1-11
Trump regime considers abandoning the post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), the top military job within NATO.
They are also considering scaling back a previously planned increase in force presence in Japan.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-considers-giving-nato-command-exclusively-american-eisenho-rcna196503
Trump regime considers abandoning the post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), the top military job within NATO.
They are also considering scaling back a previously planned increase in force presence in Japan.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-admin-considers-giving-nato-command-exclusively-american-eisenho-rcna196503
Comments
Powered by @skywriter.blue
It is certainly not in the interests of the other members, apart from the very few who are also Russian allies.
They too should leave.
If this is not possible, then Europe and its true friends should form a new alliance.
All of that because Kamala Harris refused to ask for a manual recount.
Fortunately a candidate that is convinced there was fraud or mistake can ask for a recount.
She actually decided to ask (or her campaign) but it was too late.
If a one has 100% of the vote, the loser can ask for a recount as it is very suspicious.
This is accompanied by talk of cost savings, but the expected savings are extremely small compared to the total US defence budget, whereas the changes - esp. the NATO one - are strategically enormous.
=> this is definitely not motivated by cost savings; a major change in posture is the goal.
No longer having a U.S. Commander leading European defence logically goes with no longer having significant U.S. forces under NATO at all.
How could the US have, say, tens of thousands of troops in Europe and major assets, all commanded by a European Commander?
The U.S. wouldn't do that.
Two moves would be consistent with this:
1: leave Europe completely, or
2: stay in Europe but outside of NATO's common structures
2 is much likelier than 1, but one could also have 2 with a smaller, more "surgical" force presence.
U.S. force presence in Europe often serves both bilaterally-agreed and NATO-agreed roles, but the bilateral agreement comes first.
Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, but that's my fear.
I'd see this as:
- very significant disengagement from the collective defence of Europe;
- a gift to Russia;
- a switch to bilateral deals with individual European states;
- staying out of collective Art. 5 responses;
- but retaining influence & information on Art. 5 responses
It would be a way of leaving NATO without formally leaving NATO, though that could come later, and maybe ultimately at the request of Europeans; or staying in while damaging it.
As a member, the U.S. could block NATO decisions while no longer having its forces subjected to it.
Als Mitglied könnten die USA NATO-Entscheidungen blockieren, ohne dass ihre Streitkräfte diesen Entscheidungen länger unterworfen wären.
The bilateral part could focus on:
- states essential for vital US needs (UK comes to mind)
- political-ideological alignment (Trump- and Putin-friendly states, e.g. Hungary)
The overall set-up could be very dangerous for small exposed allies, especially Baltic states.