6 ms·

> It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood

by eduction 11mo ago

> It is abundantly clear the USA is no longer a dependable ally An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed. What has changed is the US has become more realistic and up front about the limitations of its reduced military. It’s not healthy, for the US /or/ Europe, to indulge the imperial fantasy that US forces in Europe (token deployments in Germany and Poland) are sufficient to defend against Russian attack. Trump is not the first US president to push Europe to do more of precisely what it is doing here (spend its own money on defense). Being clear about limits is what a reliable ally does. Europe ordering an Airbus AWACS instead of Boeing now that the US stopped subsidizing them is not surprising nor does it mean the sky is falling.

lukan 11mo ago
"An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed" What changed is the US President saying things like, he will encourage Putin to invade countries not spending so much on military. What also changed is the US President threatening members of the EU militarily over greenland for example. Reliable allies don't really do that. (you probably do not realize the shock Denmark felt over this, that went deep and the change will not happen over night, but it will happen)
- thewebguyd 11mo ago
  There's also no guarantees that the current president or administration would honor those NATO obligations if Article 5 is called. The president has repeatedly been vocal about the US leaving NATO as a possibility. If I were the EU, I certainly wouldn't be counting on the US honoring any of its agreements and I'd be planning with the assumption that they will not join a NATO response.
Yoric 11mo ago
I don't think that the sky is falling. However, I think that many in the US are underestimating the current paradigm shift. Right now, in Europe, leaders and voters need to take decisions while keeping in mind the possibility that the US will invade Canada and Greenland while not reacting if Russia movies to Estonia. Will it happen? Who the f*k knows? Donald Trump has made declarations very much in this direction. Also, Donald Trump has broken a sufficiently large number of treaties since becoming president that _anything_ should be considered possible. That being said, as you mention, it's not clear that any of this is in any way related to Europe not buying the E-7.
- philwelch 11mo ago
  > Also, Donald Trump has broken a sufficiently large number of treaties Which?
  - saubeidl 11mo ago
    Iran Nuclear Accords (negotiated by the EU!), Paris Climate Agreement are two that come to mind concerning the EU. There's obviously more, like NAFTA.
    - linhns 11mo ago
      I would withdraw from the Iran deal, which was horrible.
    - philwelch 11mo ago
      Iran and Paris weren’t treaties. Neither of them were ever ratified by the Senate. Trump didn’t break NAFTA, he renegotiated it. NAFTA remained in effect until the new treaty, USMCA, came into effect.
      - saubeidl 11mo ago
        See, this is exactly what I mean. In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable.
        tick_tock_tick 11mo ago
        > In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable. What a joke everyone knew we didn't ratify them everyone just wanted to pretend. We even send a letter to Iran making sure they knew. The EU especially was funny acting like the agreement had any value when the USA wasn't part of it.
        11mo ago
anthonybsd 11mo ago
>An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed. Before making chest-thumping proclamations of this sort perhaps you'd best read the text of article 5: -- If a member is attacked, other members will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". See the part where it says "such action it deems necessary"? Trump may decide that the necessary action is to go play golf. He's gone back and forth on his commitment to European defense a number of times over the years, so there's really no reason to believe that his he won't change his mind on it before breakfast tomorrow.
Johnny555 11mo ago
>The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed. A treaty is only as good as its enforcement, and if the USA declines to uphold their obligations, who is going to force them?
- dragonwriter 11mo ago
  > A treaty is only as good as its enforcement, and if the USA declines to uphold their obligations, who is going to force them? A mutual defense treaty is no good at all if it needs enforcement; it only works as a coordinating tool between basically-willing parties. When it becomes anything else, well, look at CSTO.
  - ta20240528 11mo ago
    Well, Ukraine joined the US in its invasion of Iraq. Actual boots on the ground. This has not been reciprocated.
remarkEon 11mo ago
The unspoken truth here is that there are inner and outer members of the NATO core. Estonia, I’m sorry to say, is not a country the United States would go to WWIII over. The core members of Germany, France, Poland, Italy, and possibly the Uk remain. Followed by a few others, and then there’s the rest where if Russia invaded journalists across the eastern seaboard would furiously rush to Chat GPT to find out where it is on the map. All that aside, and regardless of your views on this administration’s posture toward NATO, Europe needs to revitalize its defense industry as there’s been a much remarked on free rider problem for a while. Robert Gates made a now infamous speech about this problem on his way out of office as secretary of defense.

lukan 11mo ago

"An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed" What changed is the US President saying things like, he will encourage Putin to invade countries not spending so much on military. What also changed is the US President threatening members of the EU militarily over greenland for example. Reliable allies don't really do that. (you probably do not realize the shock Denmark felt over this, that went deep and the change will not happen over night, but it will happen)

thewebguyd 11mo ago
There's also no guarantees that the current president or administration would honor those NATO obligations if Article 5 is called. The president has repeatedly been vocal about the US leaving NATO as a possibility. If I were the EU, I certainly wouldn't be counting on the US honoring any of its agreements and I'd be planning with the assumption that they will not join a NATO response.

Yoric 11mo ago

I don't think that the sky is falling. However, I think that many in the US are underestimating the current paradigm shift. Right now, in Europe, leaders and voters need to take decisions while keeping in mind the possibility that the US will invade Canada and Greenland while not reacting if Russia movies to Estonia. Will it happen? Who the f*k knows? Donald Trump has made declarations very much in this direction. Also, Donald Trump has broken a sufficiently large number of treaties since becoming president that _anything_ should be considered possible. That being said, as you mention, it's not clear that any of this is in any way related to Europe not buying the E-7.

philwelch 11mo ago
> Also, Donald Trump has broken a sufficiently large number of treaties Which?
- saubeidl 11mo ago
  Iran Nuclear Accords (negotiated by the EU!), Paris Climate Agreement are two that come to mind concerning the EU. There's obviously more, like NAFTA.
  - linhns 11mo ago
    I would withdraw from the Iran deal, which was horrible.
  - philwelch 11mo ago
    Iran and Paris weren’t treaties. Neither of them were ever ratified by the Senate. Trump didn’t break NAFTA, he renegotiated it. NAFTA remained in effect until the new treaty, USMCA, came into effect.
    - saubeidl 11mo ago
      See, this is exactly what I mean. In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable.
      - tick_tock_tick 11mo ago
        > In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable. What a joke everyone knew we didn't ratify them everyone just wanted to pretend. We even send a letter to Iran making sure they knew. The EU especially was funny acting like the agreement had any value when the USA wasn't part of it.
        11mo ago

anthonybsd 11mo ago

>An extreme and inaccurate statement. The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed. Before making chest-thumping proclamations of this sort perhaps you'd best read the text of article 5: -- If a member is attacked, other members will take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". See the part where it says "such action it deems necessary"? Trump may decide that the necessary action is to go play golf. He's gone back and forth on his commitment to European defense a number of times over the years, so there's really no reason to believe that his he won't change his mind on it before breakfast tomorrow.

Johnny555 11mo ago

>The US is still party to NATO Article 5, meaning the blood of our young people is pledged to be shed to defend, say, Estonia. That has not changed. A treaty is only as good as its enforcement, and if the USA declines to uphold their obligations, who is going to force them?

dragonwriter 11mo ago
> A treaty is only as good as its enforcement, and if the USA declines to uphold their obligations, who is going to force them? A mutual defense treaty is no good at all if it needs enforcement; it only works as a coordinating tool between basically-willing parties. When it becomes anything else, well, look at CSTO.
- ta20240528 11mo ago
  Well, Ukraine joined the US in its invasion of Iraq. Actual boots on the ground. This has not been reciprocated.

remarkEon 11mo ago

The unspoken truth here is that there are inner and outer members of the NATO core. Estonia, I’m sorry to say, is not a country the United States would go to WWIII over. The core members of Germany, France, Poland, Italy, and possibly the Uk remain. Followed by a few others, and then there’s the rest where if Russia invaded journalists across the eastern seaboard would furiously rush to Chat GPT to find out where it is on the map. All that aside, and regardless of your views on this administration’s posture toward NATO, Europe needs to revitalize its defense industry as there’s been a much remarked on free rider problem for a while. Robert Gates made a now infamous speech about this problem on his way out of office as secretary of defense.