Consider that NATO relies upon Anglo-American expeditionary forces, even if the British contribution is now hollow. When London, Paris, Rome and Doha were determined to oust Qaddafi, they relied upon diplomatic, logistical, materiel and SEAD/DEAD support from the U.S., which "led from behind" perhaps as a goodwill gesture in the wake of Bush's relations with Europe. In Mali and again in Syria, the French had insufficient lift or ISR capabilities despite their modest forces.Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Quite frankly, many of the names seem to be from the pro-Hillary Clinton "butthurt brigade" that hopes Trump can be impeached, the 2% of GDP on defense requirement quietly shelved, the U.S. commitment to Europe renewed, and the expansion and deepening of the EU continued.
Why anyone would pay attention to utter non-entities like Kendzior, or useful idiots like Mogherini, is beyond me. The Ivans must not be that threatening if everyone still has money for circle jerks like this on NATO's "frontline" but not enough money to properly man that frontline.
You want to talk about the tail wagging the dog: well here you have it. The Europeans would rather pontificate than take action, and the election of Trump has provided a convenient excuse for them to bloviate. At least Warsaw is clamming up and holding onto its tanks...
Bookmarks