Europe cannot rely on US protection, Pentagon chief tells NATO allies
telegraph.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
The other problem with an EU military is the ongoing and I think enormous Russian funding of political instability.
A country like France has its own nukes for a reason and that is to be sovereign and independent.
Just don't come crying back when you're taken as prisoner
* Remove support they are ideologically opposed to irregardless of merit. USAID is the most obvious example where many of the things it does/did are opposed to the political and religious beliefs of those involved in scrapping it.
* With the 'America First' agenda it reduces the scope of what 'national interest' is in terms of foreign policy so they want to force regional partners to take more of role. This is clearest at the moment in Europe but they'll be doing the same to everyone else (e.g. Korea with China/North Korea).
Broadly the administration is continuing along the Project 2025 path. So the end goal is a more distant America waiving nukes at China.
Never mind that just a few years ago we were talking about how China's belt and road initiative would help it take over the road and now we are cancelling the American belt and road initiative.
Never mind that America is only rich because of its worldwide influence.
heavily funded by Russia, and to a lesser extent China.
same playbook that pushed Brexit.
We should be clear here, who "they" are. Trump is Trump, he is a populist, so he'll just do whatever. The question is, is the support for his type of populism embedded in the US now, or not. I don't think it is, I think the US will see through his type of populism at some point.
So I don't think the US will be abandoning Europe in the medium or longer term, and mostly only making noises about it in the short term. I think it is worthwhile for Europe to mitigate the short term, strengthen its military, but we should be aiming to keep the medium term alliance with the US going.
Musk the lens that all future U.S. actions and rhetoric needs to be seen through, at least in the near-term.
If the US decided to leave NATO completely, European military spending might stabilize somewhere around 3%, with lower spending in the west and higher in the east. At that level, the overall spending would be a bit below US figures in absolute terms and higher than the US in PPP terms.
If the US decided to leave NATO, given much of the hostility to it is because it's seen by countries like Russia to extend US influence and troops, I wouldn't be surprised if European countries could spend less on defence.
This video breaks down who those people are as well as what their motivations are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
(Of an education system, maybe)
Wow. Why make my case for me?
they're pointing out a grammatical error in your post,
just like you pointed out one in their post.
Touché, I think.
But you already knew that.
And his was a spelling mistake.
No US being primary security guarantor, sure.
But what does actually mean. If Europe continues to coast and NATO country is attacked and triggers art5, US would stand back and do nothing?
Check out the 1994 Budapest Memorandum where Russia, USA and UK all agreed to preserve Ukraine’s borders in return for them giving their nukes to Russia.
All parties seen to have forgotten about that one
Article 5 has only ever been invoked once in NATO history. It was invoked by America. NATO allies came to America's aid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_...
The US president has also tabled demands that would see Nato military spending targets more than doubled to 5 per cent of GDP in a bid to end Europe’s reliance on Washington.
If the US does not back NATO countries, and demand 2-5% spending, what's the point of NATO countries even buying American weapons?
Lastly, is it really fair for NATO countries to spend at least 2% on their military if much of that budget goes to American companies?
That's why this is a double-edged sword for the US: if they force Europe to stand on its own two feet they will also lose influence and control over Europe.
The only benefit that USA can claim is that without being allied to USA many countries would have been forced to spend more for their defense. However most of that spending would not have gone to US companies, so USA has benefited from the alliance at least as much as the other members.
USA has practically acted exactly like an insurance company. For now, until a war would involve NATO and USA would be forced to pay for it, during all the 3 quarters of a century during which USA never had to pay for a NATO war, USA has received yearly payments from the allies for military equipment, exactly like receiving insurance fees, so the balance for USA from the effects of the alliance is hugely positive.
(Of course, like for most things done by the US government in international relations, the positive balance for USA is not felt by simple citizens, because all profits have been grabbed by the shareholders or managers of some big companies, e.g. those producing military equipment.)
The claims about USA "subsidizing" allies are completely stupid, when frequently the "allies" have been blackmailed to accept contracts paying billions to US companies, not only for defense acquisitions, but also for some non-related infrastructure projects.
Especially in the case of the more recent NATO members from Eastern Europe, they have been forced to pay dearly for their admission into NATO by accepting various very expensive and onerous contracts with some US companies (e.g. Bechtel), besides buying expensive US aircraft or the like.
(and without the notorious US-made military equipment kill-switches)
And while we're at it, this time will be different: Instead of the membership criteria being anti-communism, it should be effective Liberal Democracy. So, to be part,
1. Compulsory ICC membership - hence no exceptionalistic US, and no exceptionalistic Israel.
2. No "Illiberal Democracies": say, for example, composite of a minimum 0.67 score on the WJP Rule of Law Index and others: therefore no Orbanic Hungary, and no illiberal others like it. Poland, Slovakia, Italy: you better watch your ways if you want in.
3. Democratic backsliding removes you rights in the Alliance, and, can proportionally lead to outright expulsion.
Not one more new military equipment purchase from the US, (or other non-qualifying nations). Member nations should use their - substantial - industrial capacity to equip themselves with indigenous military materiel.
Hey, it would be actually great for their economy!
Initially European scope, but bridges to a broader global scope (or even a secondary sister-Alliance) with open-ended partnerships with Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Japan, South Korea, and yes: Taiwan.
US and/or Israel want to join, if a more Democratic future selves? Simple: fully join the ICC, and meet the Alliance's full criteria as every other member.
Same applies for prospective new members.
Not interested? Bye, your problem.