Yves here. Despite Trump’s signature radical unpredictability, in one respect, he is rock solid consistent. The latest browbeating of NATO members is yet more “all stick, no carrot” conduct. And there’s no admission of the inconsistency of NATO’s European members supposedly being in charge of their defense with regards to Europe but still subordinate to the US with respect to Iran demands.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
This might be the US’ final warning before it takes drastic action to punish those who continue to reject Trump’s demands.
Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby gave an important speech at mid-April’s Ukraine Defense Contact Group in which he urged the Europeans to step up their transition to something that he described earlier this year as “NATO 3.0”. As was explained here, “The idea is that NATO should return to focusing on defending itself instead of overextending itself in the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere”, and the preceding hyperlinked analysis explains how it aligns with Trump 2.0’s policies.
Circling back to Colby’s speech, he demanded that “Europe must accelerate its assumption of primary responsibility for the conventional defense of the continent”, including arming Ukraine through the “Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List” (PURL) program in which the US plays the most significant role. To that end, “The need to quickly rebuild European munitions stocks is paramount, as is the need to remove protectionist trade barriers that stifle the continent’s industrial potential.”
He added that “Developing a robust, capable, and integrated European defense industrial base cannot simply be an aspiration, but an absolute pre-requisite for credible deterrence and defense.” Knowing how obsessed they are with Ukraine, Colby then threw in that “This will be critical to achieving an end to the war in Ukraine, on terms that support an enduring peace.” He then called for more “deeds and a fundamental change in attitude” from them to “accelerate this transition to a ‘NATO 3.0’”.
Colby concluded that “If Europe rises to this moment – truly embracing primary responsibility for the defense of the continent in line with our vision of a rebalanced ‘NATO 3.0’ – we will all be stronger and more credible in defending our people and our national interests.” He also ominously warned them midway through his speech that “I underline the criticality of [NATO stepping up to help secure the Strait of Hormuz per Trump’s expectation] for our relationship going forward.”
As was assessed here last month and was just implicitly reaffirmed by Colby, the US might speed up its planned military reprioritization away from Europe to the Americas and the Indo-Pacific if they reject Trump’s request by ending its significant PURL contributions before NATO can replace them. That would facilitate a full Russian victory in Ukraine, or at least spook the Europeans into fearing that this is inevitable if they don’t step up right after he cuts off arms again, thus getting them to do what he wants.
If some members of the bloc refuse to contribute while others do, then Trump might impose his reportedly considered pay-to-play model that was described here, which would remove “dissidents” from decision-making processes and withdraw the US’ Article 5 support from them. These punishments could also be imposed for refusing to spend 5% of GDP on defense. It’s very likely that Colby conveyed these punitive plans to his counterparts on the sidelines of the event even if he only hinted at them.
His urging of them to step up their transition to “NATO 3.0”, which is his brainchild, can therefore be considered the US’ final warning before it takes drastic action to punish those who continue to reject Trump’s demands. Imposing the pay-to-play model is one form that this could take while cutting off arms to Ukraine once again could be another. Both could also happen together. It’s unclear what NATO as a whole will do, let alone its individual members, but it’s obvious that Trump is losing patience with them.
11 comments
Comments are closed.
Who cares?! Does anybody care about what Trump or his mad minions say? I mean: outside of Venezuela…
At best (worst) Trump can dethrone Ursula VdL, as she (the EU) stands in between the USA and member states like Spain. The EU (incl. Spain, believe it or not) is much more important for European states (even to the ones like Poland, which would become a wreckage outside of the EU, it’s truly cold outside of Borrell’s garden, rather than the jungle it looks like the tundra, ask in London if in doubt). If Ursula is out, that would be good for the EU (less good for the German “Merkelian” establishment, I guess, but those are pathetic treacherous anti-leaders under Wall Street thumb).
Why is the USA talking sh** instead of properly oozing its CIA-Gladio tentacles? Because it is weak and powerless quite apparently: they have lost the plot, they have lost control.
Can the USA even afford to be hostile against Spain when this country has control over “the American Gibraltar” (Rota and Morón bases) and potentially over Gibraltar Strait itself (as demonstrated by Iran and Yemen in other quite comparable straits)? No! The logical thing to do for D.C. would be to discreetly promote a government change (which has been doing but is a weakening plot, as the anti-Zionist newly found stand of Sánchez is giving him lots of popular sympathies and thus votes).
Anyway, deep inside, I believe that all this NATO demolition chatter is meant to disengage the USA from the will-be Euro-Russian war to come (if it comes but it’s clearly in the plans). Two great nuclear powers can’t fight each other but the so-called “coalition of the willing” is sub-nuclear (and powerful) enough to do the job in terms of conventional war, especially naval siege of Russian ports. For that the USA needs to appear disengaged, semi-neutral, else ka-boom!
What does Europe need to defend itself from?
Corruption, non-elected pseudo-governments, bureaucrats, mandarins (of European origin), hubris, short-termism, all kinds of over-dependencies (IT, other tech, resources, whatever) from a single source or power, and the consequences of the coming environmental changes (climate, species extinction, environmental pollution).
It also should be able to defend itself against inhuman outside powers, at least in so far as to be able to make any kind of warfare too expensive. Inhuman outside powers include, but are not limited too, the USA and Russia.
Good question. The only reason Europe is “obsessed with Ukraine” is because the US wound them up for over a decade about imaginary Russian threats, provoked a war, and then blasted the pipeline that allowed them to have cheap energy supplied by Russia. All this, accompanied by rigging elections against any candidate not appropriately hawkish against Russia to make sure no one with other opinions gets a seat at the NATO table.
Now the US gets to sell them overpriced LNG. About the only thing the US manufactures these days are sketchy wonder weapons and dubious financial instruments. Uncle Sugar has got the European poodles hooked on the weapons again. I’m sure there are some CDOs of questionable value that can be pawned off on a gullible Europe too.
NATO 3.0
Trump has no patience at all, not just with NATO members. Is this news? NATO is an obsolescence.
Is Trump or ‘The Trump Faction’ trying to reshape NATO before his term is out?
I was under the impression The Ukraine Project had Trump-proofed NATO during the dying days of Biden.
Colby can’t work out what he wants. he says this-
“The idea is that NATO should return to focusing on defending itself instead of overextending itself in the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere”
But then he wants NATO to go sailing off to the Gulf so wants it both ways. Ironically for decades past US governments have been encouraging the NATO countries to foray into places like the Indo-Pacific (e.g. AUKUS) but now they want them to stick to Europe. Pity the British. They gutted the Royal Navy to build two giant carriers to aid in American conquests and now Trump insults them and their ‘toy’ carriers leaving the Royal Navy with more admirals than warships.
My point exactly on Korybko’s site:
““The idea is that NATO should return to focusing on defending itself instead of overextending itself in the Indo-Pacific, West Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.”
“I underline the criticality of [NATO stepping up to help secure the Strait of Hormuz per Trump’s expectation] for our relationship going forward.”
Anyone spots the contradiction here in Mr. Colby’s speech?!
Me thinks that EU’s role is to support the US anywhere it needs supporting and by all means, and not be a burden when it comes with its own defenses. Why have a treaty then, when there is absolutely nothing to gain? Plus, the treaty would need to be changed, because there is no provisions in the Washington Treaty on Wars of Agression. Neither in the NATO countries legislations, which all harck back in spirit and letter to the UN Charter. US would be bound to legally, but look at the US Congress, a captive audience to the lobby and to the imperial presidency and the imperial and hegemonic idea of US. Will the US experience a sort of Sicilian expedition experience with Iran? Time will tell.”
I frankly read Colby as a carte blanche for Europe to go to war with Russia, as long as it stays limited re: USA.
However a poisoned invitation.
Of course he can´t articulate such an understanding in a too obvious way.
But if you block all other exits the only available left is being kept open with cold-blooded calculation.
It´s a declaration of war mainly on Europe´s populations.
Pentagon knows Russia won´t use nukes against the US because they will prevail against Europe.
And Europe doesn´t have anything the US really needs.
A world of 3.5 superpowers may well work better if Europe is in ruins.
Everyone can then grab a part from the corpse in form of rebuilding funds, emigrating work force, some tech, some natural resources.
After all Pentagon has understood Russia can accomplish the job even without nuclear fallout.
I call this a first major trap.
Admittedly beautifully laid.
Oh, so close. If they had called it the Prioritized List of Ukrainian Resources, the acronym would have been PLUR, which, as all dedicated ravers know, also stands for peace, love, unity, and respect. Such irony!