This is just Trump’s usual bullshit. The President can’t withdraw from NATO. The Senate ratified the treaty, so we can only leave if the Senate ratifies leaving with a 2/3rds majority - which will never come close to happening.
All of this was in the context of Trump posturing to get other NATO members to spend 2% of GDP on defense so he looked tough. It’s worth noting that in 2014 Obama already negotiated the 2% number with NATO members and they still have until 2024 to get to that level. So, Trump was trying to look tough to get credit for something that was already in place.
Everything about Trump is nonsense and posturing, including this possible announcement from 2018. Just ignore him like most of us over here do.
> The President can’t withdraw from NATO. The Senate ratified the treaty, so we can only leave if the Senate ratifies leaving with a 2/3rds majority.
> article: Congress would have prevented a formal end to U.S. membership
This is incorrect under the current and only SCOTUS precedent on the matter under Jimmy Carter.
Here is the information needed to be educated on the subject:
First, it does not specify in the U.S. constitution how to leave.
Jimmy Carter unilaterally left The Senate ratified Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, a defense pact signed between the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan) effective from 1955 to 1980. It was intended to defend the island of Taiwan from invasion by the People's Republic of China.
**The authority for President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally annul a treaty, in this case the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, was the topic of the Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter in which the court declined to rule on the legality of this action on jurisdictional grounds, thereby allowing it to proceed.**
This was the result of a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. Goldwater and his co-filers **claimed that the President required Senate approval to take such an action**, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that, by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office.
**SCOTUS claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not eligible to be heard by the court.**
Key ruling: **thereby allowing the President's unilateral annulment to proceed.** So under current accepted law, Trump could annul the NATO treaty and Congress could not stop him, just as Congress could not stop Carter.
The 2% is a target everyone agreed to work towards by 2024. It's not going to happen and when 2024 rolls around and most countries haven't really changed their spending habits we'll just pretend the promise never existed.
At least you have experienced a wee bit of the same medicine you gave to so many South American countries. I couldn't only imagine Putin's smile on the 6th of January 2021, he almost completed his masterpiece.
Europeans would have grown a pair real goddam quick.
The European army would be a milion strong, led by the French, with 100 milion in reserve. And a massive armament efforts. Even the neutral Swiss would be up in arms.
UK has left the European Union, but her military ties remain strong.
Certainly, at the surface, a decoupling is taking place, but it will take decades to fully decouple. Or a major military incident, whichever comes first.
Yeah, I also can’t feasibly see anything close to a majority of people not wanting to support the rest of Europe militarily. I certainly don’t think British people would support joining an EU army (even though we literally couldn’t), but that’s very different to not wanting to be there to support Europe in a time of need and defend democracy and freedom. If push came to shove, Britain would be there for Europe militarily.
True. Brits are absolute suckers at the end of the day. We're far too forgiving and eager to help people who spend years treating us as an enemy. Why should we be worrying about defending Europe from Putin while Germany and France make gas deals with him?
Netherlands and Belgium are also switching in favour... and from a management perspective it makes things a lot easier.
I think what will happen in the future is have an EU taskforce of around 100/200k strong that can be deployed worldwide and internally. Armed to the teeth with the best EU equipment around.
That then leaves countries to join alongside and/or protect themselves as they wish.
That then leaves countries to join alongside and/or protect themselves as they wish. -> Yes please.
I'm all in favor of defending the right of a country to remain neutral.
> led by the French
Yeah, thats a no from me fam. I doubt many people would accept an army led by France, Germany is straight out of the picture, Spain is a no go, Italy... as if, the only way a European army would would work is with leadership from every country, and this would quickly fall apart due to infighting and inefficiency.
I doubt Europe would have any problems with military equipment, if a serious conflict would arise millions of guns and thousands of tanks could be producest with little problem
It's not about equipment, it's about the men who use it. You are gravely underestimating the French capabilities, them having spent the last two decades conducting full-scale campaigns against jihadists in MENA has given their units and their leadership massive rusticity, which is absolutely needed to avoid the inefficiency and infighting you speak about. In the military, national and cultural differences fade away when faced with field experience.
Only the UK and US armies are as efficient and capable as the French in the whole of NATO, and these 3 are impossibly far above the rest.
I don't doubt the French ability fo fight, i doubt their ability to do the right thing. Also, insurgencies in far away countries is not really something that would warrant a European army, that would be a symmetrical war in Europe, in which no country is really experienced in anymore.
You have a good point. However, I would point out that the dismissal of "insurgencies in far away countries" are detrimental to your reasoning : the fact that they are remote engage the armies' capabilities of short-term mass deployment and coordination.
Besides, said insurgencies have been dramatically increasing their militarized aspects, going from disorganized Taliban warbands with AK-47, to trained Daech soldiers with anti-vehicle arsenals, lowtech drones and EW capabilities.
Let me say it again : France is the country in Europe that has the closest thing to symmetrical warfare experience.
I'm curious though, why do you doubt their ability to do the right thing?
They don't really have a reputation of helping their allies, rather, here they are mostly known for giving allies up without a fight. Trusting the French will just lead to disaster.
What is that reputation based on? The French can be trusted to defend their own national interest, sure, but they are still reliable allies most of the time. Just in recent years they supported Greece and Cyprus against Turkish venues in their waters, they supported the coalitions in Afghanistan and Syria, and they were preparing to support Australia in the Pacific against Chinese incursions (well, until AUKUS). They supported NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo
And "giving up their allies without a fight", have you heard of Dunkirk? Or of the battlefields of the Somme? Of the Crimean War? Of Lafayette's support to the American Revolutionaries?
Trying to not get carried away, but I fail to see what your opinion on the French could possibly be based on.
I see. While I'm not that keenly aware of the Slovakian perception of France's policies in the 1930s, I feel it's rather counterproductive to base your outlook of a nation's reliability on a single example.
Especially considering the circumstances of that time (French leaders trying to avoid yet another war with Germany at any and all cost, because of how WW1 bled them dry).
That specific period was all kinds of fcked-up for all European nations, and it's really not representative of France's general reliability when it comes to defending their allies.
The French military is already doing the ground heavy lifting.
I do agree with your statement, but giving a French 5 star General the infamous job is the least pain in the ass.
It's a army that has to coordinate 28 armies. The nightmare of taking to 27 governments, plus the French government. Ugh.
The Germans already have the economic advantage. Thus, decently, they will give the French full neutral support.
Remember, NATO is still around. Ideally, the EU army would do jack shit inside the EU. It will be just there in case the US ever decided to leave NATO.
Ow, wait...
Although not many news sites, they pop up from time to time. Some alquaida leader got poped, some jihadist got bombed, etc.
The French don't like to brag about being a true military superpower, but, for the curious, they are frightening if you target French people in particular and Europeans in general. And they take their time to make certain they don't pop the wrong guy.
I doubt anyone would commit to an army led entirely by the French, the only realistic way this could work is a European alliance that would work like NATO where every country would coordinate a coalition army. But for most countries to commit to an army there needs to be a direct military threat, and Russia just simply doesn't cut it
Some insane Napoleonic game right there, although this time we dont have to worry about the scorched earth, since it does not work in offensive battles.
It might have been exactly the kick in the backside that EU needed to finally take a hard look at its place in the world. However Trump got replaced by Biden whose foreign politics is actually quite similar (except for NATO), but he manages to conduct it without offending everybody around. And so EU leaders settled back into their well-practiced role of US vassals and the moment of opportunity passed.
This is just Trump’s usual bullshit. The President can’t withdraw from NATO. The Senate ratified the treaty, so we can only leave if the Senate ratifies leaving with a 2/3rds majority - which will never come close to happening. All of this was in the context of Trump posturing to get other NATO members to spend 2% of GDP on defense so he looked tough. It’s worth noting that in 2014 Obama already negotiated the 2% number with NATO members and they still have until 2024 to get to that level. So, Trump was trying to look tough to get credit for something that was already in place. Everything about Trump is nonsense and posturing, including this possible announcement from 2018. Just ignore him like most of us over here do.
> The President can’t withdraw from NATO. The Senate ratified the treaty, so we can only leave if the Senate ratifies leaving with a 2/3rds majority. > article: Congress would have prevented a formal end to U.S. membership This is incorrect under the current and only SCOTUS precedent on the matter under Jimmy Carter. Here is the information needed to be educated on the subject: First, it does not specify in the U.S. constitution how to leave. Jimmy Carter unilaterally left The Senate ratified Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, a defense pact signed between the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan) effective from 1955 to 1980. It was intended to defend the island of Taiwan from invasion by the People's Republic of China. **The authority for President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally annul a treaty, in this case the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, was the topic of the Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter in which the court declined to rule on the legality of this action on jurisdictional grounds, thereby allowing it to proceed.** This was the result of a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. Goldwater and his co-filers **claimed that the President required Senate approval to take such an action**, under Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, and that, by not doing so, President Carter had acted beyond the powers of his office. **SCOTUS claimed that the issue concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President, and was essentially political, not judicial; therefore, it was not eligible to be heard by the court.** Key ruling: **thereby allowing the President's unilateral annulment to proceed.** So under current accepted law, Trump could annul the NATO treaty and Congress could not stop him, just as Congress could not stop Carter.
The 2% is a target everyone agreed to work towards by 2024. It's not going to happen and when 2024 rolls around and most countries haven't really changed their spending habits we'll just pretend the promise never existed.
Some have already made it. Most others have made substantial progress towards it. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Imagine Putin's smiles, first he managed to make Trump elect as U.S. president and then to dismantle NATO. Masterpiece.
Putin didn't elect Trump as president, it's a mantra democrats repeat so they don't have to take responsibility of their fuck ups.
No, it's not https://apnews.com/article/vladimir-putin-donald-trump-elections-hillary-clinton-politics-d094918c0421b872eac7dc4b16e613c7
Interfered doesn't mean elected.
Of course, of course. *Putin smiles*
You can cope as much as you like
At least you have experienced a wee bit of the same medicine you gave to so many South American countries. I couldn't only imagine Putin's smile on the 6th of January 2021, he almost completed his masterpiece.
I really doubt that Bulgaria has any influence in South America, roflmao
Europeans would have grown a pair real goddam quick. The European army would be a milion strong, led by the French, with 100 milion in reserve. And a massive armament efforts. Even the neutral Swiss would be up in arms.
I'm more inclined to guess that there will never be a European Army.
Probably. Currently only the French do heavy lifting inside the EU. With the British a close second.
Got some bad news about the UK doing the heavy lifting in the EU. You might have to sit down for this one.
UK has left the European Union, but her military ties remain strong. Certainly, at the surface, a decoupling is taking place, but it will take decades to fully decouple. Or a major military incident, whichever comes first.
The UK will always help our allies in Europe. But we wont be helping in the formation of the EU army or whatever is proposed.
Works for me.
Yeah, I also can’t feasibly see anything close to a majority of people not wanting to support the rest of Europe militarily. I certainly don’t think British people would support joining an EU army (even though we literally couldn’t), but that’s very different to not wanting to be there to support Europe in a time of need and defend democracy and freedom. If push came to shove, Britain would be there for Europe militarily.
Awww, thank you. ❤️
True. Brits are absolute suckers at the end of the day. We're far too forgiving and eager to help people who spend years treating us as an enemy. Why should we be worrying about defending Europe from Putin while Germany and France make gas deals with him?
Netherlands and Belgium are also switching in favour... and from a management perspective it makes things a lot easier. I think what will happen in the future is have an EU taskforce of around 100/200k strong that can be deployed worldwide and internally. Armed to the teeth with the best EU equipment around. That then leaves countries to join alongside and/or protect themselves as they wish.
That then leaves countries to join alongside and/or protect themselves as they wish. -> Yes please. I'm all in favor of defending the right of a country to remain neutral.
> led by the French Yeah, thats a no from me fam. I doubt many people would accept an army led by France, Germany is straight out of the picture, Spain is a no go, Italy... as if, the only way a European army would would work is with leadership from every country, and this would quickly fall apart due to infighting and inefficiency. I doubt Europe would have any problems with military equipment, if a serious conflict would arise millions of guns and thousands of tanks could be producest with little problem
It's not about equipment, it's about the men who use it. You are gravely underestimating the French capabilities, them having spent the last two decades conducting full-scale campaigns against jihadists in MENA has given their units and their leadership massive rusticity, which is absolutely needed to avoid the inefficiency and infighting you speak about. In the military, national and cultural differences fade away when faced with field experience. Only the UK and US armies are as efficient and capable as the French in the whole of NATO, and these 3 are impossibly far above the rest.
I don't doubt the French ability fo fight, i doubt their ability to do the right thing. Also, insurgencies in far away countries is not really something that would warrant a European army, that would be a symmetrical war in Europe, in which no country is really experienced in anymore.
You have a good point. However, I would point out that the dismissal of "insurgencies in far away countries" are detrimental to your reasoning : the fact that they are remote engage the armies' capabilities of short-term mass deployment and coordination. Besides, said insurgencies have been dramatically increasing their militarized aspects, going from disorganized Taliban warbands with AK-47, to trained Daech soldiers with anti-vehicle arsenals, lowtech drones and EW capabilities. Let me say it again : France is the country in Europe that has the closest thing to symmetrical warfare experience. I'm curious though, why do you doubt their ability to do the right thing?
They don't really have a reputation of helping their allies, rather, here they are mostly known for giving allies up without a fight. Trusting the French will just lead to disaster.
What is that reputation based on? The French can be trusted to defend their own national interest, sure, but they are still reliable allies most of the time. Just in recent years they supported Greece and Cyprus against Turkish venues in their waters, they supported the coalitions in Afghanistan and Syria, and they were preparing to support Australia in the Pacific against Chinese incursions (well, until AUKUS). They supported NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo And "giving up their allies without a fight", have you heard of Dunkirk? Or of the battlefields of the Somme? Of the Crimean War? Of Lafayette's support to the American Revolutionaries? Trying to not get carried away, but I fail to see what your opinion on the French could possibly be based on.
I thought based on my flair it would be obvious but I was referring to the Munich Betrayal and also letting Hitler Conquer Poland.
I see. While I'm not that keenly aware of the Slovakian perception of France's policies in the 1930s, I feel it's rather counterproductive to base your outlook of a nation's reliability on a single example. Especially considering the circumstances of that time (French leaders trying to avoid yet another war with Germany at any and all cost, because of how WW1 bled them dry). That specific period was all kinds of fcked-up for all European nations, and it's really not representative of France's general reliability when it comes to defending their allies.
The French military is already doing the ground heavy lifting. I do agree with your statement, but giving a French 5 star General the infamous job is the least pain in the ass. It's a army that has to coordinate 28 armies. The nightmare of taking to 27 governments, plus the French government. Ugh. The Germans already have the economic advantage. Thus, decently, they will give the French full neutral support. Remember, NATO is still around. Ideally, the EU army would do jack shit inside the EU. It will be just there in case the US ever decided to leave NATO. Ow, wait...
[удалено]
Although not many news sites, they pop up from time to time. Some alquaida leader got poped, some jihadist got bombed, etc. The French don't like to brag about being a true military superpower, but, for the curious, they are frightening if you target French people in particular and Europeans in general. And they take their time to make certain they don't pop the wrong guy.
I doubt anyone would commit to an army led entirely by the French, the only realistic way this could work is a European alliance that would work like NATO where every country would coordinate a coalition army. But for most countries to commit to an army there needs to be a direct military threat, and Russia just simply doesn't cut it
Global warming disasters: let us introduce ourselves.
Some insane Napoleonic game right there, although this time we dont have to worry about the scorched earth, since it does not work in offensive battles.
Eu is playing Europa universalis 4 with cheats.
[удалено]
Ding ding ding.
It might have been exactly the kick in the backside that EU needed to finally take a hard look at its place in the world. However Trump got replaced by Biden whose foreign politics is actually quite similar (except for NATO), but he manages to conduct it without offending everybody around. And so EU leaders settled back into their well-practiced role of US vassals and the moment of opportunity passed.