8 ms·

Once the USA has a sane commander-in-chief again, it's going to need to completely overhaul its approach to the Eastern European region, among other things.

HenryKissinger 6y ago
US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent, despite the confusing rhetoric from the commander-in-chief. The United States still refuses to recognize the Russian government's claim over Crimea, the Trump administration has continued selling arms, including lethal arms and armored vehicles, to the government of Ukraine, the United States conducted a cyberattack against Russia prior to the 2018 midterm elections, and US forces are actively participating in NATO's multinational training exercises and forward deployments in Eastern Europe. A Biden administration is expected to continue these activities.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
  - swsieber 6y ago
    So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      Germany is not delinquent on NATO payments, at least not on the formally agreed-upon budget contribution of 313 million € (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-nato-budget/a-51446211 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-na...). The thing you (and Trump) are meaning is the total defense spending as percentage of GDP. Germany cannot be "delinquent" here by definition! Every country is legally free to spend whatever it wants on defense. The "2%"is an informal goal only, not backed by any international treaty!
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - frandroid 6y ago
      AFAIK there are no "NATO payments". There's just an expectation that NATO countries will spend 2% of GDP on defense, and most European countries are far behind that. Germany however has increased its spending in recent years and is getting closer to the mark. Trump just doesn't understand the geostrategic position of the U.S., where troops stationed in critical countries prevent invasions which would upturn its imperial economic order. Trump thinks the U.S. has stationed troops in SK, Germany, Taiwan for the countries' interests, where they were clearly deployed there to defend its own.
      - panzagl 6y ago
        Or he has decided US interests have changed.
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        International security arguments are bullshit. We spend money on weapons in order to spend money on weapons. That tiny interest is the tail that wags the entire dog of security theater throughout politics, media, and academia. If we had a democratic system we wouldn't waste so many resources on armaments. That's why the military-industrial complex destroyed our previously somewhat-democratic system.
    - JackFr 6y ago
      There aren't "NATO payments" per se. However, it is a common defense treaty, and as such each member is expected to contribute a proportionate amount to their own military. Most recently the agreed level was 2% of GDP, which Germany has consistently fallen short of. Both Obama and Bush complained about it as well, but they both had a reasonable understanding of how things worked.
    - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
      Who is receiving those NATO payments?
      - nix23 6y ago
        The "defense" Industry?
    - celticninja 6y ago
      No it is not.
  - HenryKissinger 6y ago
    Yes, there is a level of pettiness at work in this recent decision. What they want to do is shift to a rotational force model and deploy another Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland every 9 months instead of having an SBCT in Germany. Meaning you have to move 2 ABCTs(~4500 Soldiers and all their equipment) in/out of the theater. The main tactical problem with that is that those forces don't have standoff distance from Russian A2AD weapons. The underlying causes of these changes are Germany (1) continuing to spend less than 2% of GDP on defense; (2) its 2019 announcement that its pushing back its 2% target date from 2024 (agreed upon in 2015) to 2031; and, (3) continued German support for Nord Stream 2. America is publicly penalizing Germany for the above reasons, which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops from Germany and other host nations in Europe. Moreover, it seems some troops are likely slated for rebasing in the Indo-Pacific which will bolster US' power there.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops The only thing this will lead to is a breakup or a massive relevancy drop of NATO. Europe is already emancipating themselves, the US will continue to lose influence - to the benefit of China and Russia, of course.
    - jialutu 6y ago
      What about the US blowing up the Middle East, where Germany and much of European countries having to deal with the refugees as a consequence of those wars? I think countries like Germany have been penalised enough by the US for not picking up the slack for the refugee situation.
      - HenryKissinger 6y ago
        The flows of refugees from Syria to Turkey and Greece were largely due to the fallout of the Syrian Civil War, which the United States was neither responsible for starting, could not have prevented from starting, and could not have stopped once it began.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  I wonder what you're being downvoted for here exactly. As much as the DC foreign policy consensus likes to portray anything short of complete encirclement and expanding NATO right up to Russia's borders as "appeasement," everything you point out is true and a major counterpoint to the idea the Trump administration just gives Russia whatever it wants.
- vmception 6y ago
  I agree, I got a bank comfort letter from an Asian client using Sberbank, and found out that the entire bank is on OFAC list! Russians use this bank like Americans use Venmo. It just seems like low hanging fruit for a chummy head of state to deal with, because the sanction itself is so hurtful and broad to include the entire institution for over half a decade and never revisiting it. It is balanced to separate the rhetoric of the head of state from the autonomous and distributed US agencies. Its clear the priorities from the president are self-protection, and the stuff with Russia is just enough to keep investments afloat, while pretty much everything else regarding US agencies and geopolitics is ignored. So all the drama stays at the top of DOJ, Fed, Treasury and what all the divisions do transcends administrations.
JohnTClark 6y ago
How the USA should approach Eastern European region?
- bovermyer 6y ago
  I'll leave that to people who are trained for such things. I'm just a software guy.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    How will you react if the trained people don’t think an overhaul is needed?
    - bovermyer 6y ago
      I'll trust their judgment. I don't trust the judgment of the current administration.
      - claydavisss 6y ago
        Periodically you will find a "harumph!" post challenged instead of blindly upvoted, please do your homework
        bovermyer 6y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
        jessaustin 6y ago
        Comments upthread were concerned that your least-common-denominator, I-watch-the-news-so-I'll-know-what-to-say, effort-free regurgitation of status quo platitudes has received upvotes on HN. This concern was deepened for parent comment once an actual conversation started and you had nothing to say in support of the proposition you had stated with such vehemence. If you're not going to expend the effort to think about a topic, please also save the effort required to post about the topic.
_jal 6y ago
There are serious constraints on what can be done. Among others, why would any other country make an agreement with the US where the payoff is more than 4 years out? It has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to keep promises.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  I think this concern is overblown. It certainly hasn't stopped Canada and Mexico from negotiating the USMCA trade agreement, for example. The JCPOA (more commonly known as the Iran deal) constrained Iran's nuclear program, and it was with great disappointment that I watched the administration withdraw. But there were anecdotal reports of transgressions on Iran's part, and the JCPOA was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification, which means it was never a legally binding agreement under U.S. law. Like the Paris climate agreement (most of its signatories saw their GHG emissions increase, but not the US; so much for the effectiveness of such agreements to achieve concrete progress in the fight against climate change).
  - _jal 6y ago
    The incentives and risks look very different in a local free trade agreement than, say, multilateral talks about What To Do About Syria. Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4. But I do hope I'm wrong. I guess we'll see.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Israel and everyone in NATO from Poland on west. Yes, we're going through a rough patch because the US is (rightfully) sick of playing world police at the same time as China/Russia are on the up but to think that the US and all the other regionally relevant powers (e.g. NATO members for Europe) wouldn't retaliate against an attempt to annex territories in any of those countries is crazy. Also Panama and Egypt (who both have critical global shipping lanes) don't really have to worry about their sovereignty being violated by any nation that the first world would expect to restrict access to their shipping lanes.
auganov 6y ago
This Russian propaganda is obviously targeting President Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. He cancelled Missile Defense after opposition from Russia (famously promising "Vladimir" “more flexibility” on the issue after his "last election"). Eastern European leaders were warning Obama about Ukraine way before it happened but he wouldn't listen. And before that Georgia, but Obama was dead-set on his Russian "reset" and wanted to sweep these issues under the rug.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. I think you're going to need to start citing that, I'm not aware of any such plans. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of action (e.g. announcing the removal of a third of the US forces in Germany, as happened last week). This is just a whataboutist response. While there is criticism to be made everywhere about all things, the idea that the Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous.
  - auganov 6y ago
    Germany is not on the eastern flank of NATO, many of the troops being withdrawn will be relocated closer to Russia [0] . And again the move was spurred in part by Germany's pipeline with Russia - Nord Stream 2. Which clearly shows the Trump administration is taking stronger steps to punish NATO members which cooperate with Russia. > Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous Yes, this is completely false. The Trump administration has been tougher on pretty much everything involving Russian interests. From Ukraine, Iran, Syria, sanctions on Russia, to yes strengthening the eastern flank of NATO. [0] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2292081/us-european-command-force-posture-policy-press-conference-secretary-espers-open/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/229... "The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany – from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000 – in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth"
  - 6y ago
MatthiasP 6y ago
A sane commander that starts useless wars in the Middle East to transfer billions of tax payer money to his donators?
- criley2 6y ago
  It's been like 17 years since the US started a war in the Middle East. Your talking points are a little dusty.
  - nix23 6y ago
    And still going on...maybe shake that dust off, no?
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2019_United_States_airstrikes_in_Iraq_and_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2019_United_States_ai... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
    - adventured 6y ago
      While I'm an advocate of the US entirely removing itself militarily from the Middle East, none of those properly qualify against the parent's point. The parent referred to starting wars. The first one doesn't qualify at all. The US and NATO have intervened in the two civil wars (along with numerous other countries; with France recently pleading with the US to remain in Syria). It's an overreach to claim the US started the Libyan Civil War or the Syrian Civil War, neither is true. The US was opportunistic in trying to squeeze Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad out (with Russia on the other side, trying to prop up the dictatorship). Those civil wars are the inevitable result of decades of extreme oppression by dictatorship, which will always end in armed revolution.
      - ghthor 6y ago
_pmf_ 6y ago
He moves us Europeans to carry more of their own weight, which is both good for Europeans and the US.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Kicking off random wars is obviously not a good idea, but complete neglect and acquiescence to a belligerent power also isn’t working either. Maybe we should try other things?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
surfmike 6y ago
Eastern Europe (outside of Russia) has been quite happy with NATO’s increased involvement on their borders. I hope this does not change, and don’t anticipate it will under Biden.
- bobthechef 6y ago
  Not sure about that. Obama halted the deployment of the missile defense shield in Poland/Czech Republic and reset the US relationship with Russia. Anyone who understands Russia knew that was about as idiotic of a move you could have made (barring any kind of strategic aim to lull Russia into demonstrating its intentions in Georgia and Ukraine, but I doubt foreign policy is that forward thinking, and American Euromaidan just reveals its duplicity). Given Biden's eastern ties, I would not be surprised if he halted any plans to move US troops eastward.

HenryKissinger 6y ago

US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent, despite the confusing rhetoric from the commander-in-chief. The United States still refuses to recognize the Russian government's claim over Crimea, the Trump administration has continued selling arms, including lethal arms and armored vehicles, to the government of Ukraine, the United States conducted a cyberattack against Russia prior to the 2018 midterm elections, and US forces are actively participating in NATO's multinational training exercises and forward deployments in Eastern Europe. A Biden administration is expected to continue these activities.

mschuster91 6y ago
> US policy toward NATO has been remarkably consistent. Yeah, with Trump moving troops out of Germany because he believes, contrary to all facts, we'd be trying to rip them off. Not to mention the whole Iraq fiasco with Bush trying to rope NATO allies in a war based on lies.
- swsieber 6y ago
  So Germany is not deliquent on NATO payments? Or that doesn't qualify?
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    Germany is not delinquent on NATO payments, at least not on the formally agreed-upon budget contribution of 313 million € (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-nato-budget/a-51446211 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-match-us-contribution-to-na...). The thing you (and Trump) are meaning is the total defense spending as percentage of GDP. Germany cannot be "delinquent" here by definition! Every country is legally free to spend whatever it wants on defense. The "2%"is an informal goal only, not backed by any international treaty!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - frandroid 6y ago
    AFAIK there are no "NATO payments". There's just an expectation that NATO countries will spend 2% of GDP on defense, and most European countries are far behind that. Germany however has increased its spending in recent years and is getting closer to the mark. Trump just doesn't understand the geostrategic position of the U.S., where troops stationed in critical countries prevent invasions which would upturn its imperial economic order. Trump thinks the U.S. has stationed troops in SK, Germany, Taiwan for the countries' interests, where they were clearly deployed there to defend its own.
    - panzagl 6y ago
      Or he has decided US interests have changed.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      International security arguments are bullshit. We spend money on weapons in order to spend money on weapons. That tiny interest is the tail that wags the entire dog of security theater throughout politics, media, and academia. If we had a democratic system we wouldn't waste so many resources on armaments. That's why the military-industrial complex destroyed our previously somewhat-democratic system.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    There aren't "NATO payments" per se. However, it is a common defense treaty, and as such each member is expected to contribute a proportionate amount to their own military. Most recently the agreed level was 2% of GDP, which Germany has consistently fallen short of. Both Obama and Bush complained about it as well, but they both had a reasonable understanding of how things worked.
  - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
    Who is receiving those NATO payments?
    - nix23 6y ago
      The "defense" Industry?
  - celticninja 6y ago
    No it is not.
- HenryKissinger 6y ago
  Yes, there is a level of pettiness at work in this recent decision. What they want to do is shift to a rotational force model and deploy another Armored Brigade Combat Team to Poland every 9 months instead of having an SBCT in Germany. Meaning you have to move 2 ABCTs(~4500 Soldiers and all their equipment) in/out of the theater. The main tactical problem with that is that those forces don't have standoff distance from Russian A2AD weapons. The underlying causes of these changes are Germany (1) continuing to spend less than 2% of GDP on defense; (2) its 2019 announcement that its pushing back its 2% target date from 2024 (agreed upon in 2015) to 2031; and, (3) continued German support for Nord Stream 2. America is publicly penalizing Germany for the above reasons, which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops from Germany and other host nations in Europe. Moreover, it seems some troops are likely slated for rebasing in the Indo-Pacific which will bolster US' power there.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > which will likely disincentivize similar actions by nations receiving US troops The only thing this will lead to is a breakup or a massive relevancy drop of NATO. Europe is already emancipating themselves, the US will continue to lose influence - to the benefit of China and Russia, of course.
  - jialutu 6y ago
    What about the US blowing up the Middle East, where Germany and much of European countries having to deal with the refugees as a consequence of those wars? I think countries like Germany have been penalised enough by the US for not picking up the slack for the refugee situation.
    - HenryKissinger 6y ago
      The flows of refugees from Syria to Turkey and Greece were largely due to the fallout of the Syrian Civil War, which the United States was neither responsible for starting, could not have prevented from starting, and could not have stopped once it began.
AndrewBissell 6y ago
I wonder what you're being downvoted for here exactly. As much as the DC foreign policy consensus likes to portray anything short of complete encirclement and expanding NATO right up to Russia's borders as "appeasement," everything you point out is true and a major counterpoint to the idea the Trump administration just gives Russia whatever it wants.
vmception 6y ago
I agree, I got a bank comfort letter from an Asian client using Sberbank, and found out that the entire bank is on OFAC list! Russians use this bank like Americans use Venmo. It just seems like low hanging fruit for a chummy head of state to deal with, because the sanction itself is so hurtful and broad to include the entire institution for over half a decade and never revisiting it. It is balanced to separate the rhetoric of the head of state from the autonomous and distributed US agencies. Its clear the priorities from the president are self-protection, and the stuff with Russia is just enough to keep investments afloat, while pretty much everything else regarding US agencies and geopolitics is ignored. So all the drama stays at the top of DOJ, Fed, Treasury and what all the divisions do transcends administrations.

JohnTClark 6y ago

How the USA should approach Eastern European region?

bovermyer 6y ago
I'll leave that to people who are trained for such things. I'm just a software guy.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  How will you react if the trained people don’t think an overhaul is needed?
  - bovermyer 6y ago
    I'll trust their judgment. I don't trust the judgment of the current administration.
    - claydavisss 6y ago
      Periodically you will find a "harumph!" post challenged instead of blindly upvoted, please do your homework
      - bovermyer 6y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
        jessaustin 6y ago
        Comments upthread were concerned that your least-common-denominator, I-watch-the-news-so-I'll-know-what-to-say, effort-free regurgitation of status quo platitudes has received upvotes on HN. This concern was deepened for parent comment once an actual conversation started and you had nothing to say in support of the proposition you had stated with such vehemence. If you're not going to expend the effort to think about a topic, please also save the effort required to post about the topic.

_jal 6y ago

There are serious constraints on what can be done. Among others, why would any other country make an agreement with the US where the payoff is more than 4 years out? It has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to keep promises.

HenryKissinger 6y ago
I think this concern is overblown. It certainly hasn't stopped Canada and Mexico from negotiating the USMCA trade agreement, for example. The JCPOA (more commonly known as the Iran deal) constrained Iran's nuclear program, and it was with great disappointment that I watched the administration withdraw. But there were anecdotal reports of transgressions on Iran's part, and the JCPOA was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification, which means it was never a legally binding agreement under U.S. law. Like the Paris climate agreement (most of its signatories saw their GHG emissions increase, but not the US; so much for the effectiveness of such agreements to achieve concrete progress in the fight against climate change).
- _jal 6y ago
  The incentives and risks look very different in a local free trade agreement than, say, multilateral talks about What To Do About Syria. Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4. But I do hope I'm wrong. I guess we'll see.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Please name some relevant countries who might be willing to bet their internal security that a hypothetical 5 year security promise from the US would definitely be operative after year 4. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Israel and everyone in NATO from Poland on west. Yes, we're going through a rough patch because the US is (rightfully) sick of playing world police at the same time as China/Russia are on the up but to think that the US and all the other regionally relevant powers (e.g. NATO members for Europe) wouldn't retaliate against an attempt to annex territories in any of those countries is crazy. Also Panama and Egypt (who both have critical global shipping lanes) don't really have to worry about their sovereignty being violated by any nation that the first world would expect to restrict access to their shipping lanes.

auganov 6y ago

This Russian propaganda is obviously targeting President Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. He cancelled Missile Defense after opposition from Russia (famously promising "Vladimir" “more flexibility” on the issue after his "last election"). Eastern European leaders were warning Obama about Ukraine way before it happened but he wouldn't listen. And before that Georgia, but Obama was dead-set on his Russian "reset" and wanted to sweep these issues under the rug.

newacct583 6y ago
> Trump's plans to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO. Something Obama has been extremely weak on. I think you're going to need to start citing that, I'm not aware of any such plans. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of action (e.g. announcing the removal of a third of the US forces in Germany, as happened last week). This is just a whataboutist response. While there is criticism to be made everywhere about all things, the idea that the Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous.
- auganov 6y ago
  Germany is not on the eastern flank of NATO, many of the troops being withdrawn will be relocated closer to Russia [0] . And again the move was spurred in part by Germany's pipeline with Russia - Nord Stream 2. Which clearly shows the Trump administration is taking stronger steps to punish NATO members which cooperate with Russia. > Trump administration has NOT been extraordinarily compliant to Russian demands is just ridiculous Yes, this is completely false. The Trump administration has been tougher on pretty much everything involving Russian interests. From Ukraine, Iran, Syria, sanctions on Russia, to yes strengthening the eastern flank of NATO. [0] https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/2292081/us-european-command-force-posture-policy-press-conference-secretary-espers-open/ https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Speeches/Speech/Article/229... "The current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany – from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000 – in a manner that will strengthen NATO, enhance the deterrence of Russia, and meet the other principles I set forth"
- 6y ago

MatthiasP 6y ago

A sane commander that starts useless wars in the Middle East to transfer billions of tax payer money to his donators?

criley2 6y ago
It's been like 17 years since the US started a war in the Middle East. Your talking points are a little dusty.
- nix23 6y ago
  And still going on...maybe shake that dust off, no?
- jessaustin 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2019_United_States_airstrikes_in_Iraq_and_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2019_United_States_ai... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
  - adventured 6y ago
    While I'm an advocate of the US entirely removing itself militarily from the Middle East, none of those properly qualify against the parent's point. The parent referred to starting wars. The first one doesn't qualify at all. The US and NATO have intervened in the two civil wars (along with numerous other countries; with France recently pleading with the US to remain in Syria). It's an overreach to claim the US started the Libyan Civil War or the Syrian Civil War, neither is true. The US was opportunistic in trying to squeeze Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad out (with Russia on the other side, trying to prop up the dictatorship). Those civil wars are the inevitable result of decades of extreme oppression by dictatorship, which will always end in armed revolution.
    - ghthor 6y ago

_pmf_ 6y ago

He moves us Europeans to carry more of their own weight, which is both good for Europeans and the US.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Kicking off random wars is obviously not a good idea, but complete neglect and acquiescence to a belligerent power also isn’t working either. Maybe we should try other things?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

surfmike 6y ago

Eastern Europe (outside of Russia) has been quite happy with NATO’s increased involvement on their borders. I hope this does not change, and don’t anticipate it will under Biden.

bobthechef 6y ago
Not sure about that. Obama halted the deployment of the missile defense shield in Poland/Czech Republic and reset the US relationship with Russia. Anyone who understands Russia knew that was about as idiotic of a move you could have made (barring any kind of strategic aim to lull Russia into demonstrating its intentions in Georgia and Ukraine, but I doubt foreign policy is that forward thinking, and American Euromaidan just reveals its duplicity). Given Biden's eastern ties, I would not be surprised if he halted any plans to move US troops eastward.