2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Altair]

I didn't propose those things. I shall restate what I wrote more explicitly, since implied bits may not have been obvious: "US-favouring foreign policy and procurement [on the part of others] aren't reasonable expectations [on the part of the US]".

Except they very much are.

Again, its fine. Trump wants to tank NATO. He's doing a wonderful job on that file

 

[Furniture]

US-favouring foreign policy and procurement aren't reasonable expectations. As for use, "Please spend a bunch of money establishing facilities in our country. We reserve the right to prevent you from using the facilities" is a difficult proposition to sell.

America is often times more interested in maintaining their presence than the host nation is in having them...

Alienating allies is what got the usage of bases restricted in the first place. Further alienating allies is asking for host nations to invite America to leave. Particularly if the assistance of America hinges on stroking the ego of the guy sitting in the oval office.

 

[Brad Sallows]

America is often times more interested in maintaining their presence than the host nation is in having them...

Alienating allies is what got the usage of bases restricted in the first place. Further alienating allies is asking for host nations to invite America to leave. Particularly if the assistance of America hinges on stroking the ego of the guy sitting in the oval office.

All fine. The US didn't - contrary to what many people think - ask for or seek the role of "world policemen". The US drew down its forces rapidly after WW II, and it was the realization - shared with some of its western allies - that there was no hope the USSR would not be aggressively expansionist (and in particular the realization that war in Korea was likely imminent and the former western allies were remarkably unprepared) that kicked off reactions which led to the US becoming a military powerhouse (again).

So here we are. But the policeman role some people (many here) seem to lament that the US is abandoning can't be effectively conducted only from the US and its sovereign territories. It's practical only if the policeman has a worldwide network of bases. Some of those are bound to end up in countries that, in their own bilateral relations, are not particularly friendly. So it's probable that some things the US wants to do that suit country B, or even just the US, will not suit country A. But if countries start vetoing the use of bases, the whole necessary structure falls apart. Either everyone who wants to profit by the relative peace dividend joins in and suppresses their occasional dissatisfaction, or the entire enterprise is fated to eventually unwind. And no "but this was exceptionally egregious" excuse matters, even if it's a manifestly righteous claim. I stipulate that Trump's talk (eg. Greenland) and actions (eg. Iran) are almost intolerable - but not absolutely intolerable - and that any nation may fairly pull the plug. But that worsens the situation.

It's unfortunate that Trump's bluster and bullying has become part of the cost, but there is always some kind of cost. A question is whether it's worth putting up with another two-and-a-half years of his crap in the hope something resembling the pre-Trump status quo can be salvaged. It think it's worthwhile and possible.

I suspect that a cold numbers analysis would reveal that in the medium to long term it's much, much cheaper for any particular country to put up with Trump's crap for now than to re-arm and try to establish new alliances and coalitions. Almost no-one plays a long game, though.

 

[Good2Golf]

American troops offer two guarantees.
1) USD is spent in your country
2) Anyone wanting to harm you risks the wrath of the US Military*

*assuming that it isn’t the US military that is coming to harm you in the first point.

You forgot 3) Make your nation’s CDE # non-zero.

The US didn't - contrary to what many people think - ask for or seek the role of "world policemen".

Peak hegemony…world policemen. Potayto…potahto.

 

[Altair]

I suspect that a cold numbers analysis would reveal that in the medium to long term it's much, much cheaper for any particular country to put up with Trump's crap for now than to re-arm and try to establish new alliances and coalitions. Almost no-one plays a long game, though.

At the US own request, everyone, minus Spain, is going to 5 percent anyways.

All this will do is speed up procurement of non US weapon systems.

 

[YZT580]

At the US own request, everyone, minus Spain, is going to 5 percent anyways.

All this will do is speed up procurement of non US weapon systems.

but they are not lining up to buy U.S. equipment anymore if there is an option and that is beginning to hurt as contracts go to other firms.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Peak hegemony…world policemen. Potayto…potahto.

Whatever. Other nations have had over 80 years to do more and thereby lessen US dominance, and it's useful to remember that it started because a bunch of important players - not just the US - wanted it to.