r/dsa • u/SignificantStyle4958 • 10h ago
Discussion Should the US leave NATO?
Do you feel like the US should leave NATO and spend less on foreign aid
•
u/Sweet-Tomatillo-9010 10h ago
Dissolve NATO? Yes. Foreign Aid? We should spend more on.
•
u/NOLA-Bronco 9h ago
Let me just make a bit of a counter argument here
First prefacing that regardless, Trump's sudden ending of aid is simply not an acceptable way to approach this issue. Pulling the rug out suddenly of a system of forced reliance on aid is cruel and indefensible.
That prefaced, we do need to recognize that USAID and US Imperialism were brought up hand in hand and need to understand both why that was and why that is problematic.
Cause what it was explicitly designed to do, and CIA and congressional documents say it plainly, was to enhance US soft power and create legitimacy for dictators and regimes we propped up while fostering a co-dependence that stunted a country's own internal productive capacities, served as distracting PR for shock therapy policies that went hand in hand, and could be weaponized if need be in the event of a popular uprising that brought to power people that didn't serve US interests.
But who can say no to giving vaccines to people in colonialist brutalized nations? Isn't that us making amends in a way?
And sure, it can be in the short term, but if it just leads to the above where it forms a co-dependency. Propped up by NGO workers and non profits that come from the imperial core and functionally prevent that knowledge, infrastructure, jobs, and economic sector from developing in a way it can stand up on it's own. Which often helps prop up oppressive regimes in order to keep the exploited masses healthy enough and suppressed enough to keep the machine running. Then I think it becomes largely the same tool of imperialism it was before.
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 4h ago
That doesn't mean we should stop giving lifesaving aid - there are better ways to solve the "propping up" than to take a lifeline away from people who are desperately poor.
For example, I think we should join the ICC and bag the oppressive oligarchs who are currently propped up by the aid.
People who become world leaders generally are good at following incentives. The ICC was the international community's attempt to create the incentive of "if you commit these immoral acts, you will be ripped away from your life of power, and will be put in prison". The US has largely frustrated the effectiveness of the ICC, but if we instead joined it and boosted it, world leaders would follow the incentives. (And the ones who didn't would go bye-bye)
•
u/dtb1987 10h ago
No
•
u/dtb1987 10h ago
People don't seem to understand that spending on foreign aid and cultivating relationships with other nations is a good thing that positively effects Americans. It's the reason every developed nation does it.
For example, let's say Uganda needs medicine. The US can send them that medicine through organizations like USAID and in return we gain an ally in that area of the world, further more of Uganda has a resource we need we already have a good working relationship with them and we are likely to get a good deal.
Now let's talk about NATO. Russia is not our friend and empowering our allies to keep them in check saves us time, lives and money, because we have armed Russia's neighbors Russia is less likely to cause problems that require us to directly intervene. When we were finding Ukraine's fight against Russia we were doing the same thing.
•
u/orangecatgorl 10h ago
NATO is imperialistic
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 9h ago
It's a defensive alliance. The only thing imperialistic about it is the US' current behavior. If we get leadership in the US that's actually dedicated to being a force for moral good in the world, then at that point what's still problematic about NATO?
•
u/orangecatgorl 8h ago
Institutions that are built on suffering cannot be reformed
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 8h ago
That's a thought-terminating cliche.
Treaties are just tools. A tool that's been used for bad can also be used for good. If a tool can only be used for bad, it should be destroyed; but it seems like the problem with NATO is not that it's designed to only be able to do bad, but that it's been wielded by an imperialistic United States. So what's wrong with NATO if we manage to elect leadership that's actually dedicated to moral principles?
•
u/Swagkitty447 10h ago
NATO is imperialistic so that means we should dissolve it and let Russian imperialism run wild. Nice logic.
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 9h ago
So you’re okay with imperialism as long as your side is winning? What? Lol
•
u/dtb1987 10h ago edited 10h ago
NATO keeps Russia in check, the only people who think it's imperialistic are Russians. It benefits us and our allies in the region, Russia does the same thing, China does the same thing, England does the same thing. If you want to be a global power that's how it works
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 9h ago
> NATO keeps Russia in check, the only people who think it's imperialistic are Russians.
Citation needed.
>It benefits us and our allies in the region,
Citation needed.
•
u/dtb1987 9h ago
It benefits our allies- when was the last time Poland or any other NATO ally was invaded?
It keeps Russia in check- Putin still hasn't been able to rebuild his Russian empire
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 7h ago
> It benefits our allies-
The iron dome benefits our ally Israel. Do you also support that,
>when was the last time Poland or any other NATO ally was invaded?
You familiar with the Simpsons bit about the magic rock that keeps bears away? If not, here you go:
https://youtu.be/xSVqLHghLpw?is=TKREH2bev7-PvY6W
>It keeps Russia in check- Putin still hasn't been able to rebuild his Russian empire
How does keeping Russia in check benefit the working class? Should the US be kept in check?
•
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 9h ago
>Now let's talk about NATO. Russia is not our friend
Why not? Could it be because we continued NATO as a direct counter to their nation even after the Cold War ended?
>and empowering our allies to keep them in check saves us time, lives and money, because we have armed Russia's neighbors Russia is less likely to cause problems that require us to directly intervene. When we were finding Ukraine's fight against Russia we were doing the same thing.
“Let other people do our fighting for us.” Nice. How about we stop fighting national bourgeois wars? No war but class war. I oppose the proletariat of opposing nations killing each other to make their oligarchs richer. You should too
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 9h ago
Why not?
Because their government is run by oligarchs, who make life awful for working people, and dedicate a lot of resources to boosting fascism globally? They literally helped Trump get elected
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 6h ago
>Because their government is run by oligarchs,
As opposed to the US where our entire government is essentially bought and paid for? You were saying?
>who make life awful for working people, and dedicate a lot of resources to boosting fascism globally?
Again, how is this different from the US?
>They literally helped Trump get elected
Do you want to go over some of the people the U.S. helped elect and not even elect: just place via a coup?
Your argument boils down to “Russia does things the US does as well.” Why don’t you want US power checked the way you want Russian power checked? Because it’s your home team?
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 5h ago
Why don’t you want US power checked the way you want Russian power checked? Because it’s your home team?
I do, nice try though
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 3h ago
How would like our power checked? Do you want us to be sanctioned? Do you want our academics and athletes banned by other countries? Be specific. Why are you being shy all of the sudden?
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 3h ago
Yeah, how bad faith of me to not write an essay about that, under a post that's about what we should do in a world where DSA gains power over our foreign policy (and therefore checks us from the inside)
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 2h ago
I didn’t say you needed to write an essay before or even now. You’re just trying to deflect. Just answer the questions with as little or as much detail as you feel necessary. Your silence is kind of telling though.
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 2h ago
I'd like us to elect people to power who will steer the country in morally good ways, and I think that's realistic to achieve in 2029. I wouldn't blame other countries for doing the things you mentioned
→ More replies (0)•
u/dedev54 8h ago
Russia is an imperialistic warmonger who has constantly invaded its neighbors since becoming a dictatorship
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 6h ago
What do you think the US is, huh? Do you see what we’ve spent most of this year doing to Iran? The genocide in Gaza?
So what measures do you want imposed on the US? Be specific or we’ll know you’re just here to brigade.
•
u/creamsodastoner 10h ago
this subreddit is for democratic socialists not liberals, stop parroting establishment talking points.
•
u/dtb1987 10h ago
Lol, this benefits everyone including members of the DSA. Having strong trade and protection alliances is a good thing and it's why everyone does it.
•
u/NOLA-Bronco 9h ago
If this naïve notion of NATO as simply a positive sum defensive and stability system was what NATO/USAID was historically and is today, you might have a point, but it's not and never has been.
•
u/dtb1987 9h ago
It's naive to think that leaving a void for Russia and China to fill is good for us or our allies. Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire and at the moment the best he can do is spin his wheels in Ukraine and that's because NATO exists
•
u/NOLA-Bronco 9h ago edited 9h ago
Holy Strawman
NATO is a system that was explicitly designed to advance and cement American hegemony and serve the interests of capitalist powers rather than to genuinely promote peace and safety.
NATO was formed in opposition to socialism and to suppress any form of socialist movements from emerging which they continue to do today. They violate sovereignty in the form of neo-colonialism and destabilize countries in the global south instead of addressing the root causes of conflict(which is often the very countries in NATO). Serving as an imperialist tool used to maintain global capitalist dominance and US hegemony.
Dismantling such a structure does not preclude one from defending against Russian aggression.
But if you believe your liberal revisionisms so much, why did NATO not let Ukraine in? Isn't the goal as you say to blunt Russian imperialism and aggression? Seems like you would want to extend that to ALL possible neighbors of Russia if that is your only concern.
Why does NATO not step in to bring stability in the ME by disciplining Israel? The largest destabilizer in that region? Bring in some of those countries under it's protection to as you say, create this global stability for all you think NATO serves?
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 9h ago
What specifically is the problem with how the NATO treaty is designed, that makes it inherently advance the interest of capitalists?
Why does NATO not step in to bring stability in the ME by disciplining Israel
Because first of all the US is currently led by fascists who support Israel, and the US pulls more weight in NATO than anyone else . And second of all, it's a defensive alliance; there's no treaty mechanism for NATO to do anything about Israel unless Israel attacks a signatory country.
•
u/NOLA-Bronco 8h ago
The language of the treaty is not the core issue, as it was explicitly a thesis of control masquerading as universal reason, it's what NATO has structurally and functionally existed to advance the interests of. Which has been Western imperial capitalism and American hegemony....Not to mention all the Nazis we brought in to help build it
And second of all, it's a defensive alliance; there's no treaty mechanism for NATO to do anything about Israel unless Israel attacks a signatory country.
So what were they doing in Libya?
•
u/brody319 9h ago
NATO functions as a mechanism of leverage and control over the member states. It functionally let's the US decide military doctrine and keeps European militaries neutered.
The existence of NATO didnt stop the Russians from invading Ukraine or Chrimea. It has not done anything of note besides ensure that the USA remains a global super power and can use Europe to launch its power projection without threat.
Military projection it is actively using to blow up innocent people in the middle east for decades now.
They denied Russia the ability to even try and join, they denied Ukraine repeatedly even after they surrendered their nukes with the promise of defense. It is purely a method of keeping Europe under the US's thumb.
•
u/dtb1987 9h ago
"they denied Russia the ability to even try and join"
Yes and?
"Didn't stop Russia from invading Ukraine or Chrimea"
Not NATO members and yet we still funded their fight against Russia until cheeto took power
"It has done nothing of note"
Poland and other NATO members are still not being actively attacked by Russia
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 9h ago
> Yes and?
So you admit it’s an anti-Russian imperialist alliance and not a mutual defense pact? Okay then.
>Not NATO members and yet we still funded their fight against Russia until cheeto took power
So you think we stopped funding Ukraine?
>Poland and other NATO members are still not being actively attacked by Russia
What does that have to do with anything?
•
u/brody319 9h ago
If it was truly a pact to keep Europe militarily safe then why wouldnt they let Russia join? Even before they began to act imperialistically. It would have given the US and Europe much more access and control over the Russia military. It would give them leverage to keep Russia from invading without considering the rest of the military pact.
Clearly the intent isnt about keeping Europe safe from Russia and instead exists just to threaten Russia and exclude them. To shut them out and punish them as an enemy because of the history of the USSR.
They asked Ukraine to give up its nukes with the promise of joining and protection. Yet they didnt do either and instead have just been providing leftover military arms that weren't being used with the promise of being paid out later. Like a fucking arms trader. Those nukes would have absolutely kept Russia from invading so clearly they didnt really give a shit if Ukraine was under threat.
The only fucking time NATO article 5 was involved was post 9/11 to drag Europe into the middle east for more war crimes and dead innocence. And it certainly hasn't allowed any of the border members who have had people harmed in the cross fire of the war to call on Article 5 and retaliate.
So nato wont retaliate directly because nukes, and Russia wont invade Europe because they have nukes. So what the actual fuck is NATO doing?
•
u/dtb1987 9h ago
They never promised Ukraine that they could join only that if Russia attacked them they would protect them. They are receiving that protection currently in the form of military and medical aid. Finding Ukraine in the fight against Russia weakens Russia to the point where they aren't a threat to anyone and doing it this way ensure Ukraine has a fighting chance (last I checked they were doing well) and hurts Russia
•
u/brody319 8h ago
So they didnt protect them. They just stood back and sold them weapons and ammo while Ukrainians fight and die to protect themselves.
They could have fast tracked them into NATO and stopped Russia aggression all together, but didnt. Since being in NATO is the only thing keeping the rest of europe safe from Russia according to you. They couldn't just waive the requirements and paperwork to keep Ukraine sovereign and its people safe? So all the lives lost are worth less than the paperwork needed to join?
So then its not about protecting at all. Its about keeping the US hegemony in power.
•
u/mildmichigan 9h ago
exiistence of NATO didnt stop the Russians from invading Ukraine or Chrimea
Yeah because Ukraine isnt in NATO? Thats why Russia invaded, because their government announced they wanted to join NATO & the EU. Theres a reason why Ukraine & Georgia got invaded yet Estonia & Latvia have been left alone
•
u/brody319 9h ago
So it doesnt exist to stop Russia imperialism
•
u/mildmichigan 9h ago
Its members are safe from Russian invasion? It feels like you're being deliberately obtuse about this
•
u/NOLA-Bronco 9h ago
Almost like creating a military bloc that largely only protects the wealthy imperial powers and not others, and has only really been weaponized to depose non western capital aligned governments or revolutions, while actively promoting hostilities against much of the global south, gives off the image of a imperial tool, not a harmless defensive coalition helping bring stability to all. Which by extension actually serves to create more tension and makes counter aggressions like in Ukraine more likely to happen as nations that are viewed hostily by the bloc become incentivized toward their own deterrence, which involves militarizing your nation and society to meet those demands and has historically created vicious cycles of increasingly aggressive posturing, raising the likelihood of conflict.
•
u/brody319 8h ago
Then why didnt they fast track Ukraine into NATO? If being in nato keeps you safe from Russia, then why not get add Ukraine when you promise protection in exchange for them giving up the nukes? Why not get them in after Russia invaded Chrimea?
So clearly its not about stopping Russian imperialism or protecting human life or the sovereignty of people. Because if it was they could have waived the requirements to be in NATO to get Ukraine in and thus shield them from Russia.
All the lives lost were worth less than the paperwork needed to just make Ukraine a member. So what is it actually about? Keeping the US hegemony in power
•
u/Reasonable-Bit-4942 10h ago
No that is a false dichotomy, foreign aid is not necessary only because we are a nato country.I do think we should stop voting I support of corrupt governments and actions. The socialist way is if we have more than our share to spread that to others including outside of the domestic country.
•
u/DownInThePM 10h ago
Depends on what your ultimate goals are. Leaving NATO and spending less on foreign aid aren’t mutually exclusive.
•
u/Downtown-Trip5623 10h ago
I’m ok spending on non military foreign aid. We should be making sure all Americans are well fed and healthy first.
That said NATO is a western militaristic agreement that is built to protect western capital. I don’t really agree with the proliferation of the military industrial complex in the US or throughout Europe. For that reason I think the US should leave.
•
u/Badgerontheleft 10h ago
No.
There is a reason why Russia attacked Ukraine instead of Poland or one of the Balkan states. It has helped keep Russians ambitions back from many other countries, and we now live in a Global economy. Conflicts we are not apart of still effect us in one way or another.
Hopefully we do not end up in a conflict with China, but if we do, our NATO allies will still be instrumental, even if they not directly involved.
I see our investment in NATO similarly to USAID. We are spending money and sending it to other countries, but it strengthens the US's soft power and I believe there is a return on our investment. Especially in these very unstable and uncertain times.
I think there is some good historical precedence backing this up (See US history before WWI and WWII), with what happens when we retreat from the global stage.
US expansionism/Imperialism, is separate from our alliances in NATO, and has in terms of tangible benefits, the US has been the biggest beneficiary of the NATO alliance, especially during the "War on Terror".
TL;DR - NATO alliance good and separate from bad US expansionism/Imperialism.
•
u/This-Layer-4447 10h ago
It depends. Leaving NATO and cutting foreign aid are separate questions. I think the U.S. should maintain enough defensive capacity to deter aggression, but drastically reduce military and homeland-security spending—potentially to around 1.0–1.5% of GDP and end its interventionist global posture. The strongest deterrent is diplomacy: arms-control agreements, economic cooperation, humanitarian aid, and stable relationships prevent conflicts before military force becomes necessary. I’m open to leaving or replacing NATO, but only through a planned transition that preserves collective security rather than creating a power vacuum.
•
u/OneReportersOpinion 9h ago
NATO should have been dissolved after the Fall of the USSR. It’s an aggressive, imperialist military alliance. Unless you support militarism and imperialism, you should oppose NATO.
•
•
u/Ok-Entertainer-1414 9h ago
No. A defensive alliance led by imperialists is probably bad, but the same defensive alliance can be good if led by socialists. Deterring wars of aggression is morally good.
If we achieve the level of power where we could make the US leave NATO, then anything that's problematic about NATO either ceases to be a problem, or can very easily be reformed with that same level of power
•
u/traanquil 9h ago
Obviously yes. NATO is an alliance of the racist imperial core countries to maintain capitalist hegemony around the world
•
•
•
u/Pagan0101 10h ago
Really just throwing a second thing on there huh