America is tired of being the world’s protector. We have been warned Fraser Nelson, Telegraph 3 June 2016
The Russians normally don’t care what foreigners watch on the telly, but the Kremlin has taken grave exception to a box set drama from Norway named Occupied. Its premise: Arab civil wars shuts down oil exports and Norwegians elect a Green government to close down North Sea oil as well. Panic ensues, and Russians invade Oslo – not with tanks, but with a cell of masked men in unmarked uniforms who make the Prime Minister an offer he can’t refuse. He accepts “assistance” from Russia, while he pumps out the oil they want. And the European Union? It meekly backs the Kremlin. It’s clear why the real-life Russians are so angry: all this is far too close to the bone. The Scandinavians have been feeling the chill from Moscow for a while now. Vladimir Putin has been testing their defences, sending fighters into their airspace and watching the reaction. He annexed Crimea by soldiers in unmarked uniforms and having a pliable politician ask for Russian help. No wonder the Baltic states are anxious, or that previously-neutral Swedes and Finns are suddenly talking about joining Nato. The Russian bear is on the prowl. "A man who stands a terrifyingly high chance of being the next American president is ready for the quick end of Nato" The Norwegian drama should have been called “a world without America”, because that, really, is what it depicts. Who keeps peace in the Persian Gulf? The Fifth Fleet of the US Navy, at the annual cost of some $50 billion. But when the US achieves energy self-sufficiency, which it will at the end of the next decade thanks to its fracking revolution, it won’t need imports from the Gulf – or anywhere else. So why should Uncle Sam spend so much protecting the Saudis? The main check on Russian expansionism is Nato, a defence alliance which shields Europe under America’s nuclear umbrella. It’s now seen by a growing number of Americans as a scam, abused by freeloading Europeans Such Americans now have a hero, in the form of Donald J Trump. A few weeks ago, he explained his foreign policy – rambling, of course, and contradictory. But it deserves to be taken seriously, given his rising chances of victory (about 2/1, according to the bookmakers). Trump has exhumed a slogan used by Charles Lindbergh and the isolationists of the Thirties: America First. It means using the military when directly threatened, but worrying a lot less if other countries are attacked. And leaving Europeans to fend for themselves if they won’t pay for themselves. The problem, Trump says, is that Nato members have started to “look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honour their agreements with us”. So America should charge them for Nato’s protection, and if they won’t pay, it should leave them to “defend themselves”. To be clear: he doesn’t just want European countries to honour their Nato pledge (spending 2 per cent of economic output on defence). He wants Washington to be reimbursed for the cost of Pax Americana. All of this may be alarming, but it runs with the grain of US public opinion. A recent poll shows that about three in five Americans think the US should “deal with its own problems” and “let others manage as best they can”. Just one in three thinks they have a duty to “help other countries deal with their problems”. And whose problem is an aggressive Moscow? Russia is not, really, a threat to world peace any more; it’s more of a regional threat. And that region is Europe. So why, Trump asks, did America ever end up being dragged into Ukraine to solve a problem on Europe’s doorstep? Where were the once-fearsome Germans? Why don’t they lead? It’s all typical Trump: crude and obnoxious, but, probably, based on a decent point. The US spends 3.6 per cent of its economic output on defence; Germany spends a pitiful 1.2 per cent. And what little Germany does have tends not to work. When Angela Merkel made the grand gesture of sending weapons to Kurdish rebels fighting Isil, her cargo planes couldn’t get off the ground. At the time, the German military confessed that just half of its Transall transport aircraft were fit to fly. Of its 190 helicopters, just 41 were ready to be deployed. Of its 406 Marder tanks, 280 were out of use. Even Barack Obama has been tiring of European uselessness. He recently admitted that he had to threaten to end the “special relationship” with Britain before David Cameron agreed to spend the Nato minimum on defence. Even then, Mr Cameron used smoke and mirrors, counting military pensions and intelligence in the total figure. So at a time when the US stumps up 72 per cent of total Nato spending, the puzzle is not why Americans should be growing fed up with it all. The puzzle is why their patience (and generosity) has endured for so long. If Hillary Clinton is elected, she may end up presenting a friendlier version of the same policy. When she was Secretary of State, she moved America’s gaze from the Atlantic to the Pacific to check the rise of the Chinese navy. Her allies were not afraid to spend on defence: Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and South Korea have all significantly upped their military budgets. Australia recently ordered a dozen French submarines and six squadrons of F-35 stealth fighters from Texas. This looks like a new, functioning alliance based on shared concerns – while Nato is starting to look like a keepsake from another era. All this poses an awkward question for Britain, and Europe: do we let our military run threadbare and hope that Russia behaves? Or do we reinvest in defence at the expense of welfare? It’s an issue that no government wants to address, so we all go on pretending that nothing is happening. The second President Clinton would probably humour us and talk sweetly about special relationships as she builds what she calls “America’s Pacific century”. The first President Trump would be ready to dance on Nato’s grave. Does that all sound too crazy? Trump loves crazy. It’s not clear why, if elected, he would not follow through on what he proposes. He has given clear notice: that he thinks America “can’t afford to protect the world any more” and is looking for excuses to withdraw. So a man who stands a terrifyingly high chance of being the next American __._,_.___ ------------------------------ Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected]> ------------------------------ Visit Your Group <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZGF1Z3BrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjUwMDE0OTM-> [image: Yahoo! Groups] <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZHZyN2RrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NTAwMTQ5Mw--> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> __,_._,___ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
