On January 7, US president Donald Trump promised to withdraw the US from 35 international organizations and 31 UN agencies:
The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.
Unverified: then the White House deleted the announcement from their website (personal note: I did receive 404 on it for a while).
Correction: announcement is still up or has reappeared. An archived copy is also available in case they change their mind.
Oh, so there is more than the US’s say-so at play.
It’s almost like it’s a voluntary agreement to coordinate and defend each other. One which doesn’t intrinsically depend on the US in any way, but just happens to have the US as by far the largest member.
deleted by creator
Oh, okay. AWS is actually a good analogy. It’s a huge pillar of the existing infrastructure, and if it was gone it would be a pretty huge, unprecedented crisis. The internet would still come back, though. (Since I’m on all alt platforms already, I actually didn’t notice it was down until I saw it on the news!)
Similarly, NATO would be in a bind, but I have every reason to think the considerable power and common interests of the remaining parties would see it through. One big question I’ve seen mentioned is the American officers that staff parts of it. Either they could keep working there even if the US is not a member, which is possible, or there would be just be a period of interruption to it’s coordination functions while the ranks are refilled. Since Britain and France are nuclear powers, just article 5 is a strong protection already, though.
deleted by creator
How much of NATO is actually needed in the short term? The last bit there was kind of going in that direction. Just being a nuclear power that would credibly respond to actions against any member seems like it would provide safety for a few years.
Over the longer term, a coordinated structure to respond to novel threats starts to matter.
deleted by creator
Russia is having trouble fighting just Ukraine + Western weapons. Europe would not have trouble winning (at whatever cost) if it came to it in the near term, NATO or no.
I feel like it should go without saying that the US would not be supporting NATO, if NATO was fighting the US. So, zero days to build back up without them, and they probably blow things up on their way out.
Why? Unless you think none of the nuclear powers are willing. France in particular does not have a reputation for passivity.
deleted by creator
Hey, I didn’t say a shrug. It’s also a bad option, just in a world with no really great ones left.
That’s also how it works for the US, though. MAD has still held for decades, because nobody really wants whatever thing bad enough to risk escalation.