Syria in 2017 (April-December)

[Azor]

You really do not see that if the US wants and or needs allies for anything that they cannot themselves can handle creditability [sic] is critical...while Trump AND notice again it is NATO debating more troops to AFG while Trump dallies around on what he wants to do...

You seem to not notice what Merkel is indicating what counts against the NATO defense spending 2%...foreign aid, humanitarian aid and the number of African mission sets that both Germany, European members of NATO have been providing WHEN the US has largely not participated in that assistance.

Check the aid amounts vs GDP of both Germany and US....

And check her statement from yesterday....EU..has the largest market, the large economy and the largest amount of troops....on the ground in Europe and the US has to send troops over because they pulled out of remaining in Europe....

THEN track the amount of NATO SOF that has been rotating in and out of Iraq, AFG and now Syria...they have as much combat times as does US SOF units....AND that does not count towards the 2% under the new Trump rules....

BTW...want to take bets on a Trump impreachment....right now running 90 to 10% that he does not remain past one year..even the UK betting offices do not give him a chance either....

zor...and Europe needs to follow this Trump WH??...really you must admit creditability means everything in FP????

This is the actual White House statement following NK missile test. See 2nd line. HAS White House now entered the state of permanent self-parody?

BTW...Russian MoD statement...not a problem as it impacted 500kms from Russian borders....

BUT WAIT...all those Trump aggressive tweets along with TLAMs and one MOAB and this statement is all we get...come on Azor Trump can do better than that??
Attached Images

Azor...this is what I mean...Trump simply has no creditability

Trump relying on charisma to bridge old divides on first foreign trip

The White House is seeking to recast the US president as a world statesman, but critics say his confidence in his own persuasive powers is simply delusional.

Firstly, the issue is the level of contribution to collective defense not international peacekeeping. European contributions to UN missions in Africa and aid have not made Europe more secure, given that millions of Africans still seek work and welfare in Europe. Indeed, the 2011 intervention in Libya had more of an impact on European security than Europe’s other efforts in Africa have. The only NATO members where humanitarian or foreign aid plus defense spending reaches the 2% of GDP target are Denmark and Norway, not France or Germany. As for Denmark and Norway, helping out in Africa won't make a difference if they clash with Russia in the Arctic. If that scenario occurs, it will be the U.S. and Royal Navies that get there first. Oslo is more interested in investing its oil profits in micro-finance and green energy than on defense or - heaven forbid - returning the taxpayers' money to the taxpayers.

It could very well be argued that Europe can afford the luxury of humanitarian dabbling in Africa precisely because of U.S. conventional and nuclear protection. For instance, Canada emerged from World War II with a very large and capable military by default, and leveraged this new power into a peacekeeping role. Yet Canada hollowed out its military throughout the Cold War to the point that it was incapable of deploying even token forces on peacekeeping missions during much of the 1990s, and now its global “role” exists primarily in the minds of Canadians.

Secondly, Merkel is undoubtedly the worst German postwar leader, whose policies have threatened the stability of Germany and the European integration process. Despite her apparent knowledge of Russia and Putin, she did nothing to prepare for a harsh Russian response to the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, when the EU’s “soft power” was met with Russian hard power. Germany is the paymaster of the EU and so Merkel could not have been unaware of developments in Ukraine prior to late 2013; her government also took a keen interest in the fate of Timoshenko and other opponents of Yanukovych. Yet there was no grand strategy, which would have factored in energy sources as much as defense spending, and as usual it is the responsibility of the United States to ensure that Russia does not start gnawing on NATO’s borders. Unfortunately, despite being a permanent fixture in the Chancellory and an Albatross in German politics, Merkel is a mere caretaker whose reactive policies are more impulsive and naïve than her current counterpart in the White House.

Thirdly, Afghanistan will remain an open sore permanently, because true Pashtun self-determination is an existential threat to Pakistan, because Pakistan’s antidote to Pashtun nationalism is Islamist Pashtunwali, and because Pashtunistan is a haven for narcotics and terrorism. Hopefully Trump will retreat to the northern areas of Afghanistan and use special forces and UCAVs to police the south.

Lastly, if European NATO was so capable, why couldn't it:

• Handle Qaddafi on its own?
• Handle intervention against Al Qaeda and Daesh on its own?
• Surge forces to the Baltics and Poland on its own?

You as well as anyone should know that the on-paper strength is only the beginning of the story. European capabilities have atrophied and readiness levels are poor; in Germany, they are worse than during the scandalous 1970s. They've enjoyed the "peace dividend" and now Russia is on the move yet again. What'll it be? Thus far, it seems to be a combination of Munich and the Phoney War...