Europe

[Good2Golf]

Looks like the U.S. does need Europeans (or at least the UK) to be able to reach out to its other theatres. But Trump, Vance, Rubio, Miller, et al will tell Europe that America is there to protect, not use…

U.K. Denying U.S. Use Of Key Bases Would Impact Bombers' Role In Iran Air Campaign

The U.K. is reportedly preventing the U.S. from using Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford to attack Iran.

www.twz.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

Hybrid warfare against numerous NATO nations for years.

There's always been a non-zero amount of that. Europe can't deal with it?

 

[Good2Golf]

There's always been a non-zero amount of that. Europe can't deal with it?

So America should get a bye for having been the leader of the NATO expansion?

 

[daftandbarmy]

So America should get a bye for having been the leader of the NATO expansion?

I'm pretty sure Russia gets the kudos for that...

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm pretty sure Russia gets the kudos for that...

Sweden (#32) and Finland (#31) yes, but not the large post-Perestroika expansion (from 16 to 30 countries) that Russia claims the US agreed not to pursue.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So America should get a bye for having been the leader of the NATO expansion?

I don't know what America should get, but either more of a "peace dividend" than it has taken or a reapportioning of more of its European-committed [forces] to other locations could be high on any list.

As the USSR and WP collapsed and countries formerly on the Soviet side of the "correlation of forces" moved into NATO, along with neutrals, it was possible for Europe to assume a larger share of its own defence/deterrent against what remained of the old enemy (Russia), particularly all the stuff that didn't rise to the level of open tank-vs-tank war. By the numbers, it's easily possible for European NATO or even some number of the larger European NATO members as a separate coalition to contain Russian aggression. They have superior economic might, superior technology, superior freedoms, superior geographic position. The question of what the US does if Russia invades Lithuania never has to arise if Europe itself looks too strong from the Russian position.

Above all, the US isn't needed to solve European military problems external to NATO, which Ukraine is.

 

[HavokFour]

We've now gone from the 'wait not like that' phase and have entered the 'or else' portion.

Pentagon aggressively lobbies EU against Buy European weapons push

In previously unreported remarks, the U.S. administration warned Brussels that it will retaliate if Europeans “strong-arm American companies out of the market.”

www.politico.eu

 

[Good2Golf]

Above all, the US isn't needed to solve European military problems external to NATO, which Ukraine is.

Ukraine situation doesn’t affect NATO. Check.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Sweden (#32) and Finland (#31) yes, but not the large post-Perestroika expansion (from 16 to 30 countries) that Russia claims the US agreed not to pursue.

I would argue that the inclusion of all the post Yugoslav countries, of which there are 4, into NATO falls out of this. They were never a part of the Warsaw Pact and were never a part of the old SU.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Ukraine situation doesn’t affect NATO. Check.

That's your strawman, not a claim I make. Without reading the charter, I'm going to guess that joining a military intervention on behalf of a non-NATO member nation is discretionary, not obligatory, for NATO members.

I've repeatedly pointed out how much time concerned nations have had to join Ukraine decisively, instead of waffling and just doing enough to keep a bloody approximate stalemate going. Whatever the crisis is, it isn't important enough to do without the US kicking into the pot. I suppose they are more than willing to fight if US service members and taxpayers lead.

 

[Good2Golf]

That's your strawman, not a claim I make. Without reading the charter, I'm going to guess that joining a military intervention on behalf of a non-NATO member nation is discretionary, not obligatory, for NATO members.

I've repeatedly pointed out how much time concerned nations have had to join Ukraine decisively, instead of waffling and just doing enough to keep a bloody approximate stalemate going. Whatever the crisis is, it isn't important enough to do without the US kicking into the pot. I suppose they are more than willing to fight if US service members and taxpayers lead.

Or maybe the understandably though the U.S. wasn’t going to TACO against Russia like it has.

It seems that anything outside NATO’s borders aren’t of concern for NATO then, thus why Ukraine is not an important enough issue to NATO writ large for US to continue a waning leadership role.