The very concept of "allies" carries no more meaning in relation to the Trump administration.
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
7158 readers
721 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Are Asia-Pacific allies next?
I would guess not. The Project 2025 stuff is full of material concerned about China. I don't think that the US is backing out of the Pacific at all. I'd expect the opposite.
Honestly, the "Pivot to Asia" has been kind of getting talked about since...what, at least Obama? But then there's always been something happening since then, most notably Russia hitting Ukraine. Some degree of realignment was inevitably going to happen, even if not as abruptly or impolitely as with Trump.
kagis
Looks like the phrase was associated with the Obama administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_asia
U.S. President Barack Obama's East Asia Strategy (2009–2017), also known as the Pivot to Asia, represented a significant shift in the foreign policy of the United States since the 2010s. It shifted the country's focus away from the Middle Eastern and European sphere and allowed it to invest heavily and build relationships in East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, especially countries which are in close proximity to the People's Republic of China (PRC) either economically, geographically or politically to counter its rise as a rival potential superpower.[1]
Additional focus was placed on the region with the Obama administration's 2012 "Pivot to East Asia" regional strategy,[2] whose key areas of actions are: "strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights."[3] A report by the Brookings Institution states that reactions to the strategy were mixed, as "different Asian states responded to American rebalancing in different ways."[2]
Since 2017, the United States has readjusted its policy toward China through FOIP, replacing the concept of the "Pivot to Asia" or "Asia-Pacific" with the "Indo-Pacific strategy".[4][5]
I wouldn't be surprised if it was discussed under the Bush administration, though, even if it didn't rise to the level of a formally-named thing.
The US has been trying to pressure the rest of NATO to spend more on defence for a very long time, before Trump came onto the scene. Obviously nobody expected anything this drastic, but it wasn't entirely out of the blue.
The fact that the US has done so much to protect Europe, while having relatively little skin in the game actually surprises me a bit.
So, during the Cold War, the US had some very direct interests in European security. The US did not want Moscow conquering Europe, then exploiting European capability and resources against the US.
That's probably not any kind of a near-term risk in the post-Cold-War era. Even the people who are very concerned about Russia and feel that it could do very real harm in Europe don't see Russia overrunning all of Europe in the near future. Too big for Russia's mouth to take in one bite.
And Europe has a lot of potential, much larger economy than does Russia. I remember seeing a statistic somewhere that today, Russia is spending more on defense than all of Europe.
kagis
Russia overtakes all of Europe on defense spending in key metric: IISS military balance
The spending figures included in the think tank’s newly published Military Balance report also show that in real-terms, Russia’s military expenditure increased by over 40 percent in 2024.
But...Europe's still got that much larger economy. So even if Europe is not ready and may not want to spend more on defense, it can if it has the political will to do so, and one can probably assume that Europe would, if push came to shove, spend more rather than simply watching as Russia slowly clomped across Europe.
But...I'm not sure that I'd say that the US doesn't have some substantial interests in Atlanticism. For one, China is going to be trying to expand its influence and control in the world. China may not primarily be trying to expand its influence through hard power, even though it is certainly building out its military and power projection capabilities. It may aim to use economic and political pressures. Europe's a more-important player there. It does have economic clout comparable to the US.
One of the points I've brought up before is that one of the critical capabilities feeding into both economic and probably military capabilities in the US-China situation is chipmaking. The US government paid to bring extreme ultraviolet lithography to the prototype phase...but then they dropped it. It was the Dutch who took it from there to a commercial state. The US is going to care a lot about China not having access to that technology, and the US continuing to have access to it.
When the US was pushing hard to get people not to use Huawei 5G infrastructure, they were promoting Sweden's Ericsson or Finland's Nokia. I don't know how the situation has developed subsequent to that, but the reason they were doing so was because the US doesn't have a domestic company that fills that role -- we had the Senate talking about buying one of those two companies if Europe wasn't willing to support them, because it was a strategic weakness the US had vis-a-vis China.
There are probably a bunch of others, but those are specific technologies that come to my mind.
Point is, there are capabilities that Europe has that the US does care about as regards China and wants onside. I think that it's probably true that the US is inevitably going to focus more on China over time, and less on happenings in Europe's neighborhood than in the past. But I'm skeptical that it's in US interests to outright end Atlanticism. And one of the things that the US can bring to the table that does have value to Europe is a considerable amount of hard power.