NATO countries should not need US to protect them from Russia

[RandomPoster]

NATO, without the US has a population of about 600 million people, whereas Russia has a population of 145 million. If Russia tried to invade the NATO countries, it would be nothing like WW2, where the Soviet Union was actually allied with most of Europe and the US against a relatively tiny opponent. Additionally, the Soviet Union has split up. In 1939, the Soviet Union had a population of 170 million, Russia today has a population of 145 million. Its population has effectively SHRUNK by 25 million people since 1939, whereas most countries have grown considerably. For example, the US has grown from 132 million to 325 million in that same time period.

Russia actually fought very poorly in WW2 in terms of casualty ratios and only won because Germany was so horribly outnumbered by the Allies and surrounded on all sides. Russia would be going from being on the side with a huge numerical advantage to being on the side with a huge numerical disadvantage. Technologically, Western Europe is at least on par with Russia. There is no reason why European countries should not be able to start spending more money on their military and develop the ability to defend themselves if they do not already posess that ability.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

NATO, without the US has a population of about 600 million people, whereas Russia has a population of 145 million. If Russia tried to invade the NATO countries, it would be nothing like WW2, where the Soviet Union was actually allied with most of Europe and the US against a relatively tiny opponent. Additionally, the Soviet Union has split up. In 1939, the Soviet Union had a population of 170 million, Russia today has a population of 145 million. Its population has effectively SHRUNK by 25 million people since 1939, whereas most countries have grown considerably. For example, the US has grown from 132 million to 325 million in that same time period.

Russia actually fought very poorly in WW2 in terms of casualty ratios and only won because Germany was so horribly outnumbered by the Allies and surrounded on all sides. Russia would be going from being on the side with a huge numerical advantage to being on the side with a huge numerical disadvantage. Technologically, Western Europe is at least on par with Russia. There is no reason why European countries should not be able to start spending more money on their military and develop the ability to defend themselves if they do not already posess that ability.

It's in our best interest to have military bases in Europe. It gives us the range to go anywhere on the globe with Tactical weapons. Even if we no longer were needed we would still need the bases.

 

[harmonica]

do we need all the bases we have overseas--especially considering US debt problems
the USAF flew F15s from the US to Saudi Arabia in PG1

Forty-eight Eagles made the longest fighter deployment in history, flying 14- to 17-hours nonstop from Langley to Dhahran, with six to eight air refuelings en route.

Gulf War 20th: F-15 Eagles Were the Deadliest Birds of Desert Storm | Defense Media Network

also transported from the US much equipment and troops by air
NATO appears to be very strong on paper without the US
seems like we need to cut down on unneeded military spending

we need to cut some base overseas--
1. we stop putting that money into foreign countries and put it in the US
2. those troops would spend their money in the US and not in foreign countries

 

[Viacheslav]

NATO first of all the weapon market for US, Russia doesn't have any plans to invade the NATO countries, even more Russia hardly has resources to occupate whole Ukraine. But the "Russian threat" is successfully used in Western propaganda although, frankly, Russian propaganda also uses the "threat of the United States".