THIS IS A MUST READ TWITTER THREAD! MAKE SURE YOU DO! But some won't want to bother so I'm popping it out here...
If 
wants 
in NATO then obviously needs to develop much, much, much greater military capabilities.
Europe is not even capable of defending itself from conventional Russian military forces, let alone supplying with the military aid it needs. It remains heavily dependent on 
for both. currently has the smallest army its had in 200 years. Last year it had 157 available tanks. Its artillery capabilities are very limited. The RAF is in bad shape. And the royal navy has a grand total of 6 attack subs, 6 destroyers, and 7-8 available ASW frigates. So bringing into NATO simply means transferring *more* European security responsibilities to taxpayers and soldiers. At a time when is already badly overstretched between 4 different theaters. This is totally unacceptable and just D.O.A. from an American perspective. To even talk about joining NATO while Europe remains so heavily dependent on is kind of ridiculous. needs to prioritize the Pacific and shift more conventional assets, esp USAF/USN/USMC to that theater due to the rising threat from 
. Bringing would obviously undermine that.
This is merely another example of Europeans, particularly the British and French, biting off way more than they can chew, assuming will bail them out. If seriously wants in NATO then needs to immediately start to spend a minimum of 4% GDP on defense and maybe closer to 4.5% or 5%. The current level of 2.2% with a "goal" of hitting 2.5% by 2030 is just entirely unserious and not even adequate to protect existing NATO territory. Conscription would also almost certainly be required to build up the reserve force to the scale needed to actually deter 
. would also need other key NATO allies to substantially increase their commitments, including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Canada.
Time to get real. Commitments need to be aligned with *ACTUAL* capabilities. If you want to substantially expand commitments and interests then you need to substantially expand capabilities. Which means spending lots of money, among other things. Without that, it's hollow and dangerous since it harms the credibility of the commitment and makes war more likely. This is a bit like gambling. Responsible nation states don't act like con men, hoping they can BS their way through a security crisis with a nuclear-armed adversary. That's why responsible American and West European Cold War leaders were dead serious about (a) building up massive military capabilities, and (b) drawing interests & commitments in a relatively narrow way. That's prudent. That's realism. That's responsible statecraft. Not this post Cold War "we can do everything and be everywhere" neoconservatism & muscular liberalism, all while our actual real world capabilities continue to diminish year after year.
1/
No comments :
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.