2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Altair]

And if they do they'll still have over 30,000 stationed there...

Why does the US have military bases in Germany?

Trump is withdrawing 5,000 of the 36,400 US personnel based in Germany. But why are they there in the first place?

www.theguardian.com

Rumors are Trump wants to pull them all out by 2027.

I really want to see how the American plan to run operations in the middle east without bases in European.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

 

[FJAG]

Rumors are Trump wants to pull them all out by 2027.

I really want to see how the American plan to run operations in the middle east without bases in European.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

just when you think that administration couldn't get any stupider . . .

 

[brihard]

just when you think that administration couldn't get any stupider . . .

Not sure any of us think that at this point.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Turning America from a global power to a regional one step at a time.

 

[JLB50]

just when you think that administration couldn't get any stupider . . .

Trump is exceeding Putin’s wildest dreams. If nothing else, Vlad is to be congratulated for his canny investment in people. What did it cost? A few bank loans to prop up a failing American real estate developer? A few hookers performing in a Moscow hotel room? Payback time, Donnie.

 

[Kirkhill]

The counter-point.

https://www.cato.org/blog/leaving-nato-even-wrong-reasons-good-policy

And the view from the originator in 1951.

"General Dwight D. Eisenhower—who later became president—expressed concern about a permanent US military presence in Europe. As the first Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (1951–52), he said, “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.”"

We are well past 1961.

....

Trump may have made a bad decision. But if Europe expects America to rescue it from the consequences of its bad decisions then it needs to tolerate America's bad decisions. Any agreement requires both parties to get their hands dirty, accept the rough with the smooth, in good times and in bad, for better or worse, in sickness and in health. Both parties agree to share risk jointly.

And this is America we are talking about here. Not just Donald Trump. He is just giving a P.T. Barnum voice to that which American Presidents, politicians and diplomats have been mumbling in private since 1951.

...

https://www.cbc.ca/2017/then-vs-now-when-presidents-meet-prime-ministers-1.4008594

"in 1965 when Pearson made a speech at Temple University, proposing a "Pause for Peace." Later, at Camp David, an infuriated Johnson grabbed the Nobel Peace-Prize winning Prime Minister by the lapels and screamed: "Don't you come into my house and piss on my rug!""

Much more diplomatic than Trump, I'm sure. Especially as it was a Democrat President holding the lapels.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The counter-point.

https://www.cato.org/blog/leaving-nato-even-wrong-reasons-good-policy

And the view from the originator in 1951.

"General Dwight D. Eisenhower—who later became president—expressed concern about a permanent US military presence in Europe. As the first Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (1951–52), he said, “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project [NATO] will have failed.”"

We are well past 1961.

....

Trump may have made a bad decision. But if Europe expects America to rescue it from the consequences of its bad decisions then it needs to tolerate America's bad decisions. Any agreement requires both parties to get their hands dirty, accept the rough with the smooth, in good times and in bad, for better or worse, in sickness and in health. Both parties agree to share risk jointly.

And this is America we are talking about here. Not just Donald Trump. He is just giving a P.T. Barnum voice to that which American Presidents, politicians and diplomats have been mumbling in private since 1951.

...

https://www.cbc.ca/2017/then-vs-now-when-presidents-meet-prime-ministers-1.4008594

"in 1965 when Pearson made a speech at Temple University, proposing a "Pause for Peace." Later, at Camp David, an infuriated Johnson grabbed the Nobel Peace-Prize winning Prime Minister by the lapels and screamed: "Don't you come into my house and piss on my rug!""

Much more diplomatic than Trump, I'm sure. Especially as it was a Democrat President holding the lapels.

Some Canadians have an unhealthy admiration of Europe. Just like some to for the USA.

Canada seems to have been continuously in search of someone to be incharge of it. England, USA, Europe, China, NATO, UN ect ect...

IMHO we're too often looking for a daddy, when we should a much more powerful and independent nation than we are. We have everything the world wants.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to...

It is incumbent on the politicians we elect to supply a system resilient enough to manage the consequences of bad decisions, our own, our friends and our enemies.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some Canadians have an unhealthy admiration of Europe. Just like some to for the USA.

Canada seems to have been continuously in search of someone to be incharge of it. England, USA, Europe, China, NATO, UN ect ect...

IMHO we're too often looking for a daddy, when we should a much more powerful and independent nation than we are. We have everything the world wants.

There are those who want to lead, those who want to follow and those who just want to be left alone.

There is power, prestige and wealth to be gained from leading.
There is comfort in following - no moral hazards.
Independence is an insecure life but the risks and rewards are your own.

Canada has a very large, and growing, population of followers that have never heard the gospel of free will.
It also has a sizeable cohort of wannabe leaders. Many of whom want the rewards of leadership with all the comforts of following.

 

[YZT580]

Rumors are Trump wants to pull them all out by 2027.

I really want to see how the American plan to run operations in the middle east without bases in European.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face

Except when those same European nations won't allow you to use the bases. Then what? Europe spent decades placating Iran. all it got them was a hole in the ground that contained hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium just one cycle away from being weapons grade. They got Muslims setting up ghettos in their major cities and, in a number of cases they were on the receiving end of planned terrorist operations. Yet they refused to support in any way one slightly mad orange-haired dictator who wanted to do something about it.

 

[brihard]

Except when those same European nations won't allow you to use the bases. Then what? Europe spent decades placating Iran. all it got them was a hole in the ground that contained hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium just one cycle away from being weapons grade. They got Muslims setting up ghettos in their major cities and, in a number of cases they were on the receiving end of planned terrorist operations. Yet they refused to support in any way one slightly mad orange-haired dictator who wanted to do something about it.

Maybe if he wanted to use their bases for an offensive war well outside the geographic and purposeful scope of NATO he should have met with them in advance and actually made a case for his proposed war, its aims, its metrics of success, and how he planned to mitigate the inevitable Iranian reprisal and closure of shipping lanes?

When you unilaterally and intentionally do something really stupid and disruptive, it’s silly to expect others to join you ‘just because’.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe if he wanted to use their bases for an offensive war well outside the geographic and purposeful scope of NATO he should have met with them in advance and actually made a case for his proposed war, its aims, its metrics of success, and how he planned to mitigate the inevitable Iranian reprisal and closure of shipping lanes?

When you unilaterally and intentionally do something really stupid and disruptive, it’s silly to expect others to join you ‘just because’.

A real problem that we all face currently is that discussion invariably alerts our opponent to our intent permitting them to prepare counters or even pre-empt action. Some people call the resultant paralysis peace.

Others call it a holding action.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yeah, there's no heightened likelihood of US information being leaked by some Trump-deranged European in the age of Trump, so the US is stuck with assets locked down there until it moves them.

 

[brihard]

Silly thing to be concerned about given the weeks of unmistakeable military buildup in the region with extremely specific and noticeable cobalts being openly moved into the region, plus any intelligence getting shared with Iran by their own allies.

Pretending this wasn’t blatantly and massively telegraphed for weeks is silly. Anyone who was surprised that the operation kicked off wasn’t lying attention; it turned from ‘if’ to ‘when’ a couple weeks out.

Regardless, if the U.S. wants to pretend that keeping hoped-for allies in the dark was the way to keep OPSEC, well, then they own all of that choice.

 

[lenaitch]

He already said he didn't tell them because he didn't trust them. Maybe he was right, but trust and cooperation goes both ways. He spent the last year demonizing many and tariffing most.

 

[Kirkhill]

He already said he didn't tell them because he didn't trust them. Maybe he was right, but trust and cooperation goes both ways. He spent the last year demonizing many and tariffing most.

And I will counter that Europeans, Brits and Canadians have spent decades villifying, demeaning and ignoring Americans and their Presidents.

Do we want to keep going?

Or should we just deal with where we are?

 

[Kirkhill]

Silly thing to be concerned about given the weeks of unmistakeable military buildup in the region with extremely specific and noticeable cobalts being openly moved into the region, plus any intelligence getting shared with Iran by their own allies.

Pretending this wasn’t blatantly and massively telegraphed for weeks is silly. Anyone who was surprised that the operation kicked off wasn’t lying attention; it turned from ‘if’ to ‘when’ a couple weeks out.

Regardless, if the U.S. wants to pretend that keeping hoped-for allies in the dark was the way to keep OPSEC, well, then they own all of that choice.

Where was the build up? Off Taiwan? Off Venezuela? Off Iran? Off Singapore?

The US Navy has been extraordinarily busy drifting assets from one posture to another. It has been obvious that action was intended. The where and the when and the scale and the sequence, even the breathing spaces, have been obscure.

Even the intent, which can often give a clue to future actions, is obscure.

 

[Altair]

Except when those same European nations won't allow you to use the bases. Then what? Europe spent decades placating Iran. all it got them was a hole in the ground that contained hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium just one cycle away from being weapons grade. They got Muslims setting up ghettos in their major cities and, in a number of cases they were on the receiving end of planned terrorist operations. Yet they refused to support in any way one slightly mad orange-haired dictator who wanted to do something about it.

Like i said, I look forward to the americans trying to plan operations in the middle east without European bases.

Especially Ramstein. How many American service members die going forward if they cannot make it to Ramstein?

Oh well.

 

[brihard]

Where was the build up? Off Taiwan? Off Venezuela? Off Iran? Off Singapore?

The US Navy has been extraordinarily busy drifting assets from one posture to another. It has been obvious that action was intended. The where and the when and the scale and the sequence, even the breathing spaces, have been obscure.

Even the intent, which can often give a clue to future actions, is obscure.

You’re joking, right?

 

[Altair]

You’re joking, right?

American administration individuals went on TV saying they were surprised that Iran didnt capitulate given the armada the americans had built up.

But some here know the intent of the Americans better than the Americans themselves.