Superficially this sounds good. But as a practical matter it won't work, simply because the politics are more complicated than that. It'd work great for equipment purchases, research investment and training schedules, but lousy for things like what constitutes an invasion, or whether to admit Ukraine or Macedonia, and which country gets the next base or port, and troop deployments. You'd have to separate military decision-making vs political, and that brings a lot more into question about sovereignty. Any country that can't control troop deployments inside their own borders is a vassal or a protectorate, not a country.
Restructuring NATO like this would be like restructuring the politics of the whole continent. Which might be a good thing (or not), but it wouldn't be a defensive military alliance.
While the cost of being in NATO is significant, it’s not the most critical factor. The European dependency is becoming a suicide in slow motion. This is a continent where many countries are no longer able to protect, generate enough energy, or feed themselves. It’s also becoming a danger to America as we’re increasingly seeing false flags in the Ukraine war designed to draw it (and the rest of NATO) into a war with Russia.
Every military decision is political and can not be seperated. Its the first thing we learned during strategic military planning. In fact those plans are made based on current political assessments and decisions which trigger the development of plans. As old as war.
Superficially, Trump offered a pathway to DACA if democrats would fund the wall.
Superficially, Trump offered to stay in the Paris Accord if they held the same standards to China as the rest of the world.
Maybe Trump doesn't want the NATO deal to work.
You'd have to separate military decision-making vs political
America spent 70% of NATO budget, America's military gets 70% of decision in invasions or whether to admit Ukraine. Trump commands the military (let's invade) and Trump commands the political (lets not include Ukraine). I don't get where the difficulty is supposed to be.
If England for instance wants an equal vote then they contribute as much as we have, until then every decision is unilaterally Trump's to make.
America always should, and does, have total control of its own troops and equipment.
The point I was making is only that this suggestion for reforming NATO in this way is really a discussion about overall political sovereignty, not just cost-sharing and accounting.
Superficially this sounds good. But as a practical matter it won't work, simply because the politics are more complicated than that. It'd work great for equipment purchases, research investment and training schedules, but lousy for things like what constitutes an invasion, or whether to admit Ukraine or Macedonia, and which country gets the next base or port, and troop deployments. You'd have to separate military decision-making vs political, and that brings a lot more into question about sovereignty. Any country that can't control troop deployments inside their own borders is a vassal or a protectorate, not a country.
Restructuring NATO like this would be like restructuring the politics of the whole continent. Which might be a good thing (or not), but it wouldn't be a defensive military alliance.
While the cost of being in NATO is significant, it’s not the most critical factor. The European dependency is becoming a suicide in slow motion. This is a continent where many countries are no longer able to protect, generate enough energy, or feed themselves. It’s also becoming a danger to America as we’re increasingly seeing false flags in the Ukraine war designed to draw it (and the rest of NATO) into a war with Russia.
👍
Every military decision is political and can not be seperated. Its the first thing we learned during strategic military planning. In fact those plans are made based on current political assessments and decisions which trigger the development of plans. As old as war.
👍
Superficially, Trump offered a pathway to DACA if democrats would fund the wall.
Superficially, Trump offered to stay in the Paris Accord if they held the same standards to China as the rest of the world.
Maybe Trump doesn't want the NATO deal to work.
America spent 70% of NATO budget, America's military gets 70% of decision in invasions or whether to admit Ukraine. Trump commands the military (let's invade) and Trump commands the political (lets not include Ukraine). I don't get where the difficulty is supposed to be.
If England for instance wants an equal vote then they contribute as much as we have, until then every decision is unilaterally Trump's to make.
America always should, and does, have total control of its own troops and equipment.
The point I was making is only that this suggestion for reforming NATO in this way is really a discussion about overall political sovereignty, not just cost-sharing and accounting.