Once the USA has a sane commander-in-chief again, it's going to need to completely overhaul its approach to the Eastern European region, among other things.
The parent referred to starting wars. The first one doesn't qualify at all.
The US and NATO have intervened in the two civil wars (along with numerous other countries; with France recently pleading with the US to remain in Syria). It's an overreach to claim the US started the Libyan Civil War or the Syrian Civil War, neither is true. The US was opportunistic in trying to squeeze Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad out (with Russia on the other side, trying to prop up the dictatorship). Those civil wars are the inevitable result of decades of extreme oppression by dictatorship, which will always end in armed revolution.
It might have been a civil war at the start, but after that it was a war of the US against two sovereign states. Nothing civil about that.
- Libya was started by France who begged the US to join them on their little sorties, Italy ran air command too, the US was just along for the ride)
- The Syrian Civil War has basically nothing to do with America, blame Russia as the leadership there gassing civilians and genociding undesirables is a Putin stooge.
The JCPOA (more commonly known as the Iran deal) constrained Iran's nuclear program, and it was with great disappointment that I watched the administration withdraw. But there were anecdotal reports of transgressions on Iran's part, and the JCPOA was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification, which means it was never a legally binding agreement under U.S. law. Like the Paris climate agreement (most of its signatories saw their GHG emissions increase, but not the US; so much for the effectiveness of such agreements to achieve concrete progress in the fight against climate change).
Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4.
But I do hope I'm wrong. I guess we'll see.
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Israel and everyone in NATO from Poland on west.
Yes, we're going through a rough patch because the US is (rightfully) sick of playing world police at the same time as China/Russia are on the up but to think that the US and all the other regionally relevant powers (e.g. NATO members for Europe) wouldn't retaliate against an attempt to annex territories in any of those countries is crazy. Also Panama and Egypt (who both have critical global shipping lanes) don't really have to worry about their sovereignty being violated by any nation that the first world would expect to restrict access to their shipping lanes.
If we're going to discuss this, let's not play "Goalposts? What are those?"
>Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4
I deem Taiwan to be a "relevant country" due to their relevance to the technology industry.
That is not a reasonable description of the current situation unless you think that the guy whose party commands a thunderous minority but wins (both the Presidency and the Senate) due to electoral bugs gets to say what we, as Americans, are and are not "sick of".
EU emissions overall are down, but with large differences between countries. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9779945/8-08...
To encircle and strangle Russia.
That's how Russia sees it, at least, and I have a hard time arguing with that.
Maybe we should try other things?
Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off.
Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
The thing you (and Trump) are meaning is the total defense spending as percentage of GDP. Germany cannot be "delinquent" here by definition! Every country is legally free to spend whatever it wants on defense. The "2%"is an informal goal only, not backed by any international treaty!
Trump just doesn't understand the geostrategic position of the U.S., where troops stationed in critical countries prevent invasions which would upturn its imperial economic order. Trump thinks the U.S. has stationed troops in SK, Germany, Taiwan for the countries' interests, where they were clearly deployed there to defend its own.
If we had a democratic system we wouldn't waste so many resources on armaments. That's why the military-industrial complex destroyed our previously somewhat-democratic system.
However, it is a common defense treaty, and as such each member is expected to contribute a proportionate amount to their own military. Most recently the agreed level was 2% of GDP, which Germany has consistently fallen short of. Both Obama and Bush complained about it as well, but they both had a reasonable understanding of how things worked.
The underlying causes of these changes are Germany (1) continuing to spend less than 2% of GDP on defense; (2) its 2019 announcement that its pushing back its 2% target date from 2024 (agreed upon in 2015) to 2031; and, (3) continued German support for Nord Stream 2.
America is publicly penalizing Germany for the above reasons, which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops from Germany and other host nations in Europe. Moreover, it seems some troops are likely slated for rebasing in the Indo-Pacific which will bolster US' power there.
The only thing this will lead to is a breakup or a massive relevancy drop of NATO. Europe is already emancipating themselves, the US will continue to lose influence - to the benefit of China and Russia, of course.
Al Qaeda started the Afghanistan war.
I think the move is really poorly thought out if the goal is to penalize Germany and discourage their behavior. Because what is Germany losing? The political embarrassment of having troops leave? Is that really worth the billions it will cost to move troops? Because I feel like if the US was willing to spend billions to apply political pressure to Germany there could have been much more effective ways to go about it. And then there's the damage this does to the security of Europe broadly. If this in any way reduces our ability to deter Russia, that hurts all of NATO, not just Germany.
Russians use this bank like Americans use Venmo.
It just seems like low hanging fruit for a chummy head of state to deal with, because the sanction itself is so hurtful and broad to include the entire institution for over half a decade and never revisiting it.
It is balanced to separate the rhetoric of the head of state from the autonomous and distributed US agencies. Its clear the priorities from the president are self-protection, and the stuff with Russia is just enough to keep investments afloat, while pretty much everything else regarding US agencies and geopolitics is ignored. So all the drama stays at the top of DOJ, Fed, Treasury and what all the divisions do transcends administrations.
I think you're going to need to start citing that, I'm not aware of any such plans. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of action (e.g. announcing the removal of a third of the US forces in Germany, as happened last week).
This is just a whataboutist response. While there is criticism to be made everywhere about all things, the idea that the Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous.
> Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous
Yes, this is completely false. The Trump administration has been tougher on pretty much everything involving Russian interests. From Ukraine, Iran, Syria, sanctions on Russia, to yes strengthening the eastern flank of NATO.
[0] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/229...
"The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany – from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000 – in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth"
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/poland-deploy-1000-tr...
The article even uses the term "NATO's eastern flank."
That math doesn't check out at all.
2. The US is in the process of building a military base in Poland.
> In 2018, Poland proposed that the United States open a permanent military base within its country. The Polish government would finance around $2 Billion of the cost of hosting American forces, if the proposal was accepted by the United States. Poland has proposed either Bydgoszcz, or Toruń, as potential base locations.[18] Since 1999, Poland has sought closer military ties with the United States.[19] In June 2019, both sides agreed to send 1,000 U.S. troops to Poland.[20] In September 2019, six locations were determined to host approximately 4,500 of the U.S. military in Poland, including: Poznań, Drawsko Pomorskie, Strachowice, Łask, Powidz and Lubliniec.
3. Some of those troops will be moved from Germany to Poland.
> On 24 June 2020, Trump said at a press conference with Duda that the United States plans to move some U.S. troops from Germany to Poland.[22][23] Trump said that "Poland is one of the few countries that are fulfilling their obligations under NATO — in particular, their monetary obligations — and they asked us if we would send some additional troops. ... I think [putting more US troops in Poland] sends a very strong signal to Russia."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland–United_States_relations
Honestly, if you can't bother to do basic research about the situation, it's better to not comment on it.
> 1. Germany isn't on the Eastern Front. Poland actually borders Russia (the exclave on the Baltic.)
The Kaliningrad exclave is quite small, but it poses a real danger when the Suwalki Gap is taken into account. Given Belarus' friendly ties with Russia, there is only a small band of land that needs to be cut off to trap the Baltic states. It's important to secure that stretch. Ideally, Belarus would serve as a buffer, but that's a very difficult thing to achieve. Also good would be the ceding of Kaliningrad to Poland and Lithuania (historically, that region was a vassal of the Polish Crown). Perhaps in exchange for recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea. Good luck with that, I guess.
Ideally, the Central European states east of Germany can play the US, Germany/EU, and Russia off each other to guarantee that the region is free from hegemonic dominance. Historically until the late 18th century, Polish dominance guaranteed stability and peace in the region. As both historical heir and as the largest country of the block, it is important the Poland resume its historical and geopolitically necessary role if Poland and the other states represented in the Three Seas Initiative are to remain free and prosperous. The stability offered would also benefit European stability by creating a bulwark against both Western and Eastern imperial ambitions.
Germany has absolutely no need to have US soldiers stationed in their territory. They're fully capable - in all regards - of defending their own nation. Adding soldiers to Poland is strengthening the eastern flank because Poland is in Eastern Europe, Germany is not.
If the US removes 100% of its soldiers from Germany and adds only 3,000 to Poland, that also would be strengthening the eastern flank.
Well, I think that's the first time I've been called Russian propaganda. I got a good chuckle out of that.
EDIT - I misunderstood the comment. I'm leaving my original reply intact above, however, for clarity.
Anti-ICBM defenses in Europe undermine MAD, and if I were to believe the pro-nuclear-weapon people, (who insist that we are all better off pointing thousands of nukes at eachother), MAD is the only thing that has been keeping the world in relative peace for the past 60 years.
Serious question: Do you want to live in a world where MAD no longer works, but we still have all those thousands of nuclear weapons?
The United States has no official policy of mutually assured destruction.
If you're asking me - everything should be done to make sure one can win in a potential nuclear war. MAD sounds like glorified defeatism to me. President Reagan had a great Strategic Defense Initiative but it has been shelved in the 90s. Now Space Force could be an attempt at bringing a lot of that back in a way that will be much harder to get rid of by future administrations. To not be working on such systems is (not necessarily mutually) "assured destruction".
Your reasoning means that the most optimal move for Russia would be to nuke you, today, before your anti-MAD system is in place. It will, after all, save more Russian lives then being attacked by an unassailable adversary in the future.
The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons.
No, I doubt Russia would dare use their nukes. Again the facility in Romania has become operational in 2019, no nuke from Russia so far. The one Obama cancelled was supposed to be in Poland. Roughly similar distance from mainland Russia.
> The fact that you consider nuclear war to be winnable is horrifying. The whole point of it is that everyone loses. That's not defeatism, that's the only sane way to deal with two sides having end-of-the-world weapons.
Expecting to lose without putting up a fight is defeatism. Nobody wants a nuclear war. But nonetheless I'm very happy that the US and other militaries are preparing for this scenario. Switzerland has a system of nuclear bunkers that can house more than its current population - I think that's very smart. It's not set in stone that humanity would end after such a war. Some projections even see most Americans surviving.
And don't discount a scenario where America can totally neutralize an adversary's nuclear capability with new tech. This should be (and probably is) the goal. We don't even know that much about the current capability.
Practically speaking a "MAD" approach benefits Russia much more than anybody else. Their military is rather unimpressive. Russia's nuclear capability is the only way Russia can seem strong and keep getting away with everything they do. Countries like Russia cannot be trusted to comply with any nuclear agreements. When the West stops its work on nuclear related technologies it only gives countries like Russia an edge.
There's a difference between stopping a small percentage of missiles, and a large percentage of missiles. One does nothing to stop MAD. The other is a categorical change in the balance of power. It's like the difference between cutting off 5% of your air supply, and cutting off 80% of your air supply. You barely feel a difference from losing 5%, surely you can do it again and again and again...
But let's turn this question around.
Suppose that Russia announces that it has begun working on ICBM defenses. Once complete, they expect to protect themselves from 98 to 99% of American missiles. These defenses will be complete in 12 months - faster than you could build your own equivalents.
What do you do? Do you just sit around, and let them become the only nuclear power that can do as it pleases, as it renders all of your weapons useless? Do you let it have free reign in diplomacy, with the ability to threaten and extort anyone it wants, without any fear of retaliation whatsoever? Do you just sit around, and wait until 'oh, golly, gee, those reds can now kill us all anytime they want to, with no blowback to them, shucks, I guess it is what it is'?
Do you start building your own defenses, only to be attacked before they are ready, because they aren't interested in sharing a monopoly on consequence-free nuclear diplomacy?
Or do you 'dare to use your nukes', and attack first, before their defenses are ready?
I legitimately don't understand how the Russians can be seen as both such a wily, treacherous, capable adversary - while also taking steps to back them into a corner, where the only self-serving logical solution you leave them is for them to attack you first. I don't understand how you can endorse taking steps that push the world towards a nuclear war, while at the same time assuming that your adversaries will not respond to your brinkmanship with brinkmanship of their own.
And it, quite frankly, horrifies me, because you are willing to bet hundreds of millions of lives on the theory that your adversary will not carry out a logical, self-serving, outcome-maximizing response to your actions.
As of right now America's capabilities in every domain are vastly superior and I hope it remains so.
Again you believe that America's and other countries' nuclear capability is essentially the same and nuclear war means total destruction for everybody. I don't believe that.
I think Russia wouldn't dare because they would simply lose.
If you look at the history of Soviet propaganda with regards to nuclear, they often promoted these ideas of total destruction. Say back in the day they promoted the (now mostly discredited) concept of "nuclear winter". Russia actively wants Western fear and disarmament because that's the only way they can be "strong".
There is no alternative to an arms race. Russia and China won't simply become beautiful peace loving countries overnight if America slacks off. If anything assures nuclear war it's America being weak.
Plus you're assuming some perfect rationality where Russia (or some other country) couldn't possibly just launch an attack for a stupid reason. It's always a possibility. You want to try to win in that situation too. Under MAD you're just hoping it won't happen.
Of course you do! You don't believe that MAD works!
But you are avoiding answering my question. What would you do in the scenario I drafted? Would you attack first?
> Again you believe that America's and other countries' nuclear capability is essentially the same and nuclear war means total destruction for everybody. I don't believe that.
Among the permanent security council members, it is essentially the same. The UK's tiny arsenal could trivially kill ~200 million Americans, give or take some. Russia's is fifty times its size.
What evidence, besides your belief do you have, for the United States not losing more than three quarters of its civilian population, if attacked by six thousand nuclear weapons?
> I think Russia wouldn't dare because they would simply lose.
No, everybody would lose. The reason they haven't done anything is because it is not an inflection point. Localized missile defenses that will stop a small fraction of a small fraction of potential attacks are not an inflection point that breaks MAD. They are something to complain about, not something to go to war over.
But just because cutting off 5% of your air supply doesn't result in serious problems for you, cutting it off again, and again, and again, and again will eventually reach a critical inflection point.
> If you look at the history of Soviet propaganda with regards to nuclear, they often promoted these ideas of total destruction. Say back in the day they promoted the (now mostly discredited) concept of "nuclear winter". Russia actively wants Western fear and disarmament because that's the only way they can be "strong".
Just because the reds said it, doesn't mean they were wrong.
I'm just telling you I find the question irrelevant. If you're threatened with total destruction and think you can win of course you should attack.
> Among the permanent security council members, it is essentially the same. The UK's tiny arsenal could trivially kill ~200 million Americans, give or take some. Russia's is fifty times its size.
There are many more variables involved than just the size of the arsenal. The notion that everybody will just fire all their nukes at once is unrealistic. Silos can be attacked, comms can be disrupted, things can malfunction, there are a TON of things at play. Just looking at the nuclear stockpile makes no sense. In every military domain US has superior capabilities. No reason to believe that in case of nuclear war Russia would outperform the US. And after you're done firing nukes traditional military still matters.
Great. Now, put yourself in Ivan's shoes. NATO has encircled you, militarily and economically. Your military is second-rate, at best. But you do have six thousand nuclear weapons, which mean that nobody is stupid enough to mess with you.
... And then Uncle Sam starts building anti-nuclear defenses on your borders, with the long-term aim of eliminating the sole means of defense that you have.
If you're Ivan, to use your own words - of course you should attack! And what's the overall result? A missile defense system that is intended to save American lives actually ends up ending them, because its existence causes a nuclear war. It completely fails at its stated purpose!
> No reason to believe that in case of nuclear war Russia would outperform the US.
Outperform is completely meaningless in this context. Outperform means the difference between 68% of your population being killed in a thirty minutes, compared to 82% of the enemy's (With two thirds of the remainder dying over the next week). That's not winning. That's not outperforming on any metric that matters.
Once you're done firing nukes, you're country's traditional military doesn't matter because you no longer have a country. What you have is a humanitarian crisis, multiple orders of magnitude worse then whatever stupid geo-political spat your foreign ministries were arguing over.
If one side ends up controlling the other or there's a favorable truce to one side that side wins. All war is nasty and results in terrible destruction. Doesn't mean there's no winner at the end of it. I can throw random percentages around too. According to one simulation ("Crisis Relocation Program 2B") from the 80s given a few days of advance notice up to 80% of Americans could survive a nuclear war with Russia. One should strive to reduce potential casualties as much as possible. Do relocation programs, shelters etc "violate MAD" in your book too? Because they certainly lessen the D part.
We know of at least two instances where Russians were close to erroneously launching nukes . Only stopped due to personnel disobeying procedures. It's almost inevitable one day someone somewhere will launch a nuke for whatever reason. Better be ready when that happens. Your strategy only kicks the can down the road and provides no way out. While in the meantime giving Russia and other adversaries all the reasons to keep continuing with their aggression. Is nobody allowed to ever attack Russia because of "MAD"?