NATO and EUCOM future post election?

[chopper2004]

Any thoughts in lieu of last night / this morning's result suh as :

Will the planned closures (as per MoD pdf) of the 'Hall, Alconbury/Molesworth still go ahead or be halted?

Will the rotational deployments of CONUS based ACC FJ to Eastern European / Baltic states as well as army Stryker units..

Or will go the other way administration decide to call it quits and close more bases / take step back from NATO commitments.....

cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

It's early to ask, since the current President has two more months to do whatever it is he wants to do with all that. What has a lot of DoD watchers in this country curious is whether he'll get Congress to do away with the Sequester, which makes DoD budgeting a bigger pain than usual.


Funding drives "the art of the possible" in terms of long or short term aircraft deployments or rotating detachments. There seems to be a bipartisan support for some of the "support the eastern European allies who are afraid of the bear" but it's not unanimous.

[Hangarshuffle]

He leaves us to it after brokering a new deal with Putin over the phone, and on January 22nd Russia attacks the Baltic states triggering the tripwire. American NATO forces do not respond to defend.
I actually and sadly think that has a 50/50 chance of happening based on my TV observations of them both. And there would be SFA we could do about it.

[Arclite01]

I'm no fan of Trump, I actually think he's a bit of a loose cannon.

But, He does have a bit of a point - many NATO nations don't pay their way, they do freeload on the back of the US (and the UK for that matter since they know that we [US, France and UK] always can be expected to punch above our weight - rightly or wrongly)

But, He needs to decide if that is a price worth paying to maintain the profile of the US overseas and maintain the free markets that the US sells so much hardware into.................. I expect the cost of the NATO 'subsidy' is a fraction of the cost of the equipment sold to NATO partners by US Defence contractors which ultimately puts $ into the US Treasury through the tax system and keeps a lot of people at home employed and fed................. he'll certainly understand that aspect.

Me, I think he'll recognize the commercial aspect pretty quickly.......... what he does on things such as the economy, climate change and world trade agreements is a whole other question though.

Arc

[cokecan]

i think the only certainty is uncertainty...

i understand that within the US system the President is not as powerful at deciding and rodding through policy as perhaps we think he is, and that not only will Big Beasts, but big interests start chipping away at some of the policy stances, but...

i'm afraid i see a man who is remarkably thin skinned, and who has a spectacular ego. i see a man who can be baited into saying almost anything on twitter by pretty much any 12 year old who can type - sad to say i think the next 4 years is going to be mainly an exasperated government and wider defence/security sector trying to rein in a wildly oscillating president who lurches from one policy to its exact opposite with a great deal of bomblast and who will manage to offend pretty much every traditional ally and potential ally/partner, before wanting to be their friend again and acting all surprised when they don't recprocate.

[Lonewolf_50]

He leaves us to it after brokering a new deal with Putin over the phone, and on January 22nd Russia attacks the Baltic states triggering the tripwire. American NATO forces do not respond to defend.
HS, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Crystal Ball? Magic 8 Ball?
What about Article V of the NATO Treaty do you not understand?


Arclite: loose cannon? Yeah.
cokecan: your last paragraph looks like a sound assessment. Sadly.

[ShotOne]

"Lurching from one policy to its exact opposite.." erm, well being as last year we had a Commons vote on military action against Assad and now our forces are engaging his enemies, how would that differ from present policy?