Of the USA leaving NATO.
After writing something like this: https://keinpfusch.net/di-talebani-e-militaria-varia/ and this https://keinpfusch.net/afghanistan-ovvero-tenete-bassa-la-testa/ I can't really be amazed that ISIS has returned and carried out a bombing. As I have already written, ISIS competes in attention to receive funds from countries (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others) where "charities" raise money for them.
If today the Taliban are the cool ones to finance, obviously ISIS has to get on the stage and get noticed in turn, in order to have its share of "Islamic charity". This was obvious, I had written it, and so I have no reason to be amazed.
So I can't say I'm amazed by any of the three things:
So let's look ahead. Because there is one thing that needs to be said, and that begins to emerge more and more clearly from Biden's behavior:
“America First! it's not Trump's invention. The sloagan is. But the concept was from Barack Obama. You could see it from the behavior of Hillary "fuck the EU" Clinton during the Ukraine affairs, we saw it with Biden (her former deputy) and the export ban on US and UK vaccines, we have seen it now with the unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan ".
Biden was Obama's deputy, and Clinton's direct partner in the administration. It doesn't take long to figure out what the next move is. Because if this is the US trajectory, we must ask ourselves "what's next?".
The US is about to leave NATO.
It doesn't matter that the sloagan is "america first!" or Biden's “we don't feel responsible”. That American culture has evolved into constant navel worship is clear.
And the turnover of officers in NATO itself is equally "talking": the presence of American (and curiously: British) officers is decreasing more and more. It happens more and more often that an American officer leaves and a European one arrives in his place. It doesn't take long to understand that the decision has already been made, that all governments are aware of it, and that everyone is trying to get as large a slice as possible when (and "if", why don't we talk about games open) NATO command and communication infrastructures will become the backbone of a European defensive model. Anyway, let's say that at this moment everyone in Europe is behaving as if the US is preparing to get out of it, including the US. The decision to leave the Tunisia area by closing some bases (unborn, mainly listening), and the consequent crisis in Tunisia, have shown how the Mediterranean is, in the eyes of the US, more and more “none of my business”.
What is the focus of this decision? The focus is that NATO is buying less and less US. F35, which had to be a good reason to keep everything up, hardly sold within NATO except for Italy which in the end even had the know-how to assemble it. US weapons are increasingly rare in Europe. The Greeks bought the Rafale instead of the F35. US tanks in Europe are increasingly rare, if not absent. Arms contracts are strictly won by European companies.
Contracts, in fact. Those who guide the politics of the military and their industrial lobbyists. There are no more large contracts to benefit from. And if NATO doesn't carry out contracts, then it doesn't make sense anymore.
What could be the immediate effects of a sudden US exit from NATO? I see several. First of all, how would it be possible or plausible to create a NATO just for Europe?
To obtain a "European defense" similar to "NATO defense", the current infrastructure must become an item of the European budget, remaining "at the top" of the existing armies. In this way 2%, and perhaps 3% of GDP in military investments could be achieved without affecting national budgets. And no one would feel frightened by the role that large countries would inevitably assume within the new military structure. To those who complain that Germany spends too little I ask: do you really want a heavily armed Germany in Europe? Do you think it is easy for the chancelleries to digest?
On the contrary, a beautiful ex-NATO structure on the EU budget would not worry anyone.
The problem, or rather the absurd evaluation (linked to the lack of intelligence of American intelligence, which is dysfunctional for the same reasons as the armed forces, namely: contracts) is that once left to themselves the European allies would become one copy of the USA and they would do the same policy.
Just look at a map: USA, UK; Australia and New Zealand are ISLANDS. But Europe is not. And so he'll have to handle it differently.
- Left to themselves and equipped with a military structure, the first thing Europeans will do is a peace treaty with Russia, and one with China.
The reason is simple: both sides want it. The Russians are well aware that sooner or later China will look north. So far it is projecting towards east and west, towards south it is already projected (I would not live in Taiwan if I were you)… only the north is missing. Sooner or later it will. Sooner or later it will be Putin's cocks.
It is obvious that Putin does not want a war on two fronts. The Chinese will then have to balance the deal with Russia.
2. With NATO finished, Turkey will get nuclear weapons.
It doesn't take long to figure that out, and I'd be surprised if the program hadn't started yet. Look at a map from the Turkish point of view. To the north is Russia that has the atomic bomb. To the south is Israel which has the atomic bomb. Iran is doing it. At sea Turkey clashes more and more often with the French, who have atomic bombs.
It is obvious that, once NATO is over, the Turks will bomb themselves.
3. also in Europe there will be more atomic bombs.
If Turkey goes nuclear, then a great European nation will have to follow to balance it out. Italy or Germany, you see. (I am doubtful to Holland, they have had part in the nuclear developments of South Africa in the past. BUT they are too small.). Nobody would want a nuclear-armed Germany, I think, and there is a problem of uncovered borders in the south. I know it will be Italy: also because otherwise it is not possible to explain why to build aircraft carriers if one does not intend to become a gendarme of the sea. The answer may be "procurement", but half a dozen destroyers are still bidding.
4. the British will also leave the "new" NATO.
At the very thought of leaving their army to the mercy of foreign commanders, the British shudder. They have already offered to continue military cooperation, and they have only obtained skepticism. Nobody wants to split the procurement pie.
Even if they cannot be too hostile, they will hardly participate in the European defense.
The new world, that is, no longer has the anglosphere as its center. Which is not what the US wants. It is therefore a failure.
The next question is:
Because'?
Why does the US seem to want to throw away what they have done?
Because they believed their own propaganda, and especially because they didn't understand one thing. The political effectiveness of a country does not come from power, but from consensus.
Consensus, and not power, is the political tool that allows DOING. With maximum power you can destroy.
The problem for the Americans, on the other hand, is that their reading of things is entirely focused on power, to the point that in the past the consensus they enjoyed was renamed "soft power" by their political scientists.
On the contrary, since politics are the daughter of human decisions, it would have been better to speak of "consent" instead of "soft power" and of "forced consent" in the case of simple power.
This misinterpretation of politics as power has meant that the US is today the nation that has the most power in the world, and at the same time the nation that has less consensus. Even in Europe the consensus towards the USA is at a minimum. In China, we don't talk about it. South America? Only if a dictator comes to power. Africa? Pffft. Russia? Ok, forget it. Arab world? OK'. India? LOL.
The USA believe they have lost "only" what they call "soft power", something optional and not very useful, while they do not realize they have lost the consensus , which is the most CAPABLE political tool among those known.
With consent you do things and they last, with power you give orders to others while it lasts.
They keep repeating to themselves that they are the most "powerful" nation, because they believe that power, not consensus, drives political history. A cultural vulnus that will probably cost them everything they did after World War II.
The problem is that they are now starting to pay the cost of the lack of consensus.
When 9/11 arrived and they invoked NATO article five, they believed they would lead a "great army" of fleets and armies, instead they found themselves doing it all by themselves, with allies sending few men, hardly any fleets, and who often said to their men "no, let's not fight". Not even after 11 September, by now, they had consent.
Question: those who called the consensus "soft power" can explain to me why, like "hard power", the US is losing, losing, losing everywhere? Without taking drugs, I mean.
Yesterday a Fox journalist said “but we have drones with vision systems that see beyond the walls, why didn't we kill them all?”: The answer is obvious. Because anyone could be a Taliban in the Pashtun area, since the Taliban have consent in that area. And consensus, in politics (and therefore in war) is much more effective than power. I wonder if anyone in the US has ever understood why Cesare at some point started writing the various "de Bello". What did it have to do with the consent of the Roman people? Mah.
That the US will abandon NATO is now in the order of things. The consequences I have assumed are speculations, but I find them very probable.
How is this going to happen? What would be the perfect storm for the US to leave Europe without warning (LOL) and retire indoors?
The perfect storm would be a very bloody Islamic attack on US troops, taking place in Europe. Then the US would ask why they are in Europe, and the president would close the bases.
Things don't always happen because of a perfect storm, sure, but if I lived near an American military base, I would avoid places full of their soldiers.
As usual: head down. The bombing will come. That it will hit a US base and kill Americans is to be seen. If that happened, it would be the perfect storm.
And too many want it.