- Reaction score
- 3,071
- Points
- 1,140
Except they very much are.
Again, its fine. Trump wants to tank NATO. He's doing a wonderful job on that file
2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
Again, its fine. Trump wants to tank NATO. He's doing a wonderful job on that file
- Reaction score
- 10,366
- Points
- 1,140
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.
- Reaction score
- 12,164
- Points
- 1,040
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.
- Reaction score
- 28,075
- Points
- 1,360
You forgot 3) Make your nation’s CDE # non-zero.
Peak hegemony…world policemen. Potayto…potahto.
- Reaction score
- 3,071
- Points
- 1,140
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.
- Reaction score
- 12,164
- Points
- 1,040
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.
- Reaction score
- 28,075
- Points
- 1,360
Poor unappreciated USA.
sarcasm aside, there is a lot of truth in this statement. The USA stepped in to replace the British navy and it only took a few years for that service to be cut to the point of irrelevance. We had the what, 3rd largest navy in the world; how long did it take to tow them to the breakers. We downsized and bailed out of Europe, one base at a time because the Americans were there and we weren't needed. Once that happened or while it was happening we went from over 300 combat aircraft (excluding the F5) to what do we have now less than 100 serviceable airframes not to mention the army shrinkage as well. It is an old adage but the one who pays the piper calls the tune so either we figure out how to get along with an admittedly obnoxious neighbour or we move to another neighbourhood because that tune isn't going to change for a while and we haven't got the luxury of time to drag our asses this time. Figure shades of 1939Poor unappreciated USA.
- Reaction score
- 28,075
- Points
- 1,360
The U.S. benefited greatly from the UK actually providing the naval blockade forces back in the early days of U.S. implementing The Monroe Doctrine, for which the UK was aspirationally ‘bent over the proverbial rum barrel and buggered’ by the U.S. post WWII. The U.S. is very good at making it look like it gave all and got little in return…yet look at the hissy fit when the U.S. doesn’t get its way 100% using (previous) Allies (Spain) like pawns when it’s doing its own thing. If a number of nations collectively and coordinated appropriately chose to remove the bandaid and have the U.S. no longer “benevolizing” them from behind and deal with perhaps 5-10 years of economic pain for future gain, the U.S. would have to meaningfully assess is hegemonic exclusivity aspirations…the perfect storm of declining reserve currency and petrodollar influence and exponential debt servicing growth impinging on national affordability (FCF for those with an financial mind) is growing…
Too true but who is going to go first?
