• BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    Russia already has Crimea.

    But if you mean a full withdrawal of the US from Europe, then they would probably take my. US would never agree to it though

    • direwolf@lemmy.mlBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The US would withdrawal fully if it meant the end of the war in Ukraine.

        • direwolf@lemmy.mlBanned from community
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The US has already said it will start withdrawing troops from Europe and Hegseth considers China a bigger threat than Russia.

          • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            You think they’re going to close all 38 of their bases across all of Europe? That would be a big strategic break from full spectrum dominance, which is US policy, and part of the plan to contain the growth of China.

            • direwolf@lemmy.mlBanned from community
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 hours ago

              From https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5292882-pentagon-china-risks-global-instability/

              In late March, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance to the Pentagon. According to the guidance, as quoted by The Washington Post, “China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.” The Pentagon is instructed, per the report, to plan only for contingencies with China.

              Given the trends in the new administration, none of this is surprising, but it is shocking.

              The document is a blueprint for geopolitical malpractice. The guidance’s identification of China as a major security threat, and thus a priority, is appropriate. But the prescribed downgrading of American commitments in Europe and the Middle East is a recipe for global instability, including in Asia. Violent conflagrations will follow.