No. of Recommendations: 2
None of which is relevant to whether Germany establishes greater "independence" from the U.S. The diplomatic rift that the Administration has created is wholly unnecessary to any of those points, and accomplishes nothing except to weaken our national security position in Europe.
It's completely relevant. What does "independence" even mean? You guys are acting like the EU is going to sever diplomatic relations with the US and start conquering territory. They're not.
What IS going to happen is that the Germans are going to get a government that's more in the middle that what they've had in a long time. AfD will become the main opposition party as none of the others want to work with them...so instead of getting a center-right to right leaning government the Germans are still going to be heavily influenced by the SPD.
Ukraine could have ended the war on Day 1 if they had just surrendered entirely. When another country starts a war, sometimes it is necessary to fight that war. The battlefield deaths may be the most important thing to consider, but it is not the only thing to consider. Protecting Ukraine, and making their sacrifices count for something, matter as well...It's not diploweenie's panties getting in a bunch, but rather making sure that Putin faces the consequence of unprovoked territorial aggression sufficient to ensure that similar acts are not duplicated elsewhere. If Ukraine and the West concede all of Putin's war aims to him at the negotiating table, then the world becomes a vastly more dangerous place.
Sure. Three years in and we've achieved a stalemate. Reality gets a vote, and that vote is that the Ukranians don't have enough dudes, money and firepower to push the Russkies out.
So now what? Do you want us to drive tanks in from Poland and do it for them? Have US airpower get involved? Conduct pre-emptive strikes on Russian bases and what not?
This is the international structure that has governed the world during the Pax Americana. A global consensus that strong nations could not use their strength in their near abroad to violate the sovereignty of weaker nations. That consensus has been upheld by a willingness to use force to secure it, as we saw in Kuwait and Ukraine. The U.S. signed onto that consensus even though we are a strong nation, and thus arguably were limiting our interests by agreeing to it - but we realized that we benefited more by the global rule that limited our strength but secured more stability. The current Administration is pivoting away from that, far less willing to put our national strength in harness to secure global stability. That is a choice, of course - but I think it's a foolish one.
Oh, boy. You *are* aware that this "international structure" relied on the United States to
-Provide all the troops and weapons
-Provide all the logistics
-Pay for it all
Is that what you want here?
I worry about all of the various nations in Europe ramping up their militaries to the point where they are all threatening each other locally, outside of a strong NATO umbrella.
To what purpose? Are the French and the Germans going to re-fight the Franco/Prussian war for the 4th time over Alsace-Lorraine? Or are the Brits going to decide to smack the Belgians around?
It's better for our national security Germany being dependent and complacently following the U.S., rather than being strong and causing trouble on the Continent. There was an ocean between the U.S. and Europe during WWI and WWII as well - that didn't stop us from being drawn into the widening gyre of war. With three nuclear powers in Europe, the consequences of a war on the Continent are even more fraught.
So in your mind that unless our thumb is on their governments the Europeans are going to go buck wild and start teaming up against one another again? Dude.
Also, I really hate to burst your bubble re:Greece and Turkey. Those two have nearly come to blows several times despite being in NATO.
