this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
47 points (100.0% liked)
World News
2607 readers
123 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is a shift in the strategic calculus driving US foreign policy. During the Cold War, Europe’s relevance hinged on its role as the frontline against the USSR. Today, Russia no longer poses an ideological challenge to the US, and China’s rise as a peer adversary demands a full pivot to Asia. On top of it, Russia's defeat of NATO in Ukraine makes further expansion east impossible. By disentangling from Europe, the US can husband its remaining resources and diplomatic capital in order to attempt to contain China. Europe, meanwhile, has become a secondary theater, lacking the geopolitical weight to justify America’s historical commitment.
NATO also faces irrelevance as transatlantic unity fractures. The growing ideological divide between Europe and the US means that there is little incentive to sustain a costly alliance. Abandoning NATO would not only reduce US commitment to Europe, but Europe would still be dependent on the US arms exports. Europe’s panicked defense spending could exceed $800 billion annually and will flow disproportionately to American defense contractors, as EU nations lack the industrial capacity to modernize militaries independently.
Growing skepticism toward the EU by Trump admin is no secret either. Vance and other prominent members of the admin openly criticize the bloc’s cohesion, which suggests that the US would prefer bilateral dealings with fragmented European states. A post-NATO landscape would empower the US to exploit intra-EU divisions, weakening collective bargaining power. A fractured and scared Europe is an ideal outcome from US perspective.
Incidentally, I had some thoughts on the subject here https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/when-market-fundamentalism-collides
I hear what you're saying, but I would argue it's a ploy to enforce the 5% NATO target knowing the eurocrats always roll over
it would still seem like a bridge too far at the current juncture for the americans to let NATO fail and concede unopposed security hegemony over the EU, a rebalancing to make them carry costs makes much more sense to me and I view it in that light (though I obviously take your point about the balance of military industrial capacities)
also there are rumblings that this US admin is beginning to accept multipolarity; if that is true surely that reframes the strategic outlook and calls a full pivot to asia into question
I don't think bumping military spending to 5% will actually achieve much of anything tangible as long as the military industry is privatized. This is the reason NATO as a whole was not able to ramp up production to match Russia over the past three years. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to change that.
I think rebalancing to put more of the burden on the EU is the plan, but I think that will lead to NATO collapsing in the long run. The whole value proposition of NATO is that the US provides protection to Europe. If the US starts pulling back, then they're going to start losing political influence over Europe as a result. Meanwhile, economic situation in Europe is pretty dire already leading to a lot of political unrest. Mass austerity required to ramp up military spending to 5% is only going to make the situation worse.
I'm also not convinced that the US really is accepting multipolarity. I think the whole trade war with China was a trial balloon to see what would happen in case of war, and to identify weaknesses in the supply chains.
Don't forget the India-Pakistan flare up. There's mounting evidence that the USA has a contingent that is focused on getting closer to a war with China.
For sure, also disrupts BRICS and the BRI which clearly helps the US.