如果美国退出北约会怎样?欧洲会失去保护,任由普京摆布吗?

190 0
卡卡西里 2024-5-12 01:16:05 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
即将到来的美国大选定于 2024 年 11 月 5 日举行。虽然拜登很有可能继续留在白宫,但不排除任何可能。特朗普可能重返椭圆形办公室。在所有这些都摆在桌面上的情况下,现在是时候问我们自己几个问题了,无论它们看起来多么离谱: 如果美国退出北约会怎样?欧洲会失去保护,任由普京摆布吗?在这种情况下,谁会赢,谁会输?

如果美国退出北约会怎样?欧洲会失去保护,任由普京摆布吗?

如果美国退出北约会怎样?欧洲会失去保护,任由普京摆布吗?

Colliefields
2天前
There is no NATO without the US

没有美国就没有北约!(评论内容由音飞网翻译)


YourNetwork
22小时前
wouldn't be the case if europe began to invest in their military. when war breaks out, free healthcare will be the last worry on anyones mind.

如果欧洲开始投资军事,情况就不会是这样。当战争爆发时,免费医疗将是所有人最后的担忧。


Battleneter
15小时前
Many countries in Europe have ramped up spending recently, Poland and Germany to name several obvious ones.I really have my doubts Russia will invade a NATO country, but even if it did tomorrow Ukraine shows us they are not as capable as many claim. European NATO countries could absolutely deal with Russia right now without the US in a conventional war, but it would not be fast.

许多欧洲国家最近都加大了支出,波兰和德国就是其中几个明显的例子。我真的怀疑俄罗斯是否会入侵一个北约国家,但即使明天俄罗斯入侵了,乌克兰也向我们展示了他们并不像许多人声称的那样有能力。欧洲北约国家现在完全可以在没有美国的常规战争中对付俄罗斯,但这不会很快。


Westerncentristrants
2天前
Any such decision would come from Congress, not the president alone. Trump went on this same rhetoric back in 2016 and when he became president he said "NATO is now stronger".

任何此类决定都将由国会做出,而不仅仅是总统。特朗普在2016年也发表了同样的言论,当他成为总统时,他说“北约现在更强大了”。


Benoitchamplon
2天前
The guy manage to put doubt inside the alliance while not even president...Trust is everything for an alliance like NATO to survive, and there's a thousand way Trump could break the trust with a single tweet.

这家伙在还不是总统的情况下就设法让联盟内部产生怀疑,信任是北约这样的联盟赖以生存的一切,而特朗普有一千种方法可以用一条推特打破这种信任。


Acevaver
2天前
It doesn't matter what trump says, he makes a point. Even if every european nation contributed 2% of their gdp, US would still be paying much more. None of us want the US to back out of nato, but not contributing is already a "break the trust". Imagine you did this with the bank or a loanshark.

特朗普说什么并不重要,重要的是他提出了一个观点。即使每个欧洲国家都拿出 2% 的国民生产总值,美国仍需支付更多。我们都不希望美国退出北约,但不做出贡献已经是“失信”。想象一下,你是对银行或高利贷者这样做的。


Vilwelshman
2天前
To be fair, the 2% rule first only came about in 2014, following the Russian annexation of Crimea, and was not a founding requirement when NATO was first developed, or for most of the countries who fall short joined. And it takes time to make responsible changes and adjustments to a country's economy and spending, as well as to figure out what and where to spend those resources. After all, you wouldn't want an ally to meet the 2% target by buying new toasters and ovens for each soldier every year, right?

公平地说,2%的规定是在2014年俄罗斯吞并克里米亚之后才首次出现的,在北约成立之初,或对大多数未加入北约的国家来说,这并不是一个创始要求。而且,对一个国家的经济和支出进行负责任的改变和调整,以及弄清楚这些资源花在什么地方,都需要时间。毕竟,你不会希望盟国通过每年为每个士兵购买新的烤面包机和烤箱来达到 2% 的目标吧?


Hughjass
2天前
It's always the same argument every time this topic gets discussed. It's either - "OMG! The US is pulling out of NATO altogether.... GASP!!" or it's the unchanged status quo. NO!!!

每次讨论这个话题都是同样的论调。要么是--“哎呀!美国要退出北约了!....”,要么就是维持现状!不!


There is a middle ground in there more vast than the ocean that divides us and that's where the answer lies. NATO was formed as a way to defend Europe against Soviet aggression and it was decided that the US would assume the lead role because at the time, it was the only nation that could do so. Europe was in ruins.

这里有一个比海洋更广阔的中间地带,这就是答案所在。北约的成立是为了抵御苏联对欧洲的侵略,并决定由美国发挥主导作用,因为在当时,美国是唯一有能力这样做的国家,欧洲当时一片废墟。


But no one said that Europe; which has a combined GDP larger than the US, has to be America's dependent forever. The war has been over for eighty years, it's time for Europe to grow the f*ck up and start pulling its weight! And since it's never going to do that unless it's forced to do so, a bit of less than subtle coercion from America is in order.Cough up, Europe! We're not your f*cking sugar daddy!

但没有人说GDP 总量超过美国的欧洲必须永远依附于美国。战争已经结束了八十年,欧洲是时候成熟起来,开始承担起自己的责任了!除非它被迫这样做,否则欧洲永远不会这么做,那么来自美国的一点不那么微妙的胁迫是合适的。说吧,欧洲!我们不是你的糖爸爸!


Maritaschweizer
1天前
If Europe has to increase its military spending the investments would go into an own arms production and the currently 65% that goes to US arms producer would shrink considerably with the effect that the price for the Pentagon goes up. Both sides will lose. In the worst case Europe vecome dependent from Russia or China and than USA become just a regional power while China dominates the world.

如果欧洲必须增加军费开支,这些投资将用于自己的武器生产,而目前65%的军费流向了美国武器生产商,这将导致五角大楼的价格大幅上涨。两败俱伤。在最坏的情况下,欧洲将依附于俄罗斯或中国,而美国将仅仅成为一个地区性大国,而中国将主宰世界。


YourNetwork
22小时前
lol european nations buy more military equipment from other european nations than they do america. trust me, america will not suffer if europe begins to actually pull their weight.

哈哈,欧洲国家从其他欧洲国家购买的军事装备比从美国购买的还多。相信我,如果欧洲开始真正发挥作用,美国不会受到影响。


Maritaschweizer
18小时前
you are wrong. European countries buy more than 60% of the weapons ftom USA. Within Europe only 30 %. It is not so obvious who would profit. If you assume a really big war is likely it certainly would make sense Europe would start mass production of arms. Without a big war it is more profitable for both sides to change nothing.

你错了,欧洲国家从美国购买了 60% 以上的武器。在欧洲内部,只有 30%。谁会获利并不那么明显。如果您认为一场真正的大战很有可能发生,那么欧洲开始大规模生产武器肯定是有道理的。如果不发生大规模战争,什么都不改变对双方来说都更有利。


Maninredhelm
2天前
If Europe finally came together and created an effective, united military organization without the US, they would likely diminish the US's influence in the Middle East and North Africa.The far shorter logistical distance would make it easier for a European military to reach near peer status with the Americans, and that could certainly change the risk analysis when discussing matters on which they have differences of opinion such as Israel.  

如果欧洲最终团结起来,在没有美国的情况下建立一个有效、统一的军事组织,那么他们很可能会削弱美国在中东和北非的影响力。由于后勤距离大大缩短,欧洲军队将更容易与美国军队达到近乎同行的地位,这无疑会改变双方在讨论以色列等意见分歧问题时的风险分析。


Egypt could be less inclined to grant passage to American warships via the Suez if it had European defense assurances, and then you're in an exposed position if you send carrier groups off the coast of Gaza that Europe doesn't want there.

如果有了欧洲的防务保证,埃及可能就不会那么愿意让美国军舰通过苏伊士运河了,如果你把航母战斗群派往加沙海岸,而欧洲不希望那里,那么你就处于一个暴露的境地。


MrPlummer
2天前
Europe should absolutely do it. Completely transform culture and spending practices to generate enough troops and equipment to match the USA.When the EU has 10,000+ combat aircraft and a fleet of 11 carrier strike groups, the US can finally be kicked out of the Middle East and concentrate on repairing its infrastructure and creating a more European style healthcare system.

欧洲绝对应该这样做。彻底改变文化和支出方式,提供足够的部队和装备来与美国匹敌。当欧盟拥有 10,000 多架作战飞机和一支由 11 个航母打击群组成的舰队时,美国最终可以被赶出中东,专注于修复其基础设施,并建立一个更欧洲化的医疗体系。


Inteallsviktigt
2天前
europe doesn’t need carrier strike groups as our geography grants us natural islands that does the same thing. Everything related is close to us. While the USA have two giant oceans between them and everything else

欧洲不需要航母打击群,因为我们的地理位置赋予我们天然岛屿,可以做同样的事情。所有相关的东西都离我们很近。而美国与其他国家之间有两片巨大的海洋。


BillHimmel
2天前
As a German, I'm glad for American Protection! But if the US decides to pull the plug, I would be the last to blame them!

作为德国人,我为美国的保护感到高兴!但如果美国决定拔掉插头,我也不会责怪他们!


Quantum
2天前
You’ll end up as the smallest province of Russia if US quits NATo!

如果美国退出北约,你将沦为俄罗斯最小的省份!


Pacolino
1天前
The US pays for what?The US takes new global records in the national deficit every year. Is that because of NATO? No way, it's because the US overspends on things for their own good. Some of the wars started by the US have been because the US petro dollar was at risk which would deplete the US economy to record low. So yes, you got to pay your bills. Start paying your own bills first before whining at other countries.

美国支付什么?美国每年的国家赤字都在刷新全球记录。是因为北约吗?不可能,那是因为美国为了自己的利益而超支。美国发动的一些战争是因为美国石油美元面临风险,这将使美国经济陷入创纪录的低点。所以,是的,你得付账单。在抱怨其他国家之前,请先支付自己的账单。


If they leave NATO, it will be bad of course, but the European defense industry would peak on its own merits. Take the F35 for instance. Only 1/3 of the world's F35s are combat ready, while it's far better for European fighter jets, cheaper too. Sounds like a scam to me...

如果他们离开北约,当然会很糟糕,但欧洲国防工业将凭借自身优势达到顶峰。以 F35 为例,全世界只有1/3的F35战斗机做好了战斗准备,而它对欧洲的战斗机来说要好得多,而且还更便宜。在我看来,这听起来像是一场骗局...


Jojopaliyo
2天前
The irony here is that America is the only country so far to invoke article 5

具有讽刺意味的是,美国是迄今为止唯一一个援引第 5 条的国家。


Michaelmichel
2天前
I don't think that the United States would leave NATO, because that would mean that the United States would have to fight alone against China in a possible war in the Pacific Ocean.

我不认为美国会离开北约,因为那意味着美国将不得不在太平洋可能发生的战争中,独自对抗中国。


Josuevelasquez
1天前
Not necessarily since we have Japan, Korea, and Australia as major allies in the Pacific. Hell even Vietnam likes us more than China as crazy as that might sound.

不一定,因为日本、韩国和澳大利亚是我们在太平洋的主要盟友。甚至连越南都喜欢我们多过中国,虽然这听起来很疯狂。


Michaelmichel
1天前
Those allies are just not enough against China

这些盟友不足以对抗中国!


Pikapi
22小时前
Unlike NATO allies. And you must remember that China has a populatiion of 1 billion. It took so many countries to defeat 3 countries (Japan, Italy, Germany) during WWII. It's not easy to defeat China in a war. It would be another WWII, or even worse.

与北约盟国不同。你必须记住,中国有 10 亿人口。二战期间,许多国家才打败了三个国家(日本、意大利和德国)。要在战争中打败中国并非易事。这将是另一场二战,甚至更糟。


Bangdoll
11小时前
1.Over the past two decades, US GDP has doubled, but the EU has grown by only 3%. In reality, the economies of the rest of the EU have retreated, with the exception of Germany with remarkable economic growth and France with steady growth.

1.在过去二十年里,美国的国内生产总值翻了一番,但欧盟仅增长了 3%。实际上,除了德国经济增长显著、法国经济稳步增长之外,欧盟其他国家的经济都在退步。


2. This was a really serious problem that all of Europe's NATO countries have been over-disarmament over the past two decades, reducing military spending by less than half, but Europe's economic power has been lagging.

2. 这确实是一个很严重的问题,在过去的二十年里,欧洲所有的北约国家都在过度裁军,军费开支减少了不到一半,但欧洲的经济实力却一直滞后。


3. It takes 30 years, if not enough, to restore a broken military force, and because the latest and more advanced weapons systems are becoming increasingly expensive, building up military power costs astronomical.

3. 要恢复一支支离破碎的军事力量,至少需要30年的时间,甚至更长的时间,而且由于最新和更先进的武器系统越来越昂贵,建立军事力量的成本是天文数字。


4. Although NATO countries have announced that they are increasing military spending since 2022, only Poland, Norway, and Finland have been the only European countries that have seen their actual military strength increase over the past two years, and Germany, which announced a huge military buildup, has no money being executed at all. In other words, most NATO countries talk only, and the main reason is that unlike in the past, EU countries are getting poorer and social spending is increasing.

4. 虽然北约国家宣布自2022年起增加军费,但近两年实际军力增加的欧洲国家只有波兰、挪威和芬兰,而宣布大举扩军的德国却根本没钱执行。换句话说,北约国家大多只说不做,主要原因是与过去不同,欧盟国家越来越穷,社会开支越来越大。


5. Most of the comments here are very old, but NATO's pure European military power, excluding the United States, is less than that of one South Korean country.

5. 这里的大部分评论都过时了,但北约除美国外的纯欧洲军事力量还不如一个韩国。


6. What money is available for cash-strapped European NATO to build up its military?The reason for continuing to invite Japan, South Korea, and Australia to the NATO meeting is that Europe is not responsible for its own security.

6. 资金紧张的欧洲北约拿什么钱来加强军事力量?继续邀请日本、韩国、澳大利亚参加北约会议的理由是欧洲不对自己的安全负责。


7. It is true that the probability of the United States withdrawing from NATO is very small, but in the future, Europe will be more dependent on the United States in all aspects such as economy, military, energy security, etc., and Poland will only listen to the United States rather than the EU in the future.

7. 美国退出北约的可能性确实很小,但未来欧洲在经济、军事、能源安全等各方面都会更加依赖美国,波兰未来只会听美国的,而不会听欧盟的。


8. All of this... is the result of Europe's elimination of manufacturing, over-disarmament, and even selling energy security to Russian gas valves over the past 20 years.

8. 所有这些......都是欧洲在过去20年里淘汰制造业、过度裁军,甚至将能源安全天然气阀门卖给俄罗斯的结果。


Physicsguy
2天前
france and germany has already shown interest in creating their own NATO without USA before russian invasion

在俄罗斯入侵之前,法国和德国已经表示有兴趣在没有美国的情况下建立自己的北约。


Chinger
1天前(修改过)
yes. Europeans would have to act like a country rather than a colony.

是的,欧洲人必须像一个国家而不是殖民地一样行事。


Canemcave
2天前
as if Europe wouldn't be able to create their own nuclear deterrent and defense capabilities. Let the US withdraw and see what happens. The current arrangement was an arrangement that was decided in order to maintain the balance of power and was to the benefit of all including the USA. If that balance of power is broken things will change and fast

就好像欧洲无法建立自己的核威慑和防御能力一样。让美国撤军,看看会发生什么。目前的安排是为了维持力量平衡而作出的安排,是为了包括美国在内的所有国家的利益。如果这种权力平衡被打破,事情就会迅速改变!
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|网站地图|渝公网安备 50019002502186号|音飞网 ( 渝ICP备2022004218号-1 )

GMT+8, 2024-6-26 07:01 , Processed in 0.065074 second(s), 30 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

Copyright © 2001-2023, Tencent Cloud.