3 ms·

> The only foe even worth considering is Russia - and NATO's combined professional armies are more than a match for them. That's been shown to be true over the

by ajross 3y ago

> The only foe even worth considering is Russia - and NATO's combined professional armies are more than a match for them. That's been shown to be true over the last year, but prior to that it was very much an open question. Also from the perspective of "Europe" in an insular sense, it depends heavily on the large standing force and transport capability of the USA. Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia! And influential members of the minority party still wander close to that idea rhetorically.

znpy 3y ago
> Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia! Thanks for pointing this out… most people tend to forget this. Everything looks nice, until it doesn’t anymore.
andsoitis 3y ago
> Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia! While the president publicly said that, his actions were different. For instance, President Donald Trump instructed the United States European Command (EUCOM) to be moved from Stuttgart to Mons, near Brussels. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-military/trumps-military-shuffle-in-europe-will-take-time-and-be-costly-idUSKCN24V28Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-militar...
- ajross 3y ago
  > While the president publicly said that, his actions were different. Sure. Certainly no one ever accused the Trump administration of well-coordinated messaging and communications strategies. Nonetheless the fact that the president was personally constrained by the needs and conventions in the rest of his administration isn't much solace to an ally trying to figure out how much reliance to place on US assistance in the future. The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO. That's not good, but it's not something to ignore just because the existing policy apparatus (the "deep state", if you will) is holding it in check for the moment.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO. According to Global Affairs, support for US commitment to NATO is at a 48-year high. Quoting from https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/support-us-commitment-nato-48-year-high https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/sup...: a) Eighty-one percent of Americans say the United States should maintain (62%) or increase (19%) its commitment to NATO, the highest level of support recorded since Chicago Council Surveys began in 1974. b) Support for maintaining or increasing the US commitment to NATO is bipartisan, with large majorities of Democrats (90%), Independents (78%), and Republicans (75%) in support. c) Bipartisan majorities support the admission of Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, and Georgia as new NATO members.

by ajross 3y ago

znpy 3y ago

> Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia! Thanks for pointing this out… most people tend to forget this. Everything looks nice, until it doesn’t anymore.

andsoitis 3y ago

> Remember that as recently as three years ago, the occupant of the white house was publicly musing about the possibility of leaving NATO and aligning with Russia! While the president publicly said that, his actions were different. For instance, President Donald Trump instructed the United States European Command (EUCOM) to be moved from Stuttgart to Mons, near Brussels. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-military/trumps-military-shuffle-in-europe-will-take-time-and-be-costly-idUSKCN24V28Q https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-militar...

ajross 3y ago
> While the president publicly said that, his actions were different. Sure. Certainly no one ever accused the Trump administration of well-coordinated messaging and communications strategies. Nonetheless the fact that the president was personally constrained by the needs and conventions in the rest of his administration isn't much solace to an ally trying to figure out how much reliance to place on US assistance in the future. The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO. That's not good, but it's not something to ignore just because the existing policy apparatus (the "deep state", if you will) is holding it in check for the moment.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO. According to Global Affairs, support for US commitment to NATO is at a 48-year high. Quoting from https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/support-us-commitment-nato-48-year-high https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/sup...: a) Eighty-one percent of Americans say the United States should maintain (62%) or increase (19%) its commitment to NATO, the highest level of support recorded since Chicago Council Surveys began in 1974. b) Support for maintaining or increasing the US commitment to NATO is bipartisan, with large majorities of Democrats (90%), Independents (78%), and Republicans (75%) in support. c) Bipartisan majorities support the admission of Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, and Georgia as new NATO members.