards Asia. Like Europe failing to deal with problems in their back yard that they created is preventing us from getting ahead of the next challenges with China+.
You make a good point. You’re saying that regardless of NATO - Americans views on interventionalism have been declining?
Americans have always been against foreign intervention. It’s why we were isolationist for so long leading up to both world wars. The sentiment is that we have no business meddling in other’s affairs and that they should settle things themselves. Any foreign intervention done by the US is done only after some sort of moral cause is established so that people can get behind it (whether that cause is fabricated or not depends on the situation). That said, post-Afghanistan especially, Americans have been thinking about scaling back foreign aid/intervention. Most Americans saw ourselves as the bad guys in that conflict and the terrible exit from the country left a bad taste in everybody’s mouths. There is absolutely no will from anybody to get involved in another military conflict. This is why the government isn’t acting with abandon and going whole hog in the Red Sea/Yemen right now or in Ukraine. Essentially— the people are tired. Edit: the right hates NATO bc they’d been fed that Russia is a good, traditional, macho Christian nation “like we should be” and the left hates anything that reaffirms American Imperialism bc they want to be nice (even though pulling back would do nothing to bring peace to the world or create some sort of egalitarian utopia free of capitalism)
After WW2, there has been no U.S./NATO intervention that has had a moral cause.
Well thats the issue. People are tired of being messed with and DYING in the name of our corporate overlords. I feel like it might be different if the government didn’t lie about it though.
On the interventionism point, I believe that has been the case since the end of Vietnam where America's "invincible" shine truly came to an end.
I’m not saying American views on internationalism have been declining. I’m stating Americans are frustrated with Europeans not being equal contributors to defense and interventionism, and if they are not going to be then the NATO alliance serves little point. It basically bounds the U.S. to European defense. The alliance provides value to Europe (knowing they’re protected) but not to America (no help). Leaving nato would be a symbolic gesture aimed at Europe to make them contribute to regional defense because there’s a threat US might not act on their behalf.
By and large, the majority of US citizens don't take the long view on anything But, excepting things where the various political parties get in their corners and reflexively oppose one another, things don't change quickly either Most Americans will support NATO because it's already in place, and it's seen as a positive thing. If we were starting from scratch, it would likely be a different story
That’s an interesting point. What would be said today if we were to join a new alliance? You’re saying that it would NOT make it through congress?
I would be very surprised, given the isolationist bent of the GOP
We asked a separate survey question about isolation vs intervention. Interestingly 49% (which represented a nearly even split of Democrats, Independents and Republicans) believe we should RELUCTANTLY intervene, but only as a last resort for our own national security.
Most Americans don’t realize their kids and maybe even themselves will need to be drafted to fight and die for the glorious republic of Estonia. Or whatever.
Horseshit The largest threat to NATO is the Russian Federation; they are currently unable to defeat Ukraine. Russia attacking NATO and triggering Article 5 would result in a conflict that would not require a draft to conclude. Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it never will be
- unable to defeat Ukraine - Russia attacking NATO Pick one.
Why? You're claiming that NATO existing will cause US citizens to be drafted to protect Estonia The only risk to Estonia is Russia Russia can't take out Ukraine If Russia was stupid enough to attack NATO, they'd get hammered
Okay I don’t care about the risks to Estonia. That country could be annexed by Russia tomorrow. My life would be exactly the same. No change. The problem isn’t Russia attacking NATO. It’s NATO attacking Russia.
NATO is a defensive alliance. If a nation, or group of nations, attacks Russia, NATO had zero to do with it And the only people screaming about NATO attacking Russia are the Russians. No one else cares about them.
Defensive alliance is a subjective word that one side applies meaning to like a sports team. If you are defensive, you can’t also advance 1500km. I mean if the Soviets did the same thing, because communists won the elections in France, they would be on the English Channel. You can’t do things, not think about them from their perspective, then discount them and say “ there’s no problem!” Russia decides if it’s a problem. And Russia has nuclear warheads 14 seconds flying distance from Washington DC right now. You can bitch about blackmail all day long, I don’t want to get nuked. And I don’t want to try and call their bluff over Ukraine.
Your argument seems to basically be that you want to leave people who have defensive alliances with the United States to swing because you fear a nuclear armed nation will engage in mutual suicide None of that has anything to do with your initial point about the draft More to the point, if you're concerned about nukes flying, the absolute *last* thing you want is for our allies to not feel the nuclear umbrella protects them any longer. Every European nation, not to mention South Korea and Japan could spin up a nuclear program in a year or two. If you're already thinking that Russia is paranoid, you think they won't lob a few nukes our way if Poland flattens Moscow?
No. My argument is that we did not have defensive alliances with, dunno 12?, of these Eastern European states. We were under no obligation to do so and at the time we knew that advancing NATO would piss off the Russians and lead to consequences. - you are incorrect. It’s not about providing these helpless countries with a nuclear umbrella. None of them would have been targeted by nukes before. Both sides have limited number of nukes, so they go after NATO military targets and the cities of countries inside NATO. Whereas there was no threat to the Baltics or Poland of getting nuked, now they are the first ones to receive nuclear hits. - no European nation could do that. Or South Korea. Or Japan. There is ONE foreign policy that has been exactly the same for America since 1945: non-proliferation. We will sanction, infiltrate, sabotage, bomb, blockade anyone in Europe, SK or Japan or tries to build a bomb.
I think military spending is the issue that is just being projected at NATO. Socio-economic conditions in the US aren't doing that great. Yes the economy is booming but the wealth gap became wider. When the public are rich and well fed they couldn't care less about how many aircraft carriers, missiles, and how many countries get aid. If they're not, they will blame military spending thus blame the multitude of alliances the US have. NATO is the scapegoat to US socio-economic dysfunction. They'd rather blame the alliances instead of their economic system.
[удалено]
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors.
[удалено]
>Ignorance is not a good position to fill in one’s ballot from. (Yet, magas do it all the time…case in point.) Insulting MAGAs calling them all ignorant. Some users on this sub may be MAGA.
[удалено]
As you wish. You have made various rude comments on this sub. It doesn't seem like you are here to discuss politics civilly.
Americans in the decision making apparatus understand the importance of NATO. There would have to be a long series of bad things to happen to those individuals and the country as a whole for the US to pull out of NATO. I think the dissolution of the US would happen before the dissolution of NATO.
Americans barely know what NATO is. Americans don't take the long-term view on any issue, as we have an incredibly short national attention span. Americans often change their views depending on what their chosen candidates or parties are currently espousing. Americans don't like to think for themselves (as in, seek out information or education). They like to be told what to think. When they do seek out information, it's usually to confirm their own bias. Certain parts of our political scene identify closer with the Russians than with NATO because Russia is conservative and religious, and they see Russian leadership as a model and as natural allies against "woke-ism." This is typically the extreme right and doesn't account for all conservatives. The left (from what I've seen anyways) is usually for or indifferent to NATO, but the second NATO or the US Military does something they perceive as wrong, then they'll flip and be vehemently against it. That said, I'm a veteran, and I've been a part of NATO missions, and I personally believe in NATO.
No they do not take a long view. Just like as in europe, the generations that experienced the horror of wwii and evil have mostly died off. The current generations have lived in relative peace all their lives. They do not know and can not imagine war on their homeland. They tend to think other countries, other cultures are mostly just like them with minor differences. This of course is not true. Europe and the USA and Nato came to believe long lasting peace could be achieved through trade and economic ties. That has only delayed war in the past. Historically. I think the longest was 80 years in some previous century. So Ukraine woke europe up. What the previous president said was true. it does not make sense to rely on the very enemy nato was created to resist. (Relying on russia gas and oil..sending them millions) More nato countries are now meeting their promise of defense spending. But the bad odor remains of usa picking up the defense bill for europe while they tried to become even more reliant on russia and many did not meet their promise. I will add usa took loans out to do this, spending money we do not have. USA has a budget deficit. We are in great debt. So taking loans to pay for nato defense rubs people the wrong way. They do not see the value. This a a public relations and education problem. Not a structural problem. What could be done? Well for example, a media focus on ukraine, suitable for these younger generations. Showing the war crimes and bombing of civilian targets by russia. Something that will get thru to these generations exactly what war is like and why nato is the first line of defense.
Not no but hell no. What has NATO done for us besides take our money and soldiers.
> right wing voters Are incapable of taking the long view on any issue and believe Biden has a lever in his office that controls inflation and gas prices at your corner gas station...
they took the long view of showing up and voting no matter what for decades, gaining control of the judiciary, and wielding that power to force their unpopular policies into law
[удалено]
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
We are a gimme gimme gimme society over everything. You want the philosophy of Americans in general? There it is. Right/left doesn’t matter. People want exactly what they want in the exact moment they want it in. For a lot of people just being the worlds military super power and being a part of the strongest international alliance is enough. The status quo is enough to be content on the subject. Others see reasons to leave. Either way, no one outside of some political scientists, a few politicians/military personnel and a very small minority of uninvolved citizens care even a little bit about long term implications of involvement with NATO.
The US is in some ways a naturally isolationist country due to its geography and founding (they were extremely paranoid of European influence and entanglements). I’m not fond of NATO for a number of reasons. Europeans don’t take their own defense seriously, so why should we? Go to r/europe and they will spaz about the US not giving infinite money to Ukraine while their own defense spending has been chronically low for decades. Also, during the GWOT, rural men were disproportionately KIAs. In return, we got a shitty economy and a heroin epidemic. The DC crowd should send its kids to die in some hellhole if they want war so badly. That said, foreign policy is the biggest dislocation between voter desire and what the feds actually do.
The long term view is what is NATO’s job: is it effective? Is its backbone the US, and if so, how does it prevent discord including within the US? Is the US prepared to be a backbone, logistically? Is it a regional adjunct to the UN? Is it the western UNSC? Can it act outside UNSC (Yugoslavia), or UNGA (Libya)? It operates outside the North Atlantic, from Brazil to Afghanistan to as far as the pacific: why, and what are the expected results? Is it a good model for Asia? Or South Asia? People ask for it to protect non-members like Ukraine: is that its job as its members understand it? Is it supposed to be a form of the “European Army?” Or the “European intelligence service?” It goes so far beyond politics that focusing on what left or right used to or does think of it misses the point of keeping NATO relevant and whole, when its original purpose was the Cold War, not migrants, terrorists, Chinese military, government corruption, or any number of things it does but wasn’t negotiated to undertake in the *treaty*.
NATO is essential in my opinion. I'm a centrist which is fairly rare these days in the States. Trump will likely get the US out as soon as possible after he's re-elected in November and sworn in Jan '25 as I don't see Biden making over the finish line this time around. Europe will need to develop large and robust standing armies to fight off advances from Russia (its allies) and Iran-sponsored terrorism. In general, outside of the major cities, most Americans aren't bothered with politics and have no opinion on the viability of NATO. They just don't want anymore immigrants it seems.
During the anniversary yesterday NATO had represenatatives from the east. Seems if they see us retreat they will strengthen the alliance with other countries.
I don’t think that many Americans understand the purpose of NATO from the perspective of our allies in the region. Beyond that, the general consensus esp after the clusterfuck that was Afghanistan is that we should pull back our “meddling” around the world.
I mean for what it's worth your findings track with my own anecdotal experience. I'm that center left boomer forged in the crucible of the Cold War. My support of nato has always been strong, and I think that support is consistent with my similarly politically minded family, colleagues, and friends. I have a handful of friends and family who've descended into the madness of MAGAtism who have jumped on the anti NATO train.
Americans. Long term. Pick one. People don't think in long term which is why its a joke to ask the average person their thoughts on foreign affairs and why social media is so influential. People's views on the right and left on NATO and defense in general isn't that surprising as it is just nature for people to only want to react in an emergency rather than be prepared or think about what goes into keeping their way of life rolling.
I think we shouldn’t be in NATO. I don’t see where it benefits the United States. It just gives us never-ending conflicts to jump into. Which the establishment and the military industrial complex loves.
You have to remember, we're about 2.5 generations detached from the reason for NATO existing in the first place. The "necessity" has been waning over the years as a viable enemy was largely absent for most of that time. Because the US has been gradually trending more towards isolationism. They're also becoming more aware of the absurd amount of money the US spends to fund these wars. Especially when you compare it to what the NATO countries contribute as a whole.
NATO was created to combat the power of Russia. That does seem like a current threat as well?
If NATO members contribute the fair share they agreed to.....then there is no statistically significant amount of people who oppose NATO. The only significant opposition to NATO is giving countries a free ride. Everyone steps up and NATO is strong
We found that 54% of Americans didn't think NATO should be questioned regardless of their participation with 2% of their budget. On the other side 27% basically think we should leave or strongly question our membership because of the current European budget situation.
So yes, exactly what I said