Never say never, but it is extremely unlikely that the United States would abandon Europe in general terms, and NATO specifically. That would not accord with American national security interests and, indeed, would likely undermined the strategic position of the USA at a global level.
To start, the lessons of history are pretty clear. When the United States absented itself from the European strategic scene, the result was two bloody world wars. Wars that the United States then found that it could not avoid and thus entered under less advantageous circumstances than might otherwise had been the case.
Indeed, the USA's relationship to Europe is not unlike that of the much geographically closer United Kingdom. It is in American interests to see that no one power dominates the continent and that a relative balance is maintained.
For the British, this was done through the policy of "splendid isolation." The UK would stand aside from entangling alliances and would step in only when the European balance of power was threatened, at which point London would step in on the weaker side to maintain the balance.
For the USA, since 1945, it has been slightly different. NATO was created to, as Lord Ismay famously put it, "Keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in Europe." This being to prevent a resurgent Germany that would be too insecure on the continent - see also the aforementioned world wars - and to keep a continental sized power like Russia from dominating Europe and thus - in tandem with extant Russian control of Siberia - the eastern hemisphere.
Beyond that, the USA encouraged greater European unification in the hopes that a united continent would settle its differences by diplomatic - and if unification was realized - domestic political means. This also would encourage trade among the states of Europe, making them too interdependent to risk war and indeed, such trade would ultimately blur the national distinctions that were the cause of so much carnage. As Adam Smith said, "The merchant has no country."
This strategy has broadly worked. However, the United States has found the EU to be less a trade partner than a trade competitor and the foreign/military dimension of the EU has proved less than the sum of its parts. Thus the continuing need for NATO.
Bluntly, the United States cannot take the risk of leaving the continent to itself, and so will remain engaged. To be sure, US and European interests - with some individual exceptions (see also the USA-UK "special relationship," and even then not always) - sometimes diverge. The USA is, for example, less concerned about Ukraine than are most of the states of Europe. (The Europeans themselves being more divided on the issue than it first appears to be the case.)
For the USA, the interest in Ukraine is not to secure that state itself. (After all, the USA has lived alongside Russian control of Ukraine - even in the Cold War - without American security interests being compromised.) Rather, the USA is extending support to Ukraine as a way of reassuring other European states - see also Germany, Poland, the Baltic states, and recently Finland and Sweden - that Washington will stand by its treaty obligations. To do otherwise would likely set off a scramble for power and security that would destabilize the whole continent and likely lead to war.
To be sure, the United States is facing a security challenge in the Far East unlike any it has faced since the defeat of Japan in 1945. So the USA will have to balance its interests and obligations and given China's strategic and economic position - 2nd largest economy on Earth, largest military in numerical terms, etc. - Washington will have to strike a balance. Just as it did in World War II between Germany and Italy in Europe and North Africa and Japan in the Far East. Even then, Washington made it clear that the strategy at that time was "Europe First."
Grant that now - with the rise of China - there is a more nuanced strategic situation. However, the USA will have to balance its interests in Europe and the Far East, not abandon them. Indeed, one thing that the USA dare not risk is uniting Russia and China - that would be an alliance the West could not defeat. Russia and China are not natural allies and the USA needs to play off their inherent antagonisms. Suffice to say, abandoning NATO (and thus Europe) would not facilitate that end.
I find it difficult to understand the importance of the European continent for the Americans nowadays, and to prevent a country from wanting to dominate the continent, because if a country in Europe came to such a position I don't believe that it would threaten the global position of the USA.
Whereas more precisely the Indo-Pacific, if we were to translate its importance in terms of "GDP" it represents almost 60 percent of the world's wealth that is played out in this region. So for the US, whether for economic or even security reasons, it seems to me that the Pacific is much more important than Europe.
I find your answer excellent and it is not this one that I question. It's just me who has trouble understanding what is the interest of the US in Europe and how a European nation that would become hegemonic would threaten the global position of the US. While a nation in the Pacific could really endanger the global position of the Americans
Well, Russia is a European nation and if it comes to dominate Europe, it will "control" - in some sense - 4 of the G-7 nations. (The UK, Germany, Italy and - oh by the way, a country after your own heart - France. Yes, that was a little joke.)
Suffice to say, that hegemonic power would be a threat to the security of the United States, no two ways about it. Keeping in mind that it is not JUST economics, it is also a matter of military security.
For the USA to be safe, it must be able to project its power across the Atlantic. That is why the USA opposed Germany in two world wars (plus Italy in the second.) The costs of projecting power to a hostile shore are exceptionally high and by no means assured of success.
Thus, as with the UK, the USA must assure that there is no one dominant power on the continent, and that there is a relative balance. Indeed, this same principle applies to Asia and hence why the USA and China are at loggerheads.
As far as Brexit, no it really changes nothing. From the British perspective, Brexit was simply a reassertion of the traditional British policy of standing aloof from the continent. Committing only when the balance of power was immediately and directly threatened.
From the American perspective, this was basically the reality USA policymakers faced going back to the 19th century. Britain policy was then "splendid isolation" and USA policy was forged in that context.
To be sure, the Americans had hoped to, post-WWII, subsume European rivalries in a European Common Market and later in a common European identity. However, in practice that has never worked out and American policy has been developed presuming a "Europe of states" rather than a "United States of Europe."
No. America has spent years building NATO, espicially after the cold war ended. NATO is a broad alliance that means that anyone who attacks a NATO country goes to war with all NATO ( including Canada) members. Which was why after 9/11 NATO along with other non-nato allies forces invaded Afghanistan. NATO is the most powerful alliance on the planet basically all members adding their militaries and economies as well as allowing the US military bases in their countries which provides security for US hegemony. So why would the US end this?
America has intrests in Central Asia which is rich in minerals and the largest untapped oil/gas on the planet and their economy is about to boom. They can't access the region because its land locked with Russia to the north, Iran to the west, Afghanistan to the south and China to the east. Central asia is very important to US economic and strategic military intrests as it is to both China and Russia. What we are seeing in Ukraine is a strategy of the US bleeding Russia militarily and economically so both Ukraine and then Georgia can join NATO which Russia opposes and has intervened militarily to prevent this. With Georgia and Ukraine in NATO along with other members Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and possibly one day Moldova the US will be able to control the majority of the black sea and through it almost be able to access central asia through Georgia while needing to reach an agreement with a friendly Georgian neighbour to get into the caspian sea like Azerbaijan or even Iran (another reason the US bullies Iran and keeps them down), this way they will be able to pipe Oil/gas out of central asia into Europe but also to move western manufactured goods in. If the US get into central asia and build bases like they do everywhere it will mean they have Russia & Iran completely surrounded and have China strategically flanked in the west causing them to divert forces from the south China sea. It will also undermine the Russia, Chinese and Iranian economies by controlling oil prices such how much Iran and Russia sell their oil for and how much China buys theirs for.
You may also see the US Navy operating in the black sea and caspiean sea in the future too, a treaty from ww1 prevents us navy carriers entering through the dardanelles straits but Turkey is building a canal connecting the black sea with the Mediterranean for more sea trade just like the suez canal or Panama canal.
The US has real intrest in the Pacific so they will seek to build up the militaries of their allies in the south Pacific and set up an organisation in the Pacific similar to NATO or they might expand NATO to the Pacific after all Canada and the US have Pacific coasts and some other European nato countries have Pacific territories. The US may pull military assests out of Europe as Russia is no real threat anymore as shown in Ukraine but not leave completely. Wherever you see a NATO country or a country with a US military base you are seeing a part of the Empire of the United States.
NATO doesn't do shit anyway. Their soldiers in some countries are crooked for anything they can get. Also it backs terrorists and murders like they did Yasser Arifat while turning their backs on the Jews who are being killed by Muslims/Arabs just because they are Jews.
@bingbongbangbung The Vietcong ceased to be an effective fighting force after the Tet Offensive. It was the NVA that carried out the rest of the war from then on. You are also forgetting that USA manpower in Vietnam decreased from 500,000 in 1968, to 20,000 in 1973. The ARVN (South Vietnamese military) carried out the majority of the war throughout the 1970s, and the United States stopped all of its major military operations by 1971. South Vietnam collapsed in 1975.. a full 2 years after the last USA soldier left in 1973.
In regards to Afghanistan, the ANDSF (Afghan military) was in control of the war from 2014-2021. United States manpower decreased from a height of 100,000 in 2010, to only 16,000 by 2014, and continued to drop, while the Afghan security forces took control of the war. The Taliban were very successful in defeating the ANDSF on the battlefield, and largely due to the corruption in the Afghan Government. This is the main reason why when the USA left in August of last year, the ANDSF very quickly collapsed without any outside support. Much of it collapsed without a fight.
@bingbongbangbung Next time educate yourself. Vietnam and Afghanistan are clear examples of USA political failures But to even mention the battlefield, is to ignore they were lost by host nations (South Vietnam, and Republic of Afghanistan), while the USA support was minimal and its involvement was almost nonexistent.
If anything, it shows the USA is great at fighting, but not particularly good at nation building in 3rd world nations (Though its very successful in other parts of the world, like Japan, South Korea, and Europe).
Clear political disasters, due to a large variation of issues corruption in host nations, cultural struggles, inability of host nation to unify.. etc. but the USA very clearly wiped the battlefield with these opponents while it was involved it simply put its eggs in the wrong basket, and backed a very weak and incompetent ally.
@bingbongbangbung further details If we take a look at Afghanistan, and use the LongWarJournal. We will see that as recently at 2017, the far majority of the country was under the control of the Afghan Government.
In 2017, only 73 Districts were under Taliban control (of 407), and this was a full 2+ years into Operation Resolute Support, when the USA military was no longer heavily involved, or carrying out military operations. IT was the ANDSF, that for 2 years led the military campaign.
Needless to say, the Afghan Government was steadily losing control of the country as early as 2014, when the USA officially ended its combat mission in Afghanistan (This was also the end of ISAF). 2014, was 2 years after the USA surge, and during a period when the USA military had withdrawn over 80% of its manpower. The war was essentially over for the USA at this point. During this point, the Taliban controlled next to nothing in the country.
However, the Ghani administration was very corrupt and created division in the country early on (especially after the 2018 election), and this created divides among all the leadership.
While the Taliban slowly gained territory from 2014-2017, it was gaining perhaps 1 district every couple of months, while the ANDSF was being slowly wasted away with corruption...
By June of 2021, the Taliban control went to 104 Districts, that was a gain of 30 districts in 4 years.. and most of them during 2021. In July of 2021, that number went to 222, most than doubling within a month. By August, the entire country was theirs.
The Taliban made 90%+ of all of their gains of the war during the Summer of 2021. While fighting against the ANDSF, that was surrendering nearly every position, even historically Anti-Taliban positions in the northern provinces.. In some cases the Taliban didn't even have manpower to hold cities or towns.
@bingbongbangbung This was due to a few reasons 1. The ANDSF was corrupt.. and so was the government. They were notorious for 'ghost soldiers" and siphoning off funds for personal reasons. This led to many portions of the military being hollowed out. This became especially true when the USA ended its control over where the pay went, and instead handed it over to the Afghan Government. The Afghan military went from winning most of the battles in the war, to quickly collapsing from corruption 2. The Ghani administration was divisive, and there was claims of stolen elections to the degree the USA threatened to end its funds. This led to much of teh government moving against him. He was terribly corrupt, and used his power to create "yes men" in most posts, removing capable leaders 3. The ANDSF was nearly untrainable, and drug abuse was rampant. 4. Much of the fighting was dependent on the Commandos, who made up over 90%+ of the military offensive operations
I mean they could, I would personally love it. I do not like American politics sticking its nose into the EU but I think you have confused who actually wants and benefits from this. It is USA that wants and benefits from this by expanding their influence and power which then helps maintain their position as super power and props up the economy.
People are very quick to look at the price tag without looking at what they get in return. USA leaving Europe alone is a major blow to them as a super power.
what do you mean "to support Europe". Europe didn't want to antagonize russia. nato forced us. it's the American war against russia. Europe is just americas puppet that leaves national governments poverless and the population of all the countries in Europe and their governments completely powerless in these matters.
you think germany wanted to put a trade embargo on russian gas? no we didn't. nato said we have to. it hurts us more than russia. nato is making sure Europe isn't getting too strong to suppress. that's what it is to me.
not to sound antagonistic to you personally. but lot of us europeans don't see you americans as our helper and savior. you're our enemy. but you're also the enemy of our enemies which makes us kind of have to stick together as we can't beat the russians or china individually. and we europeans are the weaker organization, as our leaders are less institutionally united and more corrupt.
@bingbongbangbung i don't get to decide that. i'm just a mere mortal citizen. the UK did it right. fuck the EU. they ensured peace among EU country but they have degenerated into a supranational dictatorship. They are the right and the left arm of the Nato who's main interest is USA not Europe.
China, Russia bleh. Meanwhile Germany is sitting there waiting. Do people forget the last two world wars?
After WW2 Germany was split between USA & Russia. 1990 Germany reunified. 1993 the European Union was initiated & controlled by Germany. Look at the territory’s of the EU. Same as what Nazi Germany controlled.
They accomplished what they wanted not through war but bureaucracy. I still say Germany is the country that should be closely watched. Russia & China were our allies.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Europe does not face any threat that requires American Assistance, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines on the other hand Do require aid from both the U. S. and Europe.
Russia is NOT and has not been for 30 years a serous threat to European NATO. They are a threat to non-NATO members but not NATO members. NATO would clean Russia's clock with or without the U. S. participation.
Don't buy the democrat political fear mongering about Russia it was about them pushing a narrative to winning an elections. It never had any basis in fact.
Russia has and had an economy the size of Italy, they never could support a large scale military operation capable of threatening NATO. The shocking thing is they can't even support a military operation taking over the Ukraine a country as poor as Russia on their border.
Not US citizen. I think Russia should be regarded as a proxy for China. Both have dreams of Empire. Sanctions on Russia are having affect and will have more effect next year. The value of the ruble is of course manipulated by Russia.
In short, the geopolitics is that Russia and China come as a couple and there isn't the luxury of dealing with them in an either or way.
So long as any of the current Democrat party elders are alive, do US will never abandon Europe. Too many of them have too much money being laundered in Ukraine to voluntarily give those investments up. And even if they’re willing to part with the money, it would be political suicide for them to anger a government that has so much surveillance footage and embarrassing information of them committing crimes internationally.
That's an interesting slant that I'd not heard before. It does seem like self interest from Europe and the US is driving all the 'love' they are showing Ukraine.
Our largest fleet is in the Pacific, but American is everywhere... Where every you try to hide we will find you. The Navy has fleets in every ocean and the 10th fleet at Fort Meade running cyber command... We can reach out and touch anyone at any time. When kinetic war comes with China, obviously there will be fleet movement, but today is not that day.
Except you don't work in the navy so don't write as if you're part of them because you're not. And no, I don't care if you tell me you're a veteran because I can tell you I'm a lizard. Wow, you Americans sure love violence, war, and dysfunction.
Why is this an either/ or thing? The US may not be able to fight a two front war anymore, but it can still maintain forces on both sides of the world. Granted, if we go to war with China, our forces in Europe will be hollowed out, but this wouldn't matter unless Russia invaded Europe (in which case Germany could hold them off).
NEVER EVER. LOOK, THE USA HAS A GREAT IMPRESSIVE IN THE WORLD. THE CULTURE, THE SOCIAL, THE ECONOMY AND SOME THE OTHERS IMPRESS FROM THE USA. THE WORLD KNOW AN AMATOR SINGER OF THE US BUT WE DO NOT KNOW A FAMOUS SINGER OF RUSSIA OR SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE USA IS A WORLD ITSELF AND MUST NOT BELITTLE ITS ROLE IN OUR WORLD. AS YOU SEEN, RUSSIA IS NOT A TRUSTWORTHY GOVERNMENTS, SO NATO IS NECESSARY FOR Europe TO CONTROL THEIR BORDERS SAFE.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
It doesn’t matter. No matter what happens one thing never changes, the smug, condescension of Europeans towards American government and its citizens. Frankly I think we should abandon Europe. Not that we’d be abandoning anything. They can do just fine without America.
Germany and UK are doing so well being so heavily dependent on Russian energy because of their green failures biting them in the backside at every opportunity. Let them burn cake🤣
Yes, but I don't think the question is like that. The United States like all other nations defend their interests. Today the interests of the USA are in the Pacific.
I think that in front of China the US will disengage more and more from Europe to concentrate in the Pacific.
I think that the best solution would be a European defense, within the framework of NATO, which would allow Europe to have a certain autonomy of defense and the USA to be able to disengage partially from Europe to concentrate more on the Pacific.
The US has started pretty much every war, every where in the world for the last 70 years.
It is by no means confined or 'interested' in any one particular region, though obviously some regions are more important than others due to resources and geopolitics etc.
Ha. No. If anything, Russia getting destroyed by U. S. weapons means the U. S. will be selling a lot more weapons, regardless of whether the US military has boots in Europe or not.
Its "obvious?" If you're such an expert, then you need to get to DC and convince the folks at the state department that you are the I Ching and they need your services.
No. The security of the world is very important, but Europeans have to really start thinking about how they can survive the next century in such adverse and dangerous times.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Anonymous(45 Plus)
Most Helpful Opinions