Part of the problem of creating a non-American NATO is that the USA provides a ton of capabilities and logistics that other countries can’t possibly afford.
It is the reason why there has been a push to create an EU military instead.
EU countries did underinvest, but the US is able to invest in multiple weapon platforms and logistics capabilities that wealthy but small countries can’t possibly afford on their own.
The Libyan War was a good example. The EU nations that wanted to intervene in the war needed the US to provide ATC duties and provide supplies after the countries’ missile reserves ran out.
Neglected or were coerced to not cover? Every time Europe has wanted to be on par with the US, the US had undermined the idea. Being the guy with the bigger stick has always been the ideal for the US. And that includes a less powerful Europe.
They way I see it, USA can’t be kicked out but it can leave.
That said I don’t see a problem in making a new NATO, without the US and (hopefully) without veto rights
Part of the problem of creating a non-American NATO is that the USA provides a ton of capabilities and logistics that other countries can’t possibly afford.
It is the reason why there has been a push to create an EU military instead.
Yes but the US is an enemy now
That other countries neglected over the years, you mean? Weird approach to article 3.
EU countries did underinvest, but the US is able to invest in multiple weapon platforms and logistics capabilities that wealthy but small countries can’t possibly afford on their own.
The Libyan War was a good example. The EU nations that wanted to intervene in the war needed the US to provide ATC duties and provide supplies after the countries’ missile reserves ran out.
Neglected or were coerced to not cover? Every time Europe has wanted to be on par with the US, the US had undermined the idea. Being the guy with the bigger stick has always been the ideal for the US. And that includes a less powerful Europe.
Corrupt politicians don’t need coercion, but yeah.