Posted on 05/13/2024 7:16:34 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
If Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House in November, NATO may fall apart, a recent wargame found.
As a presidential candidate, Trump has threatened to quit NATO unless European allies contribute more, and should he carry it out Europe may decide to go it alone on defense, the game suggests. "A US policy of frustrating NATO has the potential to cause the alliance to collapse, with the EU as a candidate for eventually replacing NATO's ultimate function — defending Europe from Russia," wrote Finley Grimble, the British defense expert who designed and ran the game.
The US doesn't have to withdraw from NATO to imperil the 75-year-old alliance. Technically, the US is barred from leaving NATO after Congress voted in 2023 to prohibit withdrawal without congressional approval.
But the game showed how Trump — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who said on the campaign trail that he'd encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" with NATO allies who spend too little on their militaries — could undermine NATO simply by doing as little as possible to support the alliance. "What Donald Trump can do is just really hollow out what NATO does," Grimble told Business Insider. "He doesn't need to leave NATO to ruin it. He can ruin it from within."
Grimble, who has conducted wargames for the British government, conceived of this game after claims by former US National Security Adviser John Bolton that he talked then-President Trump out of withdrawing from NATO in 2018. He designed a tabletop simulation where the players — mostly British specialists in defense, intelligence and foreign policy — assumed the role of leaders of the 32 NATO nations, plus Ukraine and Russia; China was played by the umpires.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
As opposed to the USA collapsing if the Biden gets back in
And the bad news is what?
But the game showed how Trump — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who said on the campaign trail that he'd encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want" with NATO allies who spend too little on their militaries — could undermine NATO simply by doing as little as possible to support the alliance.
Under NATO Article 5, each individual NATO member independently finds what it deems necessary to do, and it need not be military. The NATO Euroweenies can incite a war, and the United States can come to their aid as it did with Ukraine, or just wish them good luck. There is no boots on the ground obligation, nor any military obligation whatever. When Article 5 was created, the Euroweenies wanted, and the United States refused to give, such a guarantee.
NATO on what must be done pursuant to Article 5:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
Collective Defence and Article 5
NATO
Last updated 04 Jul 2023 11:47
[Excerpt]
A cornerstone of the AllianceArticle 5
In 1949, the primary aim of the North Atlantic Treaty – NATO’s founding treaty – was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent.
Every participating country agreed that this form of solidarity was at the heart of the Treaty, effectively making Article 5 on collective defence a key component of the Alliance.
Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates:
Article 61
“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
The principle of providing assistance
With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
Garbage in, garbage out. His "givens" are imaginary. Let me guess.... Finley is gay or trans and his elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
Finley Trimble sounds just as much like a fake name as Eric Ciaremella or whatever Vindman’s pal’s name was.
Translation : "Finley Grimble" designed a board game for British nerds.
Translation : "Finley Grimble" designed a board game for British nerds.
” If other countries want our defense, then they should pay the total cost of our troops and equipment and support being there. “
No way should anyone in North America be mercenaries to defend these pimps.
Canada out of NATO now !
In 1949 the Russians were occupying East Germany with no intention of letting it go. Same goes for all the other countries that the Russians later formalized control over in the nonconcensual Warsaw Pact. The Russians were an occupying force when NATO was created. Giving it a cute name later didn’t change anything.
Pretty much. They are used to us picking up the tab for their protection so that they can do all the groovy social things.
There is no moral equivalency between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Just because the Russians let Germans in East Germany weAR different uniforms doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have them shot if they dared to cross the border. And on a larger scale, no Warsaw Pact country was ever really free to enter or exit the pact.
Shouldn’t all the lefty/socialist in the EU stop their socialist loser ways
.and pay for their own defense? Losers all.
Euroweenies.oweenies.
‘Finley Grimble’, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ...............
“Technically the US is barred from leaving NATO...”
Well f you. barred like Bidementia is Constitutionally prohibited from paying student loans
“Wargame?” About as accurate as the climate models?
A war game over Trump being president?
That is crazy.
Sounds to me that the Baltic States are more than ready to go to war with Russia, based on what is coming out of the mouths of their leaders, so what’s the problem if they get their war?
A game?
Sheesh.
These people.
In recent wargames Napolean won at Waterloo and the Nazis repulsed the D Day landing as well as the Japanese defeating the US at Midway.
So Europe should pay their fair share.
The Warsaw pact was in defacto existence the summer of 1945. Stalin had no intention of giving anything up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.