Kiintoisa näkemys USAn ja Naton välisestä roolista Perunilta. Pinnatussa kommentissaan Suomi mainittu. Mutta siis aihe on se miten ehkä isoin peluri näkee suurstrategisen roolinsa australialaislogistikko tai hankintapuolen ukko/tubettajan mielestä. Tuohon oli se totta tai ei Suomen oma idea pitää jotenkin sovittaa.
Luulen muuten, että nyt Suomella on entistä enemmän varaa sanoa ei. Sekä kannattaa myös opetella hieman enemmän omanarvontuntoiseksi.
Oppimestariksi ei kannata käydä vaikka Suomesta on esimerkiksi lähes kaikilta osin. Sellaisen tyylin ulkopolitiikan takia Ruotsi on vielä porstuassa.
Tiivistelmä redditista:
Sitten tämä on todellinen helmikommentti, joka huomaa forward basing / global presence -järjestelyn mahdollistavan itse asiassa lyhytaikaiset päätökset USAn presidentin mielen mukaan. Eli myös Irakin sekoilun ja monenlaista "tylsistymisestä" johtuvaa kun todellista haastajaa ei ole. Britti-imperiumi oli ehkä jollain tapaa pitkäjänteisempi.
Oppimestariksi ei kannata käydä vaikka Suomesta on esimerkiksi lähes kaikilta osin. Sellaisen tyylin ulkopolitiikan takia Ruotsi on vielä porstuassa.
Tiivistelmä redditista:
Main Points
Collective Security: Security is easier to achieve in groups rather than individually. One nation might not be able to take on a larger one, but a group of smaller nations could. There are also benefits, such as NATO's Article 5 (if Russia invades Poland, it is considered an attack on every NATO country and NATO will respond accordingly). The probability of an invasion occurring decreases as the alliance grows. Smaller powers get to enjoy peace and stability under a collective security organization.
The Great Power View - Why would major powers such as the US want to defend alliances?
US Alliances:
- Even though security obligations can be uneven, such as the US/Canada alliance where the US essentially protects Canada, the larger power can extract concessions (business, going along with the larger's foreign policy, subordination to the larger power) that make it worthwhile to protect the smaller power.
- However, the US does not always follow this model. Members of NATO aren't forced to buy US weapons, and America doesn't always get what it wants. European countries still make deals with China and spend low percentages of GDP on defense. So, why does America export military protection without gaining something truly valuable in return?
- America wants to reinforce the existing 'way of the world' to maintain US hegemony and prosperity. In order to achieve this, the US views coalitions as very important and invests great sums of money into maintaining the most powerful military on earth to project power and defend its interests, with coalitions falling under those interests. The US MUST BE ABLE TO ACT INTERNATIONALLY, and having coalitions/alliances with access to foreign nations is absolutely critical for US global operations. Being part of collective security organizations is worth it for the US because it gives America the ability to conduct operations worldwide with ease, considering the US military is largely an expeditionary force, not a self-defense force.
- Coalitions also provide lots of intel sharing, training, planning, opportunities for exercises, etc. There are also practical limits to US military power, so having allies that can help out (and already having integrated logistics, training, etc) is vital.
Collective Benefits
- NATO: Most powerful military alliance to have ever existed. America is considered the heavy lifter of the alliance, with a military budget larger than all European countries combined. Most of the heavy lifting in the alliance is done by a small number of large countries (US, France, Germany, UK, and possibly Poland in coming years). America often brings the most valued high-end systems, although European countries bring good systems as well.
- About 100k US forces are deployed to Europe right now. US provides smaller high-readiness units and high-capability weapons, but a lot of the raw mass and combat power still comes from European countries. US will supply lots of weapons, but most logistical effort in sustaining combat forces is done domestically by Europe.
- Asia: No direct NATO-equivilant. US relations with Asian countries are managed through bilateral/multilateral agreements. US allies in the region are building capabilities (Japan, Australia, SK, Philippines).
- US forces in SK are about 24k. If any fighting broke out on the peninsula, the reality is most of the fighting, at least initially, would be done by SK forces. US provides smaller, high-readiness units and munition supplies, but again most fighting would be done by the host-nation.
- Critical value added by the US: Nuclear deterrence, long-range strike capabilities, air-superiority assets, US Navy capabilities.
Perun also goes into the economics of these alliances and the benefits associated with them from an economic perspective, which I won't write about here but I recommend you go and watch.
- Alliances allow for defense industrial base integration and standardization, which benefits everyone involved. This reduces the costs of developing weapon systems, as more countries share the burden rather than having to produce most components domestically. Many major weapons systems involve components produced in other countries, so having those countries in an alliance with you becomes incredibly beneficial to your own security.
- Proliferation Control: Alliances help prevent other nations from obtaining nuclear weapons. The US wants as few countries to possess nukes as possible. Allies forgo the costs/consequences of maintaining their own nuclear arsenals in exchange for sitting under the US nuclear umbrella.
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Sitten tämä on todellinen helmikommentti, joka huomaa forward basing / global presence -järjestelyn mahdollistavan itse asiassa lyhytaikaiset päätökset USAn presidentin mielen mukaan. Eli myös Irakin sekoilun ja monenlaista "tylsistymisestä" johtuvaa kun todellista haastajaa ei ole. Britti-imperiumi oli ehkä jollain tapaa pitkäjänteisempi.
American grand strategy is to prevent one country from gaining control of a large enough portion of Europe, Asia, or in future Africa / South America to threaten North America / CONUS. Secondary objectives are around preventing individual countries from gaining regional hegemony where possible, so that the US can intervene on whatever side is convenient, and American business interests.
The entry into WWI and WWII was to ensure that objective. Forcing the Europeans to dismantle the empires and creating NATO to keep the Europeans down from having an independent foreign policy or interfering regionally was about the later two as much as it was about the former (preventing the USSR for gaining control of Europe and thus holding the economy / population / military might to threaten CONUS). Dismantling the empires opened up huge trade opportunities for the United States that were restricted by the closed imperial markets / favored internal imperial trading markets which encompassed most of the world.
Finally, there is a tertiary goal, I think this where everyone gets so confused by how the United States behaves. I call it primacy of President. By achieving the main goal and the secondary two goals, and having wide-spread force projection capabilities in Europe, Asia, and around the world via carrier strike groups, the United States can allow the president to make short-term / reactionary decisions to interfere on whatever side of whatever conflict is politically convenient without being overly worried about long-term grand strategy. In this way, the United States behavior appears short-sighted when compared how the British behaved during the first / second empires and Pax Britannica (i.e. the British never had the same freedom of action and had to play the long game / make more gambles and sacrifices for the long terms that thus far the United States had not had to make).
Everything else is playing around the edges. Because these goals, especially the first goal, have been essentially continuosly met since the war of independence people often get confused and conflate secondary or tertiary goals or even random bullshit that appears to be supported by the 'Primacy of the President' as being part of a long-term strategy or some subservisve goals.
It's also for this reason that the United States often seems to behave in a haphazard fashion; because if you really sit down and think about the United States grand strategic position, particularly in light of the first goal, they are so secure that they can basically fuck around. It's only now with China threatening to become a regional hegemon in Asia that they're suddenly starting to act and becoming somewhat more constrained in their ability to act freely. But the future, (in the absence of a countervalue nuclear exchange or some other calamity that totally destroys most of CONUS but not China), isn't particularly grim in the way that the European powers faced with the USSR and the USA: at best China can probably hope for the position of France or Germany relative to Britain (i.e. larger population / economy but constrained because their strategic position is more limited by virture of being significantly more exposed as a land power than the UK was) during the Napoleonic wars or prior to the entry of the United States into WWI.
Reddit - Dive into anything
Viimeksi muokattu:
