Dear Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby (@USWPColby),
Thank you very much for your lengthy post setting out the principles and guidelines that you believe should govern America's former allies in NATO.
For our part, we have taken note that President Trump no longer consistently guarantees that NATO's Article 5 will be honoured.
We have taken note that President Trump has shown a marked inclination to do Vladimir Putin's bidding, even when doing so runs counter to our strategic interests and to our political and moral commitments to Ukraine.
We have taken note that the U.S. administration has moved NATO allies further down the queue for deliveries of American weapons than previously agreed.
We have taken note that President Trump has repeatedly spoken disparagingly of the sacrifices made by our soldiers when NATO allies answered the call after the United States invoked Article 5.
We have taken note that President Trump appears to believe, mistakenly, that NATO is some kind of emergency hotline the United States can call whenever military operations far outside the Alliance's purpose and area of responsibility go wrong.
We have also taken note that President Trump regularly speaks of acquiring sovereignty over Canada and Greenland.
And, of course, we have taken note that President Trump has shown a clear willingness to unilaterally disregard the trade agreements concluded between the European Union and the United States.
Taken together, all of this means that we must adapt to the reality that we can no longer rely on the United States. And that is exactly what we are doing.
You are, of course, quite right that American defence manufacturers produce excellent weapons.
But many of those systems are also becoming outdated in light of contemporary military doctrine - as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated with remarkable clarity.
We naturally appreciate that you still find the time to lecture us on your views and on America's expectations.
But in light of the chain of events set in motion by President Trump and his administration, we must admit that they carry rather limited weight.
Elbridge Colby wants the benefits of an empire without any of the responsibilities.
Elbridge Colby's latest lecturing of US allies shows just how out of touch Washington is with the reality of its own decline. He wants to have it both ways, but his logic is falling apart.
The current Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby, has a track record defined by failing to deliver his promised pivot to Asia and advocating for policies that cost countless Ukrainian lives.
Despite this, he is currently trying to tell middle powers how to manage their defense. During both of Trump's terms, the US urged Europe and other allies to spend more and stop relying on American taxpayers. It was a reasonable point, and allies are finally taking steps to increase their defense capabilities.
But the moment these countries try to build a collective middle power strategy, Colby starts warning them against it. In a recent X thread, he argued that allies should not build up their own defense industrial bases because they cannot compete with the US. He wants them to spend more, but only to buy American weapons, ensuring they stay entirely dependent on US goodwill.
You simply cannot have it both ways. In the past, relying on US weapons made sense because the US guaranteed security. But Colby is asking allies to maintain their dependence while the US actively disengages, reduces European troop levels, cuts aid to Ukraine, starts trade wars, and appeases shared adversaries. If the US is going to behave like an unreliable partner, why would Denmark, Canada, or any European country spend billions on US weapons instead of investing in their own domestic industries and cutting their dependence?
You cannot destroy your own geopolitical leverage and still expect allies to blindly follow your demands.
Trust is a currency, and the US has spent the last 18 months destroying it. Had Washington stood by Ukraine and maintained its commitments, it would have the leverage to negotiate. Instead, they destroyed their own influence, and no one is going to sacrifice their own industrial sovereignty for a partner that is already walking out the door
@Rburns1980@fellaraktar I guess you forgot about russian state media accidentally running a canned article claiming to have captured all of Ukraine on February 26th, 2022.
Man.
Imagine you invaded a country.
Told everyone you’d have them “demilitarised” in 3 days.
Then 4 and a half years later.
You lose 100 ships in 4 days.
To a country that doesn’t even really have a Navy.
Sucks to suck, I guess.
Skill issue.
The problem with this thread is that it rests *entirely* on the assumption that the US is a reliable, friendly power. Trump is showing that it's anything but, as Denmark has found.
Or put another way: why should Europe buy weapons from a country that's threatening it and has already weaponised its control over technology as a coercive tool, as in the case of the ICC?
Я особисто не знайомий, ніколи не бачився й не спілкувався з міністром оборони України @FedorovMykhailo. Але мені достатньо того, що жоден з моїх друзів і знайомих, безпосередньо причетних до Війська чи виробництва зброї, не сказав про нього як про міністра жодного дурного слова. На відміну від усіх попередників. Навпаки — я чув лише позитивні враження та оцінки. А мої друзі — патріоти, не підлабузники. Якщо президент Володимир Зеленський, як і всі ми, хоче, щоб Армія та країна й надалі реально зміцнювалися й змінювалися на краще, то заміна Михайла Федорова неможлива. Це було б найбільшою помилкою, яку можна уявити собі зараз. Моя повна підтримка пану міністру.
@Ike_Saul It's tradition, and it's fine. The appointee's only job is to show up and vote with the party. And they shouldn't be anyone actually running for the seat. Think of it like giving Sen. Tim Scott two votes instead of one for a few months.
If rumors about @FedorovMykhailo dismissal from the post of Minister of Defense of Ukraine turn out to be true, this will be a step that will greatly affect President Zelensky's rating. Not in a good way.
The best way to honor Lindsey Graham is to name the russian sanctions bill, the Lindsey Graham Final Act, pass it, and crush the russian economy like it’s 1991.
@jamesp_robinson@willthiel Novichok causes telltale symptoms that are distinct from a heart attack. (Part of the point of Novichok is the terror to others.)
Today I got to hear a taxi driver from Eritrea explain why Putin is such a great man – because he goes to church. He also praised Eritrea’s dictator for finally “dealing with the homos.”
So I asked him: when exactly had gay people wronged him so badly? What terrible thing had they done to him? And if they’re such a menace, is he being persecuted by them here? Strangely enough, he had no answer.
I suggested he might not want to admire Putin too much. A man who’s likely responsible for the deaths of close to a million people is hardly setting a shining example of Christian virtue.
As usual, this was a reminder that being a vatnik isn’t about nationality. It’s a mindset.
When it comes time to write the history of what happened yesterday, it will be understood that Trump wriggled out of providing Ukraine any help defending itself against Russian ballistic missile now--and in its place substitued a vague pledge of possible support in years.
I love the idea that Team Platner thinks they can simply dictate his replacement, despite the Maine Dem Party telling them “no.” It’s almost like they struggle grasping how consent works.
If Ukraine gets a license to start the process of building Patriot missiles, but gets no extra deliveries from the USA until they can build their own, it’s a big win for Putin. It means many years with no new Patriots for Ukraine.