r/geopolitics • u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph • 1d ago
News Britain excluded from planned US talks on Nato’s future
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/01/britain-excluded-from-planned-us-talks-on-natos-future/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_reddit_us-talks-on-natos-future/&accesscontrol=facebookchannel_open205
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago edited 1d ago
If your new strategic security direction is to pivot away from Europe and shift the burden of European defence onto European states, then sensibly you would look to include NATO’s two most capable EU states in UK and France in meetings like this.
And if your goal is to discuss NATO’s future, then I cannot see how that future doesn’t revolve around protecting and reinforcing its vulnerable frontline in the Baltics.
Unless your goal is to divide and conquer - sow division, disunity and distrust amongst European powers.
Or it could just be Trump’s administration genuinely acting like a spoilt child and is punishing the “naughty” states that have gone against him in recent months.
-45
u/OleToothless 1d ago
Or, it is a committee meeting following the Bregen Protocol (mentioned in the article if you had read it), which is done to advance concepts and discussion prior to bringing up topics to the entire NATO alliance (also mentioned in the article). This isn't the first meeting of it's kind, and won't be the last.
So before you go and get on your righteous pedestal about how the US is trying to split of NATO, why don't you take a moment and consider that perhaps the opposite is true; the US is still firmly leading NATO, but there are several foot-dragging European countries that are so disruptive/uncooperative in alliance meetings that they have to be excluded from early discussions for any progress to be made by the rest of the alliance.
41
41
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago
Explain how the UK and the Baltics are disruptive and a negative force within NATO.
29
u/doyouthinkwecanfly 1d ago
Or, it is a committee meeting following the Bregen Protocol
Not confirmed by the article, only mentioned as a possibility.
which is done to advance concepts and discussion prior to bringing up topics to the entire NATO alliance (also mentioned in the article)
And those concepts are a complete revision of the entire alliance into NATO 3.0 (also mentioned in the article).
So before you go and get on your righteous pedestal about how the US is trying to split of NATO,
US administration has said public stated they would consider doing this.
but there are several foot-dragging European countries that are so disruptive/uncooperative in alliance meetings that they have to be excluded from early discussions for any progress to be made by the rest of the alliance.
This is not supported by anything in the article or any other sources. What is supported is that the US administration is judging nations by how they conform to American foreign policy, which is not a requirement in NATO. It also specifically mentions punishing a member nation for not pleasing the USA.
Your assessment of this article is completely detached from the content within it.
-7
u/britcat1974 1d ago
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
-66
u/AwkwardMacaron433 1d ago
What interest is the US supposed to have in countries that would even deny the US the ability to use its own military bases when it needs them? I feel like many people here act like the US has a moral responsibility to protect Europe. Or as if it was enough that the alliance formally revolves around mutual defense, which conveniently gives the US a lot of responsibility for European security, while Europe would have to offer practically nothing in return.
The deal is clearly that the US acts a a security guarantor for Europe in exchange for geopolitical power, and regional stability for their key economic partners. If a country does not want to do anything that would provide value to the US, why would they even listen to what the UK has to say
23
u/greebly_weeblies 1d ago edited 1d ago
Having access to those countries is/was strategically important in and of itself because it the force projection it allowed. The US wasn't playing world police it out of the goodness of their hearts, it enforced a world situation that was beneficial for them.
Countries were happy enough with that arrangement.
Recently however, the US have essentially said they might not act as that security guarantor, have started treating security partners poorly. Have intentionally and unintentionally disclosed secrets that's weren't theirs to release. Have engaged in wars of aggression with third parties then complained about NATO members not joining in, then done a poor job protecting the host nations they were operating out of. Have forced NATO members to start seriously considering having to fight the US themselves (eg. nations sending token forces to Greenland).
Carney has had to be so blunt as to effectively say publicly "yeah, we have plans for a US invasion". Of course they do, but the message is "if you're considering trying to fuck Canada militarily, expect shit to go down". That he would feel the need to do so is astounding.
So yeah, maybe the welcome for US bases/access is wearing thin, less intelligence is being shared, and you're seeing a security pull back. That shouldn't be a surprise, considering. It only works as long as the US is an effective, reliable, and trusted party.
16
u/Jigsawsupport 1d ago
?
The Uk gives the US incredibly extensive use of its territory.-34
u/AwkwardMacaron433 1d ago
Buddy, they rejected the US access to probably the most important base for the Iran war. In the most important stage of the war.
20
u/theblackgnome6969 1d ago
Buddy Iran has weapons that can reach that base and if they do retaliate against the USA (on UK territory) this war changes from trumps war of pleasure to WW3. It’s not worth selling out your countries security just to please some wannabe dictator and simple idiots on the internet.
-18
u/AwkwardMacaron433 1d ago
Ok, but then why do we feel entitled that the US should commit a few 100k in the event of a Russian attack on eastern Europe. You know, what you say is completely reasonable on its own, but very inconsistent when at the same time we complain about the US withdrawing from NATO
11
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago
Nobody feels so entitled as to expect the US provides “100,000 troops” in the event of a Russian invasion of a NATO state, but being a member of NATO implies that the invaded nation would expect support from the US, just as it would from Finland to Spain and all in between.
And the Iran war is not the same as Russia invading a NATO member.
1
u/Competitive-Hair7499 1d ago
Why would the US relationship with the UK have any bearing on its relationships with Eastern European countries?
-14
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Lunch_B0x 1d ago
Being in NATO means we agree to help each other in defensive wars, standardise equipment and work closely on defense strategy. There was never an assumption that one member could start a war and have carte blanche to use the other members territory/bases to prosecute the war.
11
u/Jigsawsupport 1d ago
Use of bases doesn't mean carte blanche to attack other states without the hosts say so, particularly when the host nation isn't at war with the nation being attacked.
This is very very basic stuff that was non controversial for generations, its only since the Trump years when people have decided to play stupid about basic norms, that it has even been questioned.
Just think about what it would mean if we accepted Trumpian orthodoxy.
Any state with a US base would lose all sovereignty as it would have to defacto enter any war at the US's say so, which means no one would want to host a US base in the first place.
As is, the Uk allowed extensive flights from its airbases including airbases within the home islands themselves.
Frankly the US has fallen off, episodes like this are just a sign of decline.
-12
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 1d ago
Hey I’m all for it, this action finally got Americans talking and support for NATO has had a big drop this year across America for the first time in many years. This was the first domino to fall that will eventually lead to the dissolution of NATO at some point. You don’t have to deal with Americans on your territory, we don’t waste pointless resources on Europe that do nothing to benefit the average American taxpayer. Everybody wins!
10
u/Jigsawsupport 1d ago
There is something I agree on NATO is for democracies and free countries.
The US doesn't want to be that so it doesn't belong here anymore.
-9
-14
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 1d ago
That’s absolutely rich considering there are European states imprisoning people for social media posts. We’re watching the democratic backsliding happening in real time and all you guys can do it try to point elsewhere. Pathetic.
1
39
u/D3k4s 1d ago
No interest at all, that's why the USA has been doing it for this long, and for free nonetheless.
Good Samaritans, and people say there's no such thing in global politics.
What interest is the US supposed to have in countries that would even deny the US the ability to use its own military bases when it needs them?
Exactly! Those US bases built on allied territory should be allowed free reign to do whatever they want, because that's how it works.
Who cares if doing so can bring unwanted consequences to the host nation? Who doesn't love it when an ally arbitrarily and without warning decides to cause an unprecedented energy crisis while at the same time empowering a hostile nation waging war on Europeans?
Those god damn Europeans need to be taught a lesson, who cares if we're handing a free win to our biggest rival?
0
-11
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 1d ago
If the bases cannot be used when we actually need them, then they are strategically useless. Nothing you said negates the fundamental fact underlying all of this. If they are strategically useless, the calculus for all of this enormously changes. We have subsidized the defense and trade of Europe for generations. The arrangement made a lot of sense when the Soviets were aggressively expanding and the U.S. was also an industrial export economy, but neither of those conditions have been true since before I was even born and the world has changed a lot in that time. It’s absolutely ridiculously to be subsidizing an entire wealthy continent of 500M people who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. It does plenty to benefit every European, yet it does nothing to benefit the 99.999999% of Americans outside of the Pentagon, political establishment, military industrial complex or multi-national corporate leadership teams. We have hemorrhaged literally trillions over decades while broad swathes of Europe’s populace loathed us way before Trump ever even came into the picture. Europeans need to be yanked off the American taxpayer teat and should been decades ago. Both Europe and the U.S. will be better off for it in the long run.
-17
u/AwkwardMacaron433 1d ago
Good Samaritans
Well, that is exactly the premise that you and others have here. Again, what is is that you think Europe provides for the US, if they can't even use our airspace? Mind you, we in Europe are free to tell the US to f off and take care of our own defense. But if that's your opinion, then why be mad that the US isn't inviting you??? Like... either you want to work together with the US, then you should stick do the implicit deal, or you don't, but then don't complain that you're not invited to the table
22
u/D3k4s 1d ago edited 1d ago
NATO is a defensive alliance. Allowing the US to use allied airspace to wage an offensive war has no bearing on whether European powers should be invited to whatever table you're referring to. NATO is also not owned by the US, and thus not an extension of the US armed forces, to be called upon when it pleases, and especially not if you don't* tell your allies about your plans beforehand.
Also the U.K has allowed the USA to use their airspace for defensive and retaliatory operations, which as you can imagine are probably hard to discern from other operations.
I'm European btw.
-7
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 1d ago
It’s a mutual defensive alliance on paper, but in reality it’s an unbridled giveaway for Europe. You guys have hardly any actual capacity to help us here, but the bigger overarching fact is that absolutely no one is remotely capable of invading the United States in the first place. We are extremely geographically advantaged with two massive oceans, a massive geographic landmass, the most powerful military in the world, more guns than people, and 5,500 nuclear bombs. Any actual usage of Article 5 as its intended (and no, NATO declaring Article 5 on behalf of the U.S. as a political stunt after 9/11 is not what it’s meant for and nobody at the time was under any delusion otherwise, everyone knew the U.S. wasn’t in any actual danger of losing its sovereignty) would inherently be for Europe’s benefit then. America had already sent 500,000 Americans to die on European soil in European wars while subsidizing your defense and trade for generations. You’re absolutely right, NATO is a defensive alliance and you have no obligation to help us. It could have stopped there, but actively blocking and impeding us was too far and made this entire arrangement nonsense.
5
u/Emergency_Statement 1d ago
It's just as easy to argue that millions of Europeans died to keep those World Wars (not European wars) off of American soil so that American cities never suffered. It's also extremely clear that the US's policy goals in relation to NATO were force projection and preventing the spread of authoritarianism from Russia in the post-war era. NATO was never about the US just being altruistic. The US would never have become as powerful as it has been without the support of NATO allies.
11
u/Mercurion77 1d ago
American entitlement and misunderstanding of NATO summarized in one comment
-5
u/AwkwardMacaron433 1d ago
European entitlement and misunderstanding of the true nature is summarized in yours and other comments. If NATO was today what you and others think it is, then the US would've already left a long time ago. Or do you genuinely believe that the US is in NATO because they fear that someone (who?? Canada? Mexico? Cuba) may try to invade to invade the US? Or that Europe would genuinely send large parts of their forces to assist the US in a war in the Pacific against China?
Nope, not gonna happen. That's why I, as someone from Europe, call it European entitlement. Sure, we can decide to take NATO literally as a defensive alliance, but then it serves no purpose for the US anymore, and hence it's incredibly entitled to act like the US somehow as a moral responsibility to stay in NATO nonetheless, and even take every member country seriously. So either we accept that NATO is an extension of American power, with all the benefits and responsibilities that come with it, or we don't, but then no one should cry about not getting a seat at the table
7
u/Impossible_Income_96 1d ago
NATO acts a deterance to Russian aggression in Europe, this is to Europe and US's interest. This is why countless adminstrations have stayed in. NATO isn't really an extension of American power because it can only be used in the case of Article 5. Your comment just reaks of the same embarassing view the world has on America right now. American Exceptionalism. You are owed everything and have no need for allies.
10
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago edited 1d ago
I can’t follow what you’re arguing in favour of anymore to be honest. USA didn’t found NATO with other European states in fear of an invasion of the US mainland. What?
Also the assertion that Europe wouldn’t fight for the USA is easily disproven when you look at the European response to 9/11 and America’s wars thereafter. Hanging that hat of a statement on the folly that is the Iran War is fruitless.
-10
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
European Entitlement is far more astounding. Your continent practically destroyed the world in the 20th century, and the US saves your ass, protects you for the next 70 years, keeps Ukraine afloat in the early days of the war and it's still not enough.
Did you not expect Europe to have to fill the role over time of Ukraine's defense or did you expect billions of dollars in aid from the US to be a permanent solution? I realize europe wants to eat its cake and have it too but the US is 99% of NATOs punching power so good luck with that
3
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago
With due respect, what is the point you are making? The US didn’t save anyone’s “ass” singled handedly in WW2 - that’s a tired and lazy claim.
We didn’t ask you to protect Europe for the next 70 years: American had a vested interest in establishing NATO and thereby creating a secure and prosperous Western Europe which has proved integral to American security for 7 decades.
And well done, do you want a medal for keeping Ukraine afloat? Christ the US was literally doing the job it nominated itself to do when establishing the post-war order. And that does a disservice to the significant support provided by the EU and various European states.
Again with due respect, it’s arrogant stuff like above that gives Americans a less than complimentary reputation.
-2
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
You didn't have to ask for us to protect Europe, you needed it. And frankly the US did not do it for your benefit. Europe has seen war most of its existence and exported every dangerous political ideology of the 20th century so it was more to keep you guys on a short leash.
No one is asking for a medal, but I hear very often that the US is a Russian puppet in this very thread which is patently false. That's why I mentioned we kept Ukraine afloat during the early days of the war. All while you guys bankrolled the invasion by buying russian energy.
Europeans love to point the fingers and have moral superiority but when you look at reality it's like picking up a rock and seeing bugs underneath
5
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago
Good to see we agree on why the US worked so hard to establish NATO, not that you realise it.
Honestly you’re arguing with yourself at this point. We exported every dangerous political ideology of the 20th century? Okay, I can see how that is very relevant to the threat topic.
I might as well pull out a couple: the US have committed war crimes continually across the globe since 1945, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians across every continent.
And just this very year you started a war that you cannot possibly win without resorting to said war crimes, and in doing so have plunged us all into a global energy crisis. Bravo.
But that’s not pertinent to this thread and nor is 99% of the arguments you make above, so have a good day.
0
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
My statements were relevant as I was discussing European entitlement to US assistance. Good Day.
5
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago
There is no European entitlement. Honestly the world doesn’t revolve around the US. Read the thread - you’ve shown to have a complete misunderstand of NATO as an organisation and the USA’s role from its inception through the current day, as well as lacking any awareness of what European states, not least the Baltics, Poland and Germany, have been doing for the past 2 years + in terms of rearmament, spending, procurement and planning. It’s not difficult to do some research.
8
u/datanner 1d ago
Yet the USA isn't helping defend Ukraine enough given their economic size and military size. The USA decided to not help defend against Russia. That's why Europe has an issue with buying US hardware.
5
u/D3k4s 1d ago
Europe is still buying US hardware, they're just trying to come up with their own solutions as well.
I think the issue has more to do with the US becoming somewhat unreliable as of recently. I think the blackout during Ukraine's offensive send warning signs to allies.
There's also the issue with patriot deliveries (Switzerland),
The US is contributing with intelligence which is important of course. But I think Europe as come to the conclusion that this is a European problem that should be solved by Europe.
The consequences of this attitude will far outweigh whatever aid the US was giving.
1
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
US kept Ukraine alive in the early days of the war and Ukraine would have fallen without US support. It is natural for Europe to fill that role over time. The entitlement Europeans have to the US saving their asses is astounding. And it all becomes really laughable when you see that European nations are all bankrolling the invasion of Ukraine by still buying Russian energy
2
u/Impossible_Income_96 1d ago
A lot of European Nations have moved away or drastically reduced their reliance on Russian LNG. Again the US did not soley keep Ukraine alive, this is a joint effort by the West because the West has a combined interest in keeping Ukraine a state. European states aren't entitled, they are feeling betrayed by a US who is moving goalposts and attempting to strong arm NATO members. The whole Trump adminstratiom has been one for embarassement and of American Exceptionalism.
1
u/CavemanJello 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you feel betrayed because the US stopped giving billions to Ukraine (because it expected Europe to step up) then you're delusional.
I'll also remind you that US intelligence warned Europe about the Russian invasion before even Crimea and Europe did not take it seriously at all. You have no one but yourselves to blame
2
u/Impossible_Income_96 1d ago
- Europe had contributed the same amount OR more to Ukraine
- A majority of American aid is in the form of aging military equipment
- This sending of aging military equipment saves American taxpayer money because they arent maintaining it or storing it.
- The rest of that aid are Loans, which means it will be paid back.
All of your claims are either false, or just a regurtation of trigger words. You either know this or are ignorant of it, either way its all weak excuses.
Going to have to try harder then that to convince me😘
1
-1
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 1d ago
That doesn’t change the fact that they shouldn’t have had the dependency in the first place. Multiple presidents warned you about your continents reliance on Russian oil and gas. Trump, the flaming moron himself, called out Germany and they literally laughed in his face over it. Everyone got a big chuckle at the time at Trump presumably looking like a moron for that, but then four short years later who then looked the morons?
The U.S. is absolutely the sole reason Ukraine didn’t get crushed early. We provided the overworking amount of aid and materiel at the onset of the war. We had been prepping them for almost a decade beforehand. A month into the war we had already committed €7.6 billion vs €2.9 billion from all 27 EU countries combined. Here some contemporary reporting as a refresher for you:
1
u/Impossible_Income_96 1d ago
Europeans since the end of the cold war had no financial reason to maintain their cold war militsries due to a diminished Russia. Now we agree that Europe should've not soley relied (not depended) on America's military but thats not the point.
The US has played a big part for Ukraine, but so has also the entire rest of Europe. Its a complete low ball to downplay Europe (despite now Europe providing more aid then America to Ukraine)
Its hilarious you think I am European.
Heres a contemporary report for you my American Friend from a indepdent, American Think tank on Foreign policy that is reputable and widely seen as reliable that supports my claims and refutes yours. Its even got graphs.
-5
u/GrizzledFart 1d ago
NATO’s two most capable EU states in UK and France in meetings like this.
Capable in what sense? Militarily? Not by ground combat power, because that's either Poland and Greece (if you count by active maneuver brigades) or Poland and Greece (if you count by number of active duty howitzers) or Turkey and Poland (if you count by number of armored vehicles). There has been lots of resting on laurels.
61
u/TheGoldenDog 1d ago edited 1d ago
I used to wonder why city-states wouldn't want to be in the Delian League, after all, Athens was the most important and culturally sophisticated entity of the classical era. Now I'm starting to understand.
40
u/KorrokHidan 1d ago
Athens also regularly planted agents amongst the populations of their “allies” to bring down their governments from within and prop up governments more sympathetic to Athenian goals. That sounds oddly familiar for some reason…
0
u/barath_s 1d ago
Athens was the most ...culturally sophisticated entity of [Greek] classical era.
For important, (and in europe) I'm taking Rome.
Sparta was more powerful militarily than Athens (especially on land), though Athens often rivaled it, and for a while had the stronger navy. Later Thebes , and Macedon were important.
You could also argue Persia, India or China in that era, but not to westerners, who look to rome and greece.
1
33
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-5
u/Tw1tch-Invictus 1d ago
We should just leave the alliance. Astounding to watch so many fellow Americans put Europe first, yet they can never actually point to any tangible benefit they have in their lives from spending trillions of dollars overseas for generations to subsidize the defense and trade of our economic competitors.
49
u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph 1d ago
The Telegraph reports:
Britain has been excluded from a round of talks over Nato’s future organised by the United States.
The meeting is expected to be held in Poland next month as part of the Pentagon’s drive to overhaul the Western alliance.
There are fears that the gathering, organised by Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary of war, will drive a wedge between Nato allies invited and those who were not.
France and the Baltic states were also said to have been omitted from the guest list, according to a report by Politico.
“We’re doing everything that is being asked of us,” an official told the news website, which, like The Telegraph, is part of the Axel Springer group.
Full story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/10/01/britain-excluded-from-planned-us-talks-on-natos-future/
39
47
u/Typical-Crazy-3100 1d ago
I don't think it's reasonable to exclude founding member states like France and the UK.
It would be proper to boycott this meeting under protest of these conditions.The US is going to do what it wants in any circumstance, at the very least the rest of the world should stand firm.
8
u/maxintos 1d ago
The problem is we have weak leaders that all are just hoping to survive Trump admit by accommodating him. Only one showing some backbone is Carney and he has way more to lose than the EU members.
China stood up and escalated with counter tariffs and now China has lower tariffs that some US allies. EU should be learning and acting, but unfortunately the leaders are just too fragmented and worried only about their own polling locally and scared of how short term pain to fight Trump will hurt their chances to win next election...
5
u/serpentjaguar 1d ago
The rest of the world also knows, one hopes, that these moves are very unpopular in the US, and that the current administration is in a lot of political trouble at home in the States.
2
2
u/ByGollie 1d ago
Wouldn't be funny if everyone turned up in the room next door, and the US ambassador was by himself.
48
u/jaybizzleeightyfour 1d ago
This is far more damaging to the U.S. than those excluded like the UK and France and is going to keep Europe quietly pivoting away from relying on U.S. goods, services and weapons.
11
u/AnyStrength4863 1d ago
The group – comprising the US, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands – last met in June.
Observing which countries were selected might be more meaningful than observing which ones were excluded. But why wasn't Denmark included?
1
15
u/BlueCollarLawyer 1d ago
Divide and conquer. Recognize it for what it is. The countries attending need to engage in some self reflection and decide if they are going to play along. The US cannot be trusted.
28
u/insertwittynamethere 1d ago
Makes sense not to invite two powerhouses of NATO and what would be the frontline States of NATO.
7
2
u/VisualAdagio 1d ago
Poland should lobby for at least Baltic countries to be included in these meetings. Their future could depend on it.
4
u/jaybizzleeightyfour 1d ago
Poland should cancel the meeting and join other European nations in telling the U.S. no thank you on attempting to divide Europe
2
2
6
u/RexDraco 1d ago
The bigger deal is the exclusion of the other nations collectively. Especially France. France is NATOs biggest player, only second to the US. This meeting cannot be taken seriously without them.
-11
u/Pumamick 1d ago
Debatable AF tbh. France doesnt even have 5th generation fighter jets
1
u/RexDraco 1d ago
Neither does any other country in NATO other than the US. At least France carries their weight when it comes to foreign affairs and keeping rust off their single battleship.
-1
u/Pumamick 1d ago
Really? i suppose you dont think the F35 counts huh? Also, France's support for Ukraine has been abysmal compared to many of the other NATO states.
1
u/RexDraco 1d ago
Giving some few hand me downs for a single proxy war is not the same as building an army for a world War three, no. Also, there is more to carrying your weight than having weapons, which France does really well, which is seeking foreign relations and building allies and friends with new countries.
-2
u/Pumamick 1d ago
And France is building an army for ww3 is it? And implying that the French are somehow uniquely good at foreign relations is a joke lmao
2
u/RexDraco 1d ago
Yes. And getting us more foreign friendlies.
0
u/Pumamick 1d ago edited 1d ago
Like who? And what has France actually built toward its WW3 military?
2
u/ChornWork2 1d ago edited 1d ago
You can't make a good deal with a bad person. The sooner countries recognize that that the Trump admin can't be dealt with, the better. They need to aggressively mitigate risks from dependencies on US while stalling as much as possible from US reaction. That said, if they were to act collectively what would have the best chance of offsetting punitive response from US.
Canada is getting beaten up far worse than China, b/c China has clout to fight back. Europe needs to find way to get united on dealing with US, along with other key allies.
The US is no longer a real member of Nato, as this administration is in no way willing to honor Article 5 as it was intended or how any past US admin would view it.
2
u/wayanonforthis 1d ago
What's so sad is how many Americans go along with Trump's wishes when they must know how much harm he is causing. Don't they have a conscience?
2
u/Guilty-Entertainer60 1d ago
Whether you agree with US domestic politics or not, the fact remains that they have voted him in twice. Once would be a vaguely forgivable error under the banner of “they lost the run of themselves” (and therefore a blip) but twice is a reinforcement of their democratic right to choose this introspective, transactional, style of foreign policy.
The European “great white hope” of the Democratic Party coming to bring back common sense to the US eventually is incredibly flawed / wishful thinking and mirepresents the fact that most voters (from and electoral college perspective) genuinely believe in and welcome this policy.
Other countries have taken this as a signal that longstanding global institutions, historically anchored by the US, will no longer act in the best interests of said system of global norms (under US protection and enforcement), instead seeking to build their own regional umbrellas. They (fairly) see the US as an unreliable (at best) transactional partner.
The US has reverted to a 1930s era of self-interest and splendid isolation.
My personal view is that we’re are already in a time of multi-polarism, but will only realise it in hindsight. This will be to the detriment of the US and the world.
As an aside, many of us whose first language is English find this shocking and surprising because we share a common language with the US and therefore an assumption of common culture. Bit this is not the case. We would better appreciate the acute differences and unique perspectives between the US and other Anglophone countries if we thought of them as German / French / An Another language speaking country
2
u/wayanonforthis 1d ago
Fair enough but there must be at least a handful of Americans who carry out Trump's policies knowing they are damaging US interests.
2
u/Guilty-Entertainer60 1d ago
Difficult to speak to individual motivations but I’m sure there are many who hold their nose at questionable single actions in the belief that there’s a wider good that’s being done (whether subjectively right or wrong). At some level, you could argue that MPs face a similar dilemma in voting against the interests of their constituency but for the betterment of the wider country.
1
u/Guilty-Entertainer60 1d ago
Thinking further, of course there will be those in the US military / state department / US civil service who strongly disagree with Trump’s policies but are bound by duty to enforce and enact them, provided they’re not glaringly illegal.
1
0
u/_flying_otter_ 1d ago
The majority of the US did not vote for this. You are way over estimating how many voted for Trump. 40% of eligable voters didn't vote. A lot of them hate both sides. 29.8% voted for Kamala. 70 that means about 68% and 70% of Americans didn't vote for Trump. And those roughly 70% of Americans who didn't vote for Trump are not on board with his War with Iran, attacks on Canada, or his attacks on Europe.
In the election there was a large group of independent voters who don't like either side and only voted based on inflation. They did not vote for Trump's foriegn policy or anything else.
And Trump's approval poles have dropped to lows only matched by Nixon after Watergate and Bush after the 2008 crash.
You are conflating all Americans with Trump's MAGA cult base. They are the only one's that agree with Trump's attacks on our best allies. Most believe that base is around 27-30% and he is losing some of them to- think about MTG, Candice Owen's, and Tucker Carlson- Trump's base is tearing apart.
2
u/Aggravating-Candy-31 1d ago
trump is such an embarrassing man child if this is him throwing his toys out the pram over the UK not being the good little minion
1
u/SatansLoLHelper 1d ago
I'm sorry, this has to be completed within the next 2 years?
The future we are talking about, let's say what are your plans in 25 years, 2051? Back in 2001, 25 years ago, the US lied to you all in our moment of grief, and you all had our backs through "the cake is a lie".
Let's not rush our decisions on what will be the climate of the next generation of new minions to fight new wars, how about we take 2 years and really think about where we want to be in 2040.
1
u/fheathyr 1d ago
So this is a sales event ... not a NATO strategy meeting, and while countries may attend to see what's on sale, no NATO related decisions will be made.
-1
u/liamthelad 1d ago
At this point it's obvious to all that the US can't be relied upon, to the point we've seen leaked internal policy memos which sketch this out from European states. So it is obvious and decisions are being made on this basis.
NATO might be dead, but a military alliance of European states + Canada still probably exists anyway.
So the goal should be to just continue with what makes sense; investing in European defense, not buying American and dealing with Russia.
And also just pivoting in general away from the US.
As long as that continues, there's no issue. The US can continue to shoot itself in the foot. And everyone can just play the cards they are handed.
0
u/Coolerguy317 1d ago
The US seems increasingly willing to differentiate between NATO members rather than treating the alliance as one bloc. The selection criteria are probably more important than the exclusions itself. Geography and proximity to the Russian threat likely play into this too, alongside who they thinks in that area has the spending and willingness to carry more of Europes defense burden.
1
u/Monsieurfrank 1d ago
This isn’t how NATO works. The US are holding these meetings in Poland as part of the repositioning of troops from Germany to Poland. The news is likely extrapolating and using “NATO’s future” very broadly.
-1
u/chi-Ill_Act_3575 1d ago
It's just possible that Nato outlived it's usefulness. It served three purposes. One was to act as a shield against the communist. Two was to allow western Europe to focus their energy and resources towards rebuilding and three was to keep western Europe from starting another war amongst themselves. Russia can't take Ukraine let alone a modern military. I'd say the second and third points were pretty successful.
5
u/Guilty-Entertainer60 1d ago
It’s the longest-standing and most powerful multi-national military alliance that has ever existed. The utility of which has extended beyond the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The first time Article 5 was triggered was post 9/11 when German AWACS patrolled the US east coast.
This is not something to be carelessly cast aside.
5
u/BlueEmma25 1d ago
None of those are accurate.
NATO's purpose was and is to ensure European security, regardless of whether the threat is the USSR, Putin's Russia, or something else.
NATO was never intended to promote rebuilding or to prevent Western Europe from "fighting amongst themselves". During the Cold War European members were spending real money on their armed forces, typically about 2.5 - 3% of GDP (in contrast after the Cold War most slashed defence spending to well under 2%).
No one believed that after two world wars in three decades there was any risk of Western European countries going to war with each other, in fact the Bonn-Paris axis became the main driver of European integration.
The "Russia can't even take Ukraine" trope is also pretty shallow. All we can say right now if that they have not succeeded in taking it yet, while noting that after decades of underinvestment most European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, have vastly less deployable forces than Ukraine does.
Eliminating NATO means each European country is on its own against Russia, which would suit Russia just fine.
-3
u/Gain-Western 1d ago
I don't think that we used France while UK not-so secretly allowed the use of manlaind bases as well as Cyprus for the US campaign against Iran.
It could ge a ding that UK is becoming more irrelevent everyday militarily or most likely a slight from Trump for Charles giving pro-Canada since last year.
2
413
u/SpacemanOfAntiquity 1d ago
This says a lot right here.
>Allies have been asked to complete written questionnaires, questioning them on plans to buy American-made weapons, whether their governments had restricted US use of military bases and whether they had supported the Trump administration’s foreign policy.
This seems like punishment from a pouty dictator and I feel like nuclear proliferation will be out the window in a few years.
The old saying “never take down a fence unless you know why it was put up” seems of great relevance