UTExan said:

---

Our possible allies in the larger region:
1.) Germany (changes with every election-tenuous)
2.) Poland (fairly solid)
3.) Greece (also changes, but pro-Israel at the moment) due to Turkish Islamization)
4.) UK (tenuous depending on each election)
5.) Israel (very solid due to shared interests and regional goals)
6.) Saudi/Jordan/Gulf states all of which rely on us.
Semi-allies:
France, Italy, Portugal, other east bloc European states, Benelux, Nordic countries, Czech/Slovakia, Balkan countries
Ideological opponents: Ireland and Spain due to friendship with our enemies. The Vatican.
Neutral: Austria, Switzerland

---

Many of our allies(previous?) should take notice that almost all of the countries under previous communistic rule are strong allies of the U.S. There is a reason.

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

Maybe they learn to defend themselves

At some point Great Britain offered to come but we told them not too because their Navy is so inadequate that they just create an extra target we have to defend

---

I lived in Germany when France kicked the U.S. out of France. Was quite disruptive, but in a sense KUDOs to France for wanting to at least try defending themselves (to bad it failed), Kind of wish more of our NATO allies would take on their responsibilities not relying on the U.S.

schmellba99 said:

---

aggiedent said:

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

aggiedent said:

---

AstroAggie15 said:

---

Does it affect us at all?

Does Europe become at risk to Russian influence? Does it really matter?

---

We will no longer have access to a lot of bases we currently use.
We'll have reduced favored trade status with many of those nations.
Some will turn to countries like China, which has already drawn the ire of President Trump.
Generally our influence will wane with Europe.

---

you mean the bases that we were already denied access to ? Huge loss no doubt for the tds infected group.

---

Incorrect……… we still have access to all our European bases. Some governments asked we not fly combat missions from those bases. Equipment is still being staged from many of those bases however.

Loss of those bases would definitely impact our ability to project power in the future. Don't pretend it wouldn't.

---

Most of the bases are relics and don't really convey a whole lot of "projecting power" in the same manner that they did 40 years ago when the Cold War was still a thing and we needed bases and boots on the ground to act as a standing army. The world has changed significantly since then.

We launch bombing runs to Afghanistan from Kansas. We have supercarriers that can park off the coast of anywhere and project power if necessary. We are seeing with the fun we are having with Iran how much the scope and face of war has changed - the old Napeoleonic days of batallions of troops marching across a continent are long gone and have been since the 70's when how wars are fought fundamentally changed.

NATO was formed as a direct response to the threat once produced by the old USSR. The soviet union is dead and what remains can't even conquer Ukraine. The makeup of Europe has changed significantly as well - it isn't the same as it was 30 years ago, both politically and socially.

Also, the idea that if we were to pull out of NATO that every single member state would automatically go running to China and/or Russia is simpleton thinking at best. It isn't a binary choice, acting like or thinking that they are automatically forced to choose them or us is just silly thinking.

---

So, basically, the Navy and Marines and a some bombers from the USAF. What about the rest of the USAF or the Army aircraft?

YouBet said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

crimea's russian-speaking population doesn't make it russian sovereign territory any more than miami's cuban population makes it havana's, but that's a separate debate.

threatening to meet with putin and offer to pull bases from NATO countries only works as leverage if the europeans believe you'd actually follow through, and if you actually follow through you lose those strategic assets. you're describing a bluff that only has value if you never execute it, which means the alliance you're threatening to destroy is the thing generating the leverage in the first place.

banking on a future russia-china split over manchuria and lake baikal is speculating about a conflict that doesn't exist yet to justify abandoning an alliance that does.

---

The argument was about buffer not right or wrong and Russia has at least as strong of a claim to Crimea as Ukraine for that matter. Strategically it's like Florida to the US and they want to control it. Look at a map.

We may pull out most of our bases from Europe anyway as they really don't do much for us except help protect Europe because of Russia. Take Russia out of the equation and we don't need to be there. Russia couldn't get past Poland even if they wanted to anyway. The map has changed but most don't see it. We could leave and move our bases elsewhere to protect our interests but having 11 Carriers gives us a hell of an advantage. Not like we want to be enemies with Europe either just not get used. They need us more than we need them. Leverage.

Russia and China are at best a tense alliance as they hate each other. China loathes Russia and doesn't sees them as barbarians. Russia has zero trust in China.

See the big picture.

---

Alluded to this earlier but if you end up pursuing Trump's ideas he's floated where we reallocate and optimize bases more to Eastern European countries and away from Western European countries you are actually creating a greater deterrence against Russia invading Europe because you are forward deploying your assets to the countries on the front line. We could save some money and improve our alignment in Europe. This would be a win-win for all since Western Europe has chosen cultural and societal suicide and do not want us there anyway.

---

My Dad was stationed in Germany in the '80s when I was young as a Colonel. Remember him telling me later about a time he had a meeting that they had spent significant time on to open a new large base in Italy. Then finally a 2 Star (and Ag) stood up and said "Why are we talking about spending massive resources on a redundant base?" The point was clear, a large reason we are there is being assigned to nice parts of Europe is good living and there are a hundred under the table political deals going on that have little to do with the actual mission. That was when the Cold War was very active, now we don't have a fraction of the reasons yet we do t anyway to benefit some groups and not for any real objective.

richardag said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Our possible allies in the larger region:
1.) Germany (changes with every election-tenuous)
2.) Poland (fairly solid)
3.) Greece (also changes, but pro-Israel at the moment) due to Turkish Islamization)
4.) UK (tenuous depending on each election)
5.) Israel (very solid due to shared interests and regional goals)
6.) Saudi/Jordan/Gulf states all of which rely on us.
Semi-allies:
France, Italy, Portugal, other east bloc European states, Benelux, Nordic countries, Czech/Slovakia, Balkan countries
Ideological opponents: Ireland and Spain due to friendship with our enemies. The Vatican.
Neutral: Austria, Switzerland

---

Many of our allies(previous?) should take notice that almost all of the countries under previous communistic rule are strong allies of the U.S. There is a reason.

---

And US citizens

GAC06 said:

---

How do we get to the ME without bases in Europe?

---

Well, we don't HAVE to stay in the countries we're in...

We could move the bases from Italy and Spain to places like Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc...

We still have those forward operating bases, but in countries that are more likely to not block us if we need to use them.

GAC06 said:

---

Why don't you take a look at how we got our forces in position for the current war. They didn't teleport to bases in the Middle East.

They went through Lajes, Rota, Moron, Lakenheath, Souda, Sigonella, and others

---

Lajes is where my parents met...

Went with my Dad to the Azores a few years ago. It was awesome!

And when I was growing up in England, RAF Chicksands didn't have a HS, so they shipped the kids out to Lakenheath I think...Although it could have been Mildenhall.


Oh yeah, and I agree with your point - we need those bases in Europe, but maybe not exactly where they are now...

Rockdoc said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I'm not sure what your whining has to do with a feckless organization that is just stealing taxpayer money at this point?

---

The dems love NATO. They're not quite sure why but they're told to. NATO is worthless.

---

The Dems love NATO...NOW...

But, only because Orange Man Bad says bad things about NATO...they gave zero ****s one way or the other until then...

Ag with kids said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

How do we get to the ME without bases in Europe?

---

Well, we don't HAVE to stay in the countries we're in...

We could move the bases from Italy and Spain to places like Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc...

We still have those forward operating bases, but in countries that are more likely to not block us if we need to use them.

---

Ok…you ready for the bill to replace the infrastructure?

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

We cannot project power into the ME without basing in Europe.

Full stop.

---

Do you intend to be funny?

---

Hawg…this is a math conversation.

---

Here's some math:

19 Middle East bases + 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers = ???

---

Ignoring the fact we'd be dumping a half a trillion dollars in infrastructure in Europe…


How do our planes get to the ME? Where do they land to get fuel? Where do the tankers take off from to refuel our bombers?

Literally our entire AF force structure is designed around being able to make it Europe on a single hop.

Pulling out of NATO would legitimately be a trillion dollar action.

---

This is very true!

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Why don't you take a look at how we got our forces in position for the current war. They didn't teleport to bases in the Middle East.

They went through Lajes, Rota, Moron, Lakenheath, Souda, Sigonella, and others

---

Portugal, Spain, Spain, England, Greece, Italy.

Which of those countries closed their airspace and bases for the current war?

---

One. And the other sites allowed us to flex…if we did not have them we could not have conducted EF.

If you want a real life example of what happens when we almost lost European airspace the last time check out Operation Nickel Grass

---

Italy blocked us also...

nortex97 said:

---

That neglects the issue: why be in nato at all? Foreign entanglements should be revisited annually, at least. I'd prefer we copy some of DeGauls language when they booted us from France and mostly withdrew in the 60s, myself.

---

I'd prefer we don't model ANYTHING about US foreign policy on the French!

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Your solution is Morocco and Libya…

Africa.

And you're willing to cut loose a half trillion in infrastructure to make investments in Africa?

---

Actually, Morocco might not be a bad idea. You could probably build some equivalent bases to the Spanish ones for pennies on the dollar there. And it would also make their economy explode, getting even more good grace on the continent.

Hell, it's literally just across the Gibraltar Strait, so it's not like it's even moved that much geographically...

And, it's a relatively stable North African country...

GAC06 said:

---

I guess I can dust off my grandfather's Wheelus Air Force Base ashtray

---

Two of the bases I grew up on in Europe are closed...

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Your solution is Morocco and Libya…

Africa.

And you're willing to cut loose a half trillion in infrastructure to make investments in Africa?

---

Actually, Morocco might not be a bad idea. You could probably build some equivalent bases to the Spanish ones for pennies on the dollar there. And it would also make their economy explode, getting even more good grace on the continent.

Hell, it's literally just across the Gibraltar Strait, so it's not like it's even moved that much geographically...

And, it's a relatively stable North African country...

---

We used to have our largest naval base outside of the US in Morocco. My uncle was stationed there for several years. He was a scratch golfer so he played golf with the King on occasion because the King wanted someone good to play with.

FIDO_Ags said:

---

Quote:

---

Here's my reasoning on that. The old alliance system in use before NATO ended up starting both WWI and WWII.

---

For WW I: True

For WW 2: False. German Expansionism caused WW 2. Pacts with Germany we're just marriages of convenience except Russo/German NON-AGGRESSION pact which Germany ignored.

---

Well, the punishment that the rest of Europe put on Germany was the biggest driver of WWII. It caused a complete collapse of the German economy, which made it easier for Hitler to rise to power by promoting German greatness...

aggiehawg said:

---

BboroAg said:

---

If you ask most people "what started WWI" the typical answer is "the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand"…and there is truth to that.

But that leads to a question of "how could that be"?

The answer is that in 1914 the government/monarchies of Europe had commitments with each other to go to war if the other went to war.

The Austrian-Hungary empire had agreements with Germany. The assassin was from Serbia. Russia had agreements with Serbia. England had agreements with Russia. France had agreements with England.

Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, Russia sided with Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia, England declared war on Germany, France sided with England …and voila - WWI.

NATO (an alliance created to stop the USSR - which by the way ended in 1992) looks a lot like the agreements between European countries in 1914.

---

NATO had a reason to exist and deter during the Cold War because there was a countervailing Soviet alliance with satellite countries, the Warsaw Pact. Those satellite regions were the buffer zones for Mother Russia.

Simple fact was that Europe was devastated after WWII and needed us to be the force to back them while they recovered from the destruction. At least that was Eisenhower's justification and reasoning. And the Marshall Plan was the way those European nations were going to recover. That made sense back then.

But then Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev came into power and was directly verbally threatening Europe and the US followed up by the kinetic action of sending in missiles to Cuba to back up that threat. So the rationale for NATO changed at that point.

---

I'm....pretty sure WE didn't put any missiles in Cuba...

Perhaps you're thinking the ones in Turkey?

Old McDonald said:

---

eisenhower also spent his presidency deepening the exact forward-basing and alliance infrastructure he supposedly wanted to wind down. the alliance outlasted his 10 year window because every president since, including the ones who complained loudest about burden sharing, looked at the strategic math and kept it going.

---

DAMMIT!

Why do you make me keep agreeing with you!!!

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

A mission that no longer exists

---

While no longer the Soviets, Russia is currently invading Europe. They continue to threaten to invade other European countries.

As for the cost of being there, we are already there willingly. It's not necessary to leave NATO to leave Europe. Once again, we are there because it's in our interests to be there.

---

This.

The Western European countries are making it hard to want to stay in NATO. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. Maybe tell Western Europe to piss off and set up some kind of alliance with some of the old Soviet Bloc countries(Poland, etc) that still treat us with respect.

Biggest real-world consequence- Europe will quickly drop subsidized healthcare.

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Why don't you take a look at how we got our forces in position for the current war. They didn't teleport to bases in the Middle East.

They went through Lajes, Rota, Moron, Lakenheath, Souda, Sigonella, and others

---

Portugal, Spain, Spain, England, Greece, Italy.

Which of those countries closed their airspace and bases for the current war?

---

One. And the other sites allowed us to flex…if we did not have them we could not have conducted EF.

If you want a real life example of what happens when we almost lost European airspace the last time check out Operation Nickel Grass

---

Italy blocked us also...

---

I believe Italy initially closed but then opened the next day. K2 set me straight.

bobbranco said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Why don't you take a look at how we got our forces in position for the current war. They didn't teleport to bases in the Middle East.

They went through Lajes, Rota, Moron, Lakenheath, Souda, Sigonella, and others

---

Portugal, Spain, Spain, England, Greece, Italy.

Which of those countries closed their airspace and bases for the current war?

---

One. And the other sites allowed us to flex…if we did not have them we could not have conducted EF.

If you want a real life example of what happens when we almost lost European airspace the last time check out Operation Nickel Grass

---

Italy blocked us also...

---

I believe Italy initially closed but then opened the next day. K2 set me straight.

---

You self corrected my dude…good on you (not enough in F16).

Ag with kids said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Your solution is Morocco and Libya…

Africa.

And you're willing to cut loose a half trillion in infrastructure to make investments in Africa?

---

Actually, Morocco might not be a bad idea. You could probably build some equivalent bases to the Spanish ones for pennies on the dollar there. And it would also make their economy explode, getting even more good grace on the continent.

Hell, it's literally just across the Gibraltar Strait, so it's not like it's even moved that much geographically...

And, it's a relatively stable North African country...

---

Sure it's stable…but I think the risk you assume with authoritarian countries (and it's a monarchy?) is that when the people decide to get pissy they'll break hard the other way.

Being stuck with the Western Euro's sucks, they are uptight, they are ridiculous in their standards…but eventually (most of the time) we get the ability to use our facilities.

There are few exceptions where we can't use airspace or facilities.

1972 Arab Israeli War (basically every where)
Op El Dorado Canyon (France Air Space)
EF (Spanish facilities)

Off the top of my head those are the three big ones where a NATO nation didn't let us use our facilities or airspace…which in a nearly 80 year partnership sounds pretty damn good?

Basing in Western Europe allows the US build up forces behind the front while Eastern Europe NATO "holds" the front - really a delaying action until the Russians hit their culmination point at maybe 100 miles. Being in NATO means that if the Russians kick things off in the Baltics then the Turks shut down the Bosporus and the Mediterranean quickly becomes secured. Being in NATO prevents Russian from being able to mass its land forces under a dense air defense umbrella in a single area.

NATO is strategic MAD.

Russia can't pick a fight with Latvia or Poland because it can't beat NATO.

Russia could and would and has run roughshod over bilateral agreements (see Georgia & Ukraine) because they as the aggressor pick the time and place of the fight and therefore get to the battle "firstest with the mostest" and therefore win. Any bilateral force is going to get smashed like task force Smith unless you put a massive number of bases and forward deployed divisions that will cost more than your current existing NATO bases. And in that bilateral fight wouldn't it be a lot better to build up far in the rear and and counterattack against a weak undefended front vs throwing everything into prepared pre sighted defenses?

TLDR - NATO is a coalition and coalitions inherently suck especially when made of of free riding Europeans who spend money on other priorities… BUT the coalition prevents the big war, AND it prevents fighting a war by ourselves unless we start it.