• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

What was it that Henry Kissenger is supposed to have said . "You're not really paranoid if they really are out to get you."
The Poles seem to have been just about everybody's favorite invasion route to invade just about everybody .
So I tend to cut them a little slack where this sort of thing is concerned.
 
France isn’t soft on the nation that perpetrated Katyn forest massacre.
Poland is playing both sides, as they will never turn down more strategic alliances for their nation, but at the end of the day, the Americans don't care about Poland, or the Baltics, or NATO at all. They care about Israel and countering China, and if Poland doesn't have a part to play in either of those two goals, America will toss them to the wayside before too long.

Eventually the institutional weight of the EU will drag Poland into their defense orbit.
 
What was it that Henry Kissenger is supposed to have said . "You're not really paranoid if they really are out to get you."
The Poles seem to have been just about everybody's favorite invasion route to invade just about everybody .
So I tend to cut them a little slack where this sort of thing is concerned.
I wont begrudge Poland for grasping at the Americans, wanting to be the last to be cast aside as America abandons Europe.

So long as they are cognizant that they too are on the American chopping block, they just are not first in line.

With Poland hosting french nuclear capable rafales, and signing on to the EDIP, I think they are well aware.
 
What was it that Henry Kissenger is supposed to have said . "You're not really paranoid if they really are out to get you."
The Poles seem to have been just about everybody's favorite invasion route to invade just about everybody .
So I tend to cut them a little slack where this sort of thing is concerned.
Except for that time that they decided to participate in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, maybe.
 
Poland is playing both sides, as they will never turn down more strategic alliances for their nation, but at the end of the day, the Americans don't care about Poland, or the Baltics, or NATO at all. They care about Israel and countering China, and if Poland doesn't have a part to play in either of those two goals, America will toss them to the wayside before too long.

Eventually the institutional weight of the EU will drag Poland into their defense orbit.
Do they really care or is it just a means of juicing the stock market? Trump seems to have caved to China almost as much as to Russia
 
As for procurement, the USA can STFU. Is America buying any European military kit?
I get you are a blindly rabid anti-America.
But you may want to do some homework there.


Now yes generally most items ends up being produced here, but also at a scale generally many times larger than the OEM sells anywhere else.
 
I get you are a blindly rabid anti-America.
Except I'm not blind. I'm well informed rabidly anti america.
But you may want to do some homework there.
Homework? Homework? Okay, you, Kevin, show me what homework justifies the USA demanding that sovereign nations, with their citizens tax dollars, buy from American defense contractors?
Now yes generally most items ends up being produced here, but also at a scale generally many times larger than the OEM sells anywhere else.
Who gives a damn? It's not a two way street. America generally doesn't buy European anything. So they cannot claim unfair treatment if Europe decides, and have decided that the USA is blocked from EU continental defense procurement.

The USA can go pound sand here, the rest of NATO are not simply little puppet nations under Washingtons thumb. If they want to buy from local defense contractors, that's their perogative.
 
Europe sure has been hard done by over the years. American Leopards, American LeClercs, American Challengers, American Chieftans, American Marders, American Gepards, American Typhoons, American Mirages, American Rafales...
 
Europe sure has been hard done by over the years. American Leopards, American LeClercs, American Challengers, American Chieftans, American Marders, American Gepards, American Typhoons, American Mirages, American Rafales...
Nice strawman, Brad. No one said Europe can't build a tank. The point is that when European nations buy weapons, they actively include American systems (like the F-35) in their budgets. When the US buys weapons, they actively blocks European imports to protect domestic jobs.

Now that Europe is being urged to spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense, and Europe tries to employ America's playbook, the American government is crying foul.

Too bad for them.
 

A quiet revolution is underway in Europe: import substitution in the defense sector. The EU intends to free itself from American technology so it can develop and sell weapons without having to seek Washington's approval. The shift has been driven by growing disagreements with the U.S. over a range of issues — aid to Ukraine, trade tariffs, and repeated American threats to withdraw from NATO. As a result, Europe has concluded that it must invest in its own security and strategic autonomy. But money alone will not be enough. The continent also needs to bring order to its fragmented defense industry, and that will not be easy given the wide range of weapons systems in use by its various national armies and the risk that populist politicians pose to long-term planning. Meanwhile, Poland and the Baltic states have demonstrated little faith in Europe's defense-industrial independence and continue to buy American weapons. However, Brussels' new rules will require them to give preference to European manufacturers.


I imagine this process will only accelerate under the new "loyalty questionnaire" pressure coming from Washington.
 
Nice strawman, Brad. No one said Europe can't build a tank. The point is that when European nations buy weapons, they actively include American systems (like the F-35) in their budgets. When the US buys weapons, they actively blocks European imports to protect domestic jobs.
Sure. Imagine the long list of European countries that never play politics to favour their own defence industries.
 
Sure. Imagine the long list of European countries that never play politics to favour their own defence industries.
You're right, but never to the scale the American government has.

And now that Europe is putting in restrictions, Washington is throwing a fit.

I know you love your stars and stripes but even you can see through your own naked biases enough to see the blatant hypocrisy at play here.
 
You're right, but never to the scale the American government has.
Perhaps. But protectionism is protectionism, even with good reasons/excuses (eg. protect domestic industries). Doesn't matter whether it's defence, auto manufacturing, or dairy.
I know you love your stars and stripes but even you can see through your own naked biases enough to see the blatant hypocrisy at play here.
I doubt my emotions are as intense as you seem to think. I appreciate having the USA as neighbours rather than any other country, and I am annoyed but not upset by most of what Trump does. I conclude everyone should just muddle through and repair the relationships on the other side, not throw fits and tear down more than is already being torn down.
 
US out of Europe?

The Washington Treaty enters the chat...

NATO Defends America​


The framers of the Washington Treaty established NATO in April 1949 as a multi-national commitment to collective defense. Their premise was clear: after the horrific destruction of World War II, tying Europe to North America in a security pact would not only prevent another war in Europe, it would also provide a frontline defense for the United States. That tried and tested formula remains valid to this day.


 
US out of Europe?

The Washington Treaty enters the chat...

NATO Defends America​


The framers of the Washington Treaty established NATO in April 1949 as a multi-national commitment to collective defense. Their premise was clear: after the horrific destruction of World War II, tying Europe to North America in a security pact would not only prevent another war in Europe, it would also provide a frontline defense for the United States. That tried and tested formula remains valid to this day.




A “money quote” (amongst a few) from the article, notes what many here (and elsewhere) have said as a critically thinking alternative to the U.S. self-view of a benevolent, near selfless military presence in Europe…

…American forces are deployed in Europe not as an act of altruism but in order to protect U.S. interests within and beyond Europe and to detect, deter, and defeat adversaries before they feel emboldened to strike against the U.S. homeland...
 
NATO did not really emerge to generally prevent another war in Europe let alone to protect US interests; it emerged specifically to contain the USSR and deter/prevent any invasion initiated by the USSR. That is the premise from which everything else followed.

Not only has the original containment succeeded, not only has almost all of the sovereignty of the pre-WW II nations occupied by the USSR been restored, but parts of the USSR have gained sovereignty and the new containment line is mostly part of the NATO family.

European NATO has enough potential to contain Russia, provided European NATO can refrain from bickering too much among themselves and can find it in themselves to spend the money. I suspect the unspoken fear among some of those who claim to fret about US behaviour in the alliance is that they don't believe European NATO can hang together once the old European powers (primarily France and Germany) essentially replace the US as the top tier and revert to old habits at the tables of NATO and the EU.

If this were some kind of world-spanning board game, I'd love to see the look on the Russian and Chinese players faces when a whole bunch of new cardboard counters are spawned in Europe and all the US ones redeploy to Asian-facing locations.
 
NATO did not really emerge to generally prevent another war in Europe let alone to protect US interests; it emerged specifically to contain the USSR and deter/prevent any invasion initiated by the USSR. That is the premise from which everything else followed.

Not only has the original containment succeeded, not only has almost all of the sovereignty of the pre-WW II nations occupied by the USSR been restored, but parts of the USSR have gained sovereignty and the new containment line is mostly part of the NATO family.

European NATO has enough potential to contain Russia, provided European NATO can refrain from bickering too much among themselves and can find it in themselves to spend the money. I suspect the unspoken fear among some of those who claim to fret about US behaviour in the alliance is that they don't believe European NATO can hang together once the old European powers (primarily France and Germany) essentially replace the US as the top tier and revert to old habits at the tables of NATO and the EU.

If this were some kind of world-spanning board game, I'd love to see the look on the Russian and Chinese players faces when a whole bunch of new cardboard counters are spawned in Europe and all the US ones redeploy to Asian-facing locations.
As long as washington is cool with the europeans with their newfound hard power suddenly have interests that run counter to US policy.

For some reason, I don't think this or future administrations will appreciate the rise of a new competitor on the world stage.

But alas.
 
NATO did not really emerge to generally prevent another war in Europe let alone to protect US interests; it emerged specifically to contain the USSR and deter/prevent any invasion initiated by the USSR. That is the premise from which everything else followed.
You forgot to add “In my opinion…” to this paragraph.

Nowhere in the Treaty is mention made either of the USSR, or containing the USSR from expanding.

The Treaty is clear that its purpose is to agree the collective defence of Europe and North America from threats.

Interestingly, a number of Articles reinforce what many NATO member nations said with regards to the U.S. war in Iran, that there was a member duty to inform and consult if Alliance assistance was foreseen or proposed.

The North Atlantic Treaty, April 4, 1949
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :


Article 1​

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2​

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3​

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4​

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Article 7​

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 8​

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 9​

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 10​

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 11​

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.3

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Article 14​

This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

Footnotes:
1. The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.

2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962..

3. The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.
 
Back
Top