The sooner he’s gone, the better for everyone. What a pariah.

Has enough fire power for the depleted Russia.
Unless Putin decides to go and nuke everything. Then it isn't going to matter.

NATO has been working to reduce the US to some extent since Trump 1.

By leaving the US becomes a free rider.

And lose a large portion of their firepower, munitions stockpiles, and nearly all of their logistics capabilities. Nato is basically entirely dependant on the US for transportation. European nations have very limited capabilities for military sealift and heavy airlift. Their mid air refueling capacity is also lower. Even within continental Europe, the US does a lot of the heavy lifting and nearly all of the coordination. Air defense suppression and electronic warfare is primarily handled by the US. With a full withdrawal, NATO loses its ability to mount more than a small expeditionary force outside of Europe and are very limited in how long they could sustain a high intensity conflicts within Europe. European military procurement and production lacks the capacity to replace the US at this time.

you're suggesting that the hardware temporarily stays in Europe and the U.S. Military refuses to ward off an attack by Russia.

And I believe they are now, but that takes years. Years of increased military spending that I'm not convinced, even now, that they are willing to put up with for a long period of time, let alone permanently. Yes, US withdrawal would take time. But if we are leaving Nato and trump is still in charge, why would he order US forces in Europe to defend Europe? Now that said, the Europeans have enough firepower themselves to stop the russians conventionally. As we have seen, the russian military is pretty terrible. I would guess they would have difficulty even getting into Poland, considering how much the Poles have upgraded their military capabilities. But Nato as a whole would be severely diminished without the US. Its simply relied upon the US for its entirety. It was better balanced in the cold war, but when that ended and the Europeans cut their military funding back, it degraded their capabilities and that will take years to get back.

Nice summary - I don’t think people actually realize how much the US has been shouldering the burden while the Europeans spending was declining.
Over the past 20 years, NATO allies’ defense spending as a percentage of GDP declined after the Cold War, reaching a low around 2014-2015 when European allies and Canada averaged 1.43%, with only three meeting the informal 2% guideline set in 2006 (mostly US at 3-4%, plus UK and Greece). The US consistently spent 3-4.5%, covering about 70% of total NATO defense.
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea led to the Wales Summit pledge to aim for 2% by 2024-2025, sparking gradual increases. By 2021, non-US allies averaged around 1.7%, with a handful at or above 2%.
The 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine caused a sharp surge. Non-US allies rose from 1.8% in 2022 to 2.02% in 2024, with 23 allies meeting 2%. Poland led at over 4%, followed by Baltics and Greece above 3%.
In 2025, all 32 allies met or exceeded 2% for the first time, driven by ongoing threats. At the 2025 Hague Summit, allies committed to a new 5% target by 2035 (3.5% core defense + 1.5% broader security).
Central and Eastern Europe spend highest due to proximity to Russia, while the US remains at ~3.4%. Total NATO spending now reflects a more contested era, ending decades of underinvestment.

Sources: NATO annual reports 2014-2025.

European countries and Canada have long been able to pour money into domestic programs and not really worry about defense.

Money doesn’t grow on trees. So you’d have to take the money from some other area to do this.

There’s not much of an appetite to do this.

If the US wants to dabble and play world police force/gangster in such a scenario, it can do so without its hitherto allies. Without its customary European staging posts, that could present severe logistics problems unless arrangements outside the current NATO framework were substituted, and those would likely come with quid pro quos.

It could also lose the contribution to intelligence gathering provided by its current allies. There are suggestions those feeds have already been curtailed as a result of suspicions about the Trump regime's motives and reliability.

Already there have been moves to lessen the reliance on US weaponry in favour of materiel produced indigenously and elsewhere. That would only accelerate if the US was excluded. That's quite a lot of revenue to forgo.

The Ukraine conflict has highlighted shortcomings in US artillery supplies, for instance, and inventive recourse to sources elsewhere has very largely filled the gap. As for drones, the US looks very flatfooted and outdated compared to Ukraine and members of the "coalition of the willing".

If it's a choice between an unreliable, if not treacherous, "partner" and having to dig deeper to fill its shoes, under Trump at least, that would seem a more attractive option.

Germany could in relatively short order. And, of course the UK does.

Since Trump 1. Can the US survive without NATO? Out allies gave us a certain legitimacy. Without being the leader of the free world, what are we?.just another rogue nation.

The U.S. spends such a massive amount on NATO because it wants to spend a massive amount on NATO to feed the gaping maw of a corporate welfare program known as the Department of Defense. Our defense contractors are already in the throes of FAFO as Europe has slowed purchases from American companies. Europe has nukes, advanced weapons, and excellent militaries. Europe can and likely has already reverse engineered anything they don’t make.

Russia would not get its rag tag conscript army with Afghan War weapons more than a few miles into Poland before it was annihilated. Putin is too smart to try that.

Edit: Actually, any Russian army that attacked NATO would likely have mass desertions and disintegrate before it was annihilated.

trying to seize Russian bound oil tankers, forbid Venuzuela from oil dealing with Russia, China or anyone else, for that matter, threatening Greenland, Denmark, Nigeria, Canada, NATO,

hell, threatening essentially the entire Western HEMISPHERE (to hear Trumpers like gargoyles Lindsey and Co. talk)

wouldn't it be one helluva thing if our traditional allies started aligning with other superpowers for protection from Trump?

Wouldn't be the first time megalomaniacs have made for strange bedfellows.

He could probably conquer it with a single tank. Fortunately that's not going to happen. The US will offer to purchase it, but only if a referendum shows a majority of Greenlanders want to be a part of the US.