… future scenarios of Nato development in Europe - report released today. Roughcut, how to get Europe more resilliant under war/proxy war conditions.
With it also being paramount that Nato will grow and change in the coming years. With Europe potentially being under war.
Fun.
And so sensitive in regards to the situation currently evolving.
edit:
“Now on Ukraine, where the rules based order is under direct assault, we suggest a more proactive, strategy driven approach to NATO partnerships, including the Ukraine deterrence initiative. That would make it a strategic priority for the alliance, to do everything possible, short of an article five guarantee, to help Ukraine and other partners, that are threatened by Moskow, to defend themselves and deter aggression. This Ukraine deterrence initiative could be an extension of the enhanced opportunities partners program, at a time when NATO membership of the Ukraine is really not on the agenda.”
Ah, a NATO build-up without a NATO membership. Excellent.
“As Julian outlined in his overview - we argue, that the new strategic concept must commit the alliance to a step change in the balance of responsibility between the United States and the european members of the alliance, to include Canada as well. This is no longer just a matter of overcoming long standing disputes over burden sharing in defense spending, between the United States and Europe - its now a strategic necessity, because the rise of china as a strategic competitor creates US need to shift its strategic focus to the indopacific region. And under these circumstances, Nato can no longer afford it excessive reliance on the United states, either for collective defense, or for crisis management and cooperative security missions beyond europes borders. Clearly - in an article five contingency between russia in the baltic or black sea regions, the United States may not always be able to deploy adequate reinforcements to Europe, because of competing demands on its forces in the indo-pacific. So european allies will need to be able to pick up most of the slack. Now similarly resource constraints and shifting priorities may also lead the US to limit its involvement in the middle east, africa, and south asia. Or at least to be more selective in when and where it engages. That means, that the United States will increasingly look to the european allies and the european union to shoulder more of the burden for crisis management and partner capacity building in their own neighborhood.”
Same stance - as announced by Peter Zeihan and mentioned in this blog, one year ago.
This is somewhat important, as the (transatlantic) thinktank circuit is currently trying to establish that Putin (himself probably) is trying to drive a wedge into the US/European coalition, while in reality the strategic focus of the US has shifted to the indo-pacific and will do more so in the future regardless of what happens in these parts of the world. An expansionist China is too much of a strategic threat to the US - while Europe doesnt hold the same value anymore (not militarily, not regarding energy security, not in terms of trade (US developing Mexico and India to be consumer economies), not in terms of innovation either (has more to do with the fact that energy security in the US in the coming three decades is not relying on anything that Europe produces. They’ve become net exporters.)
Why is the first thing that comes to mind “Fare well a**holes? And thanks for all the hell raising in the past days!”?
