I suspect that this has more to do with Ukraine than it does the USA. Russia seemed like one of those plastic owls to fend off birds then suddenly turned its head and ate one.
I don’t think Trump is particularly crazy like a fox, but Europe taking its defense into its own hands in a coherent, credible manner has been the goal of US European policy across at least the last six or seven administrations of both parties.
It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciate how bad that could be.
Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation?
It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have enough capability to assist the US, but not to go off on adventures of its own and certainly not (going all the way back to the Washington Naval Treaty here) enough military might to resist the US or start another European empire.
That is, the strategy from WW2 until fairly recently was to prevent Germany re-arming. Just as the large deployment in Japan is to prevent Japan from re-arming just as much as it is there to defend the Pacific from China.
The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately. Compare a lit of the world's largest economies from 40 years ago to now.
I would also say (d) make it clear to the Soviet Union that, if they invaded West Germany, it would not just be an intra-European war; it would be a world war.
No I disagree.
The goal was Europe spends more on defence while be dependent on the US.
What happens: Europe spends more on defence while be less dependent on the US.
Trump and many Americans think the US is some kind of special country and will be always on the top. Quite the opposite.
Nobody ever is. You’re forced into it by external events, and you either kinda make it work, or don’t. It was, after all, changing times and dumb moves by a mad despot that caused the US to revolt and form a country.
I suspect that this has more to do with Ukraine than it does the USA. Russia seemed like one of those plastic owls to fend off birds then suddenly turned its head and ate one.
I don’t think Trump is particularly crazy like a fox, but Europe taking its defense into its own hands in a coherent, credible manner has been the goal of US European policy across at least the last six or seven administrations of both parties.
It's been the goal of several administrations for the EU to increase spending, and the lip service goal of this one. But I don't think anyone really wanted the EU to stop purchasing US weapons or abandon the very useful economic/military dependencies that benefited the US. This administration appears to have pushed hard enough to actually break those ties, and I don't think they (and their supporters) fully appreciate how bad that could be.
Not sure about that; why does the US have a huge number of troops in Germany in the first place? Defence, or occupation?
It seems to me that the objectives until ~2014 were to (a) provide moral and a small amount of physical support for the War on Terror; (b) sell US weapons, such as the F-35; and (c) ensure that European defence centered around NATO, under US control, and not the EU. The US wanted Europe to have enough capability to assist the US, but not to go off on adventures of its own and certainly not (going all the way back to the Washington Naval Treaty here) enough military might to resist the US or start another European empire.
That is, the strategy from WW2 until fairly recently was to prevent Germany re-arming. Just as the large deployment in Japan is to prevent Japan from re-arming just as much as it is there to defend the Pacific from China.
The time when Europe had the capability to go off on adventures of its own or be a threat to the US is past. European economies are no longer big enough proportionately. Compare a lit of the world's largest economies from 40 years ago to now.
In purchasing power parity terms, a glance at Wikipedia yields
China: $43.491 trillion [1]
USA: $31.821 trillion [2]
EU: $30.184 trillion [3]
UK: $4.59 trillion [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
Now compare that to the same numbers from 40 years ago.
Then do the same with nominal GDP which is a better measure for this IMO as you cannot buy anything in global markets at PPP.
Europe is taking over America's back yard as we speak. Power isn't just raw numbers. It's bureaucracy and shaping the rules of engagement.
https://apnews.com/article/mercosur-european-union-trade-agr...
A.k.a. "Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
https://unherd.com/2017/10/keeping-russians-americans-german...
I would also say (d) make it clear to the Soviet Union that, if they invaded West Germany, it would not just be an intra-European war; it would be a world war.
Sure, but that rationale went away in the early 1990s and they stayed for thirty years longer than that.
True. Institutions like that have a lot of momentum, and they sometimes outlive their original rationale.
But on the other hand, Russian aggression is back in the headlines these days...
Aircraft carriers cannot replace military bases. That is why they stayed.
The US can support all of its military operations in Africa and the Middle East from its vast cold war era infrastructure in Europe.
An intricate plan designed to further US interests, wrecked by an ignoramus who didn't understand it.
No I disagree. The goal was Europe spends more on defence while be dependent on the US. What happens: Europe spends more on defence while be less dependent on the US. Trump and many Americans think the US is some kind of special country and will be always on the top. Quite the opposite.
They are not in a position to do that successfully
Nobody ever is. You’re forced into it by external events, and you either kinda make it work, or don’t. It was, after all, changing times and dumb moves by a mad despot that caused the US to revolt and form a country.
Care to expand?
[dead]