arealdeadone | 16 Dec 2020 7:37 p.m. PST |
Once very stable the Black Sea has become a critical hot zone over the last couple of decades with several hot wars in the region (Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia). And NATO's most powerful country in the region, Turkey has started to rapidly drift from the alliance, which must have Romania and Bulgaria worried (as well as Greece on the other side of the Dardanelles) Limitations on NATO deployments Due to the Montreaux Convention, NATO is limited what ships it can deploy to the region. Even during the Cold War, the Turks stuck to the Montreux Convention and limited access to the Black Sea to its allies. Montreux limits non-Black Sea states to deploy ships to a total of maximum of 15,000 tons in total through the Strait. Given an Arleigh Burke weighs 9500 tons, that limits the US deployment to 1 destroyer and a support ship. Aircraft carriers are excluded regardless of tonnage. Russian Navy Black Sea Fleet is being rapidly modernised It currently has: 1 cruiser 5 frigates (including 3 new Admiral Grigorovich delivered in 2016-17). 7 Kilo class subs (6 are new build Improved Kilos delivered in the last 6 years) 13 corvettes (including 4 brand new Buyan M) 5 fast attack craft 3 brand new Project 22160 patrol boats with modular weapon packs All modern ships pack land attack cruise missile and/or modern anti shipping missiles. Air defence and coastal defences have been upgraded to include latest S400 SAMs and K-300P Bastion-P anti-ship missiles. There has been delivery of new combat aircraft to the region including 120 modernised Su-27, Su-30 and Su-34 Flanker derivatives as well as modernisation of existing Su-24 and Su-25s (another 120 aircraft). Note Russians can reinforce Black Sea with other units. Harder for the navy but easy for air and air defence units. Turkish Navy – main NATO force Turkish Navy is quite potent though it's primary focus is on Aegean Sea. It's also starting to get very old with average ships dating from 1980s and a sizeable chunk from the 1970s! 12 submarines (older models, 6 from 1970s/early 1980s to be replaced by modern type 214s over next decade). 16 frigates (mainly older models – 12 date to 1980s and other 4 from the 1990s) 10 corvettes (including 4 new ones, though 6 old ones date to 1970s) 19 fast attack craft (these are all old, including some that are over 40 years old).
Air force is nominally 280 F-16C/D (237 left in service) & F-4E Phantoms (43 in service), though both sanctions and purges have gutted combat capability.
NATO itself has expanded its membership to include Bulgaria and Romania.
These two countries are defence liabilities. Both have navies and air forces which offer virtually no capability Romanian Navy 2 x Type 22 frigates (missile armament never acquired so these are effectively large patrol boats) 1 x Marasesti frigate – this ship was obsolete when it was commissioned in 1992 and had poor seakeeping performance. Despite its large size it has no modern air defences (relies purely on AA guns). It also doesn't have a centralised combat system.
As can be seen above Romania's frigate force has no combat value. 7 x corvette (ageing and all were obsolete by 1990. 4 of these lack even basic air defence capability). 3 x torpedo boat from 1970s. A single Kilo class submarine exists but hasn't been operational since 1995 but it kept on the books. Air support is provided by 17 F-16AM/BM and 30+ MiG-21MFs which will serve into the 2020s pending acquisition of more obsolete second hand F-16s. They are planning to replace the corvettes and possibly Marasesti frigate with 4 new corvettes. Land based anti shipping defence was provided by batteries of ancient P15/20 Termits which were obsolete by 1975. At least these might be replaced by modern NSMs. At least air defences are being upgraded with acquisition of Patriots and US deployment of THAAD. Bulgarian Navy 4 x Frigates though only 3 are operational and one is currently a spares hulk. All 4 ships date from 1970s. This includes 3 ex-Beligan Wielingen frigates and 1 Soviet Koni-class. Unlike the Romanians the Bulgarian frigates at least have air defence missiles (ageing RIM-7 Sea Sparrow) and slightly more modern anti ship missiles (Exocet v Romanian P15/20). 3 x ancient corvette. Submarine fleet was disposed off in 2011. Bulgaria's naval plans include acquisition of 2 multirole corvettes. Air support is 15 MiG-29S (6-8 "operational" with pilots occasionally refusing to fly them) and 14 Su-25s (only 8 to be retained in flying condition).
They've ordered 8 F-16C/D Block 70s and hope to order another 8 to have a squadron of 16. Russia uses large amounts of sea mines. Bulgaria has at least invested in acquiring 3 slightly more modern Tripatite minesweepers though rest of fleet is antiquated from the early 1980s based on 1960s designs!). Romania's minesweepers are old indigenous designs with many design flaws (eg steel hulls) and poor sensors.
NATO positions more precarious
Whilst Turkey's navy and air force are a match or at least a deterrent to the the Russians, Turkey is also increasingly drifting from NATO and EU and is actively pursuing a hostile relationship with NATO partners France, Greece and even Germany. Even if Turkey goes back to NATO, both its air and naval forces require massive investment to maintain any kind of parity. Indeed much of the Turkish Navy is 30-40 years old whereas an increasing chunk of the Russian fleet is new. So if Turkey falls out of NATO, NATO is left to defend extremely weak Bulgaria and Romania and with very little hope of providing naval support to them. Bulgarian and Romanian naval and air development plans are minimal and both are expected to see hull and aircraft numbers decline even more in the future. Their air forces are insufficient to even maintain air policing missions today let alone deter against actual hostile aggression. Russia's takeover of Crimea has also given them a dominating position in the Black Sea.
As such I think developments in the Black Sea will be more critical to NATO and Russian relations than the "frozen conflict" over the Baltics. |
repaint | 16 Dec 2020 8:01 p.m. PST |
Why the obsession as seeing Russia as a threat? Currently, the bad boy with an attitude is actually a NATO member… (Turkey not to name it, although one could argue that Turkey is simply strengthening its interests) |
arealdeadone | 16 Dec 2020 8:37 p.m. PST |
Why the obsession as seeing Russia as a threat? Cause NATO regards it as it's primary threat. Plain and simple. Yes I did mention Turkey. If (and most likely when) Turkey leaves NATO, NATO's Black Sea coast is extremely vulnerable and compromised. And multiple current situations in the region means there will most likely be more big blow ups between all major players in the Black Sea as well as the Aegean.
Difference though is Greek Navy/Air Force is large and able to defend itself against Turkish aggression and NATO can easily reinforce Aegean Sea (and indeed US already has a naval presence in Souda Bay on Crete). |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 16 Dec 2020 8:47 p.m. PST |
Both have navies and air forces which offer virtually no capability Romania and Bulgaria are both Black Sea powers. They could buy ships from USA and the UK, which would of course provide substantial training crews. I'm sure very favorable terms could be worked out. |
arealdeadone | 16 Dec 2020 9:29 p.m. PST |
Oberlindes Sol LIC, Of course. This issue is both countries are unwilling to fund major naval or air force recapitalisation. Stated plans are: Romania – Acquisition of 4 multirole corvettes – contract is constantly reported as "being ready to sign" yet various bureaucratic and legal issues keep delaying it. - Acquisition of land based Naval Strike Missiles – no contract signed as yet - Acquisition of 17 1980s vintage F-16AM/BM from Portugal – 16 delivered. - Acquisition of 36 additional second hand F-16s between now and 2030 – no progress as yet. - Acquisition of 3 submarines built in Romania – no progress, seems to have been a mere discussion point. – Some sort of undisclosed upgrade of 2 Type 22s – no progress. Tied in with corvette upgrade. Romania has no plans to upgrade minesweeper fleet despite NATO requiring member states to be able to keep their harbours and approaches clear of mines. (Croatia, Montenegro, Albania Portugal can't do this either). Bulgaria – Acquisition of 2 "multi role patrol ships" signed. (Original plan was for 6 but this was curtailed). To be delivered 2025 and 2026. Fit out not known but these will probably be up to 1500 tons and if full weapons/sensor suite is acquired have anti ship and anti submarine capability. - Acquisition of 16 F-16s – order for 8 plus limited arms package signed – delivery 2023-24. Weapons package is so limited it's not possible to arm all 8 jets. - Acquisition of 2 Tripartite minesweepers from Netherlands (increase fleet to 3) – completed. These are 1980s vintage ships but are better than the ancient Soviet junk currently used.
The other issue you mention is made problematic by the fact that USA and UK are lacking in suitable ships. Britain is down to 19 warships (and 5 of those are to be replaced by a large OPV).
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the increasingly ancient Type 23s are sold. These won't solve much and only provide a limited lifespan as each of the ships will be over 30 years old upon retirement and many of their systems are obsolete. USA does not have types of ships suitable for a small power like Bulgaria or Romania – an Arleigh Burke is a US$2 billion, 9500 ton piece of equipment. The Oliver Hazard Perry's are gone – either sold/donated to smaller navies or scrapped or sunk in live fire exercises. Merely reflagging a ship won't cut it. The Turks know how this works. |
repaint | 16 Dec 2020 10:06 p.m. PST |
Cause NATO regards it as it's primary threat. Plain and simple. That's a bit the issue here arealdealdone. NATO is more and more a mixed bag of different interests that use the Russia's "threat" as a line in the sand. More and more countries are seeing NATO as a US arm industry scheme to sell US military equipment/ Neo liberal ideology (and defend markets for US products). Not sure it has anything to do anymore with what people want and support in their respective country, including the United States actually. Selling threats has always been a simple way to justify political and economic agendas. The arm industry loves NATO. From a geopolitical perspective, Russia has a lot to benefit from an alliance with the big countries in EU. NATO will work hard at preventing this, in the name of (and for) Freedom naturally… |
arealdeadone | 16 Dec 2020 11:00 p.m. PST |
The arm industry loves NATO. Probably not that much given NATO has resulted in so many countries effectively disarming. No point maintaining a fully functional military if you're neighbours are all friendly! Selling 8-16 F-16s to Bulgaria is not like the old days of selling 200 MiG-23/25/29 /Sukhoi Su-22/25 plus 40-50 Mi-25 Hinds + dozens of air defence systems to the same country. Same applies to western states – Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway brought 515 new build F-16s between them. They are buying a grand total of 160 F-35s between them to replace the F-16s which is the total number of F-16s Belgium originally acquired (and not to mention that end of Cold War curtailed procurement of additional F-16s). Total number of new build tanks sold to all of NATO Europe in the last 20 years is measly 263: - 219 Leopard 2Es sold to Spain and delivered 2003-08. - 44 recently sold to Hungary with delivery in the future
Rest was sale of surplus German/Dutch Leopard 2s and usually without any upgrade programs (so they serve in 2A4 format which has been found to be very vulnerable in combat in Syria). This is common throughout NATO. |
repaint | 16 Dec 2020 11:31 p.m. PST |
I am sure that every bit helps :) Here is a chart on US arm export sales across the world, not sure what the stat is really worth but I took it as an example. link roughly 10,000,000,000 USD yearly in constant dollars plus obviously domestic sales for the US forces. All this to say that we might take with a grain a salt all the coverage on NATO and Russia. Geopolitical problems do exist but ultra capitalism (economic interests) is also a part of the equation we should remember. As suggested, preventing Russia from getting closer to EU is part of the game, not necessarily a response to an actual threat. That's what we learned playing geostrategic games :) |
raylev3 | 17 Dec 2020 5:50 p.m. PST |
Repaint…not so sure that the Baltic nations, the Ukraine, and Georgia would agree that Russia isn't a threat. Your bizarre rationalization making the NATO the threat goes against Russia's recent actions in the Ukraine and Georgia, not to mention their serious cyber attack against massive Russian cyber attack on Estonia. NATO has NOT invaded its neighbors like Russia has…bottom line. And for all practical purposes, the western European nations of NATO have disarmed…your Russian propaganda based argument doesn't hold water. |
repaint | 17 Dec 2020 7:06 p.m. PST |
bizarre? I am not defending Russia, simply stating that it is not as clear cut as the good NATO and the mean Russia. There are a great deal of underlying interests that wave in front of us the flag of the threat. More a convenient reason for lobbies than a reality that needs to be re-assessed. NATO should be disbanded and EU should take responsibility for itself and very possibly re-arm. That'd be in my eyes a more rational economic and political proposition for EU. |
raylev3 | 17 Dec 2020 8:28 p.m. PST |
Nope…you're still ignoring the Russian threat against it's neighbors. And only Russia benefits from disbanding NATO. |
arealdeadone | 17 Dec 2020 8:39 p.m. PST |
bizarre rationalization making the NATO the threat goes against Russia's recent actions in the Ukraine and Georgia Actually Russia's actions in Ukraine and Georgia are direct responses to moves by NATO and EU supporting these countries to start membership processes. Russia would not have started stuff in Ukraine if there hadn't been a shift towards seeking NATO and EU membership. NATO itself supported infinite expansion eastward – in 2008 NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that Georgia and Ukraine would become NATO members.
Both those countries joining NATO would destroy Russian access to Black Sea (literally Russia would be shunted to the north eastern corner). I suspect Russia will sooner start WWIII than allow that to happen. And what was the plan if Ukraine and Georgia did become NATO members? Does NATO absorb Armenia or Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan or Belarus (already in EU sights)? Indeed NATO's webpage even openly mentions influence operations to shift Belarus' alignment: link NATO also seeks to contribute to the development of Belarusian civil society. This takes place primarily through public diplomacy activities. That's the equivalent of the Warsaw Pact conducting similar missions in Canada or Mexico. Result if Belarus gets closer to NATO or joins it: 1. Russia's access to Baltic Sea compromised. 2. Russia's Kaliningrad enclave becomes even more isolated. 3. Moscow ends up within range of short range NATO fighter bombers from a south western direction (680-ish kilometres from Belarus border to Moscow). Moscow is already within range of NATO short range aircraft from Latvia (625 km). Basically Belarus in NATO makes it difficult to defend Moscow and key industrial areas. 4. Russian defence forces spread thinner coupled with loss of strategic depth. ---- NATO* and USA never abandoned the containment strategy they adopted 70 years ago. Every US action against Russia since 1991 points to this ongoing containment strategy being pursued.
*NATO as in the organisation, not all its members. France for example was opposed to Ukraine and Georgia entering NATO.
NATO has NOT invaded its neighbors like Russia has…bottom line. NATO did destroy Libya on a whim though. It violated Serbian sovereignty and established a pseudo-state that not even all NATO members recognise let alone the UN! |
arealdeadone | 17 Dec 2020 8:52 p.m. PST |
And only Russia benefits from disbanding NATO. Not if it's replaced by a properly funded and equipped EU force as repaint suggested. And such a force would be far less obsessed with destroying Russia than NATO for whom it is the only reason it exists. An independent EU force would: a.) Restore European control of their own defence. b.) Allow Americans to draw down units that guard disarmed countries. c.) Potentially calm Russia down especially if it doesn't have an expansionist belt and is limited to Europe only. |
repaint | 17 Dec 2020 9:12 p.m. PST |
Many good points Alreadydonedeals. Raylev3: And only Russia benefits from disbanding NATO. No. Europe as whole will regain more autonomy economically. It is a very long topic but NATO is also a strong vector for US based financial interests. Partnerships between Russia and European countries are not necessarily a stupid thing. Unless you depict Russia again and again as an ogre. Russia has strategic interests that may or may not meet other countries' interests, but limiting the view as a threat conveniently closes doors. At the moment, the world that is being defended in the name of the "Free world" is not necessarily the same that used to be 50 years ago. Challenging NATO, EU dependance, US involvement with benefits would not be the most unhealthy things to do IMHO. Does Europe need NATO in its current form? Whose interests does NATO serve? (let's make a very clear and transparent lists of all the players involved) Does US need to be in Europe? Does Europe need to shun Russia? Germany/Russia energy agreements, anyone? Who has most to lose to a warming up of the relations between EU and Russia? These are real politic questions that one can ask, then we can see all the facets, and support or challenge a decision. It won't get us far, of course, but at least, we will not be blindly accepting the narrative. |
arealdeadone | 17 Dec 2020 9:23 p.m. PST |
Who has most to lose to a warming up of the relations between EU and Russia? Members of the US political and military elite who haven't had an original thought their whole careers and the last book they read about the European defence situation was published in 1953 with a personal endorsement by Senator Joe McCarthy? US has a big benefit – it can withdraw troops that pointlessly guard European countries and divert its attention to China.
Bringing Russia ever so closer to EU could also hinder Chinese plans – remember PRC and USSR actually fought a war against each other in 1969. |
Choctaw | 18 Dec 2020 10:57 a.m. PST |
Texas has a $400 USD billion larger economy than Russia. Plus we have a battleship, the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders and tacos. Fear us, y'all. |
Legion 4 | 18 Dec 2020 3:42 p.m. PST |
Yes both CA and TX are in the top ten world economies … And they are only state. Don't think Russia is in the top 10 ? 🤔 Someone correct if I'm wrong. For the record the USA is the #1 World economy with the PRC #2 … Just say'n … military elite who haven't had an original thought their whole careers You know that for a fact … do you or anyone else knows that is an accurate statement? The US has World Class Military Academies. And some very, very, good officers come from the ROTC programs, e.g. Colin Powell for one. Note: I'm an ROTC Grad[I've mentioned it enough to not confuse those who may have thought I was a West Pointer!] … But I don't put myself on that list with officers like Powell, etc., obviously ! |
raylev3 | 18 Dec 2020 6:17 p.m. PST |
Unless you depict Russia again and again as an ogre. Not an ogre but a threat to Europe and the US. As I've mentioned, the recent invasions of Georgia and the Ukraine, the massive cyber attack on Estonia, and the current cyber attack against the US. For some reason Russian apologists don't address the Russian threat. When Russia stops threatening/attacking its neighbors then we can make an argument to dismantle a treaty that has protected Europe. And I agree that Ukraine and Georgia should not be allowed to join NATO. And although the Ukraine and Georgia wanted to get into NATO, it didn't happen, and won't happen. Remember it takes 100 percent of NATO members to add another member…it only takes one "no" to prevent a country from joining. But a NATO threat can justify a Russian apologist's argument that it's ok to invade a neighbor. |
raylev3 | 18 Dec 2020 6:27 p.m. PST |
Members of the US political and military elite who haven't had an original thought their whole careers and the last book they read about the European defence situation was published in 1953 with a personal endorsement by Senator Joe McCarthy? LOL…obviously you're not as well read on political and military thought as you want us to believe. There has been a lot of open debate by members of the US military on many key issues. Unless you think the only original thought you accept is dismantling NATO and making Europe rely even more on a state that threatens the west. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 19 Dec 2020 12:34 a.m. PST |
So are you changing the position you espoused in your earlier post linked below and now support increased NATO presence to counter the Russian Black Sea Fleet, arealdeadone? TMP link |
Legion 4 | 19 Dec 2020 10:24 a.m. PST |
LOL…obviously you're not as well read on political and military thought as you want us to believe. There has been a lot of open debate by members of the US military on many key issues. Bingo ! raylev3 +10 IIRC raylev3 was a US ARMY Infantry or Tank Officer[with a higher rank than me]. I take his word as very credible. Not just some things read about on the net, etc. That is one reason I like to know who the Vets are. They/we have training, skills and experiences that make our POVs have a little more veracity, etc., on many topics, IMO … |
Striker | 19 Dec 2020 11:29 a.m. PST |
When Russia stops threatening/attacking its neighbors then we can make an argument to dismantle a treaty that has protected Europe. Unless the US is going to go to war for Ukraine or any other neighboring country it's all just blowing smoke. Heard a Brit defense guy a couple of years ago on a Kings College podcast talking about Georgia, the gist was that the west just needs to ask Russia what it wants and deal, nobody (US, NATO) was going to fight over it so just stop the blustering and get a deal done. |
repaint | 19 Dec 2020 3:40 p.m. PST |
LOL…obviously you're not as well read on political and military thought as you want us to believe. There has been a lot of open debate by members of the US military on many key issues.
hmm, the military is well known for challenging decision makers… We all know that wearing an uniform is the top immunity to manipulation,… and, basics (among other things) makes sure we develop a quality independent thinking. That's the purpose of the culture… The problem is that leadership makes us pay war in so much effort, blood and sweat,that we like to believe we are doing it for the right reason. But then, it becomes extremely difficult to think against our own culture and ingrained values, put on the table different painful aspects besides the limited point counterpoints. Nobody is defending Russia in particular but considering it on the angle of a strategic partner is clearly too much of a paradigm change in regard of the narrative. If Russia remains isolated they will turn to whoever they can partner with. Is Europe (economically) strong enough to go alone? There you have the current players: India, China, USA, Russia, Europe, and probably a few others. How do you assemble alliances, to what effect, why? US, compared to EU, has a disproportionate share in NATO. Who is benefiting from NATO? Is US taxpayer money correctly spent, who for, what for? Understanding the full pictures goes a long way than solely restricting the focus on Russia as a threat. "Yes but Russia this or that, you commie apologists.." That's very short and limited. In my view, it is not a debate about Russia but the games of alliances, NATO (and the lobbies behind it). That's the point I have been raising, I believe. |
arealdeadone | 20 Dec 2020 6:10 a.m. PST |
Fanatik, no change in my thoughts. Merely armchair analysis on the situation. I am actially pro-Russian when it comes to NATO eastward expansion- NATO actually dilutes its power each time it asorbs one of these weak eastern European states. Impoverished unstable states in Caucasus are an even bigger liability. Raylev, your generals are stuck in the past. They still want to figjt their poontless forever wars and they still want to contain Russia. They stoll think Saudi Arabia are the good guys.
As for invasions, you Americans invaded Iraq, destroyed Libya, got involved in Syria allowed KSA to invade Yemen all for reasons far less cfritical to your national defence than the Russians. Actually Libya was destroyed simply to help two embattled European leaders in France and Britain try to regain some popularity. American foreign policy appears to be on autopilot – as stated not one original thought since Clinton got involved in Somalia nearly 30 years ago. It is why we in Asia and especially here in Australia no longer regard you as a necesarrily reliable ally or guarantor of the peace. |
Legion 4 | 20 Dec 2020 10:01 a.m. PST |
the gist was that the west just needs to ask Russia what it wants and deal, nobody (US, NATO) was going to fight over it so just stop the blustering and get a deal done. I'm pretty sure that may have gone on behind the curtain ? But regardless a deal with Putin may be something the US does not want to invest in ? I'm just making a SWAG … I'm not privy to any classified information, etc., anymore … hmm, the military is well known for challenging decision makers… Very much so, e.g. Patraus and McChrystal[and Obama canned him], etc., … Raylev, your generals are stuck in the past. They still want to figjt their poontless forever wars and they still want to contain Russia. They stoll think Saudi Arabia are the good guys. Generally disagree … especially if most information is from the biased media. But again we have no idea what is going on behind the curtains. Of course one can always hope the Saudis and Iran fight a non-nuclear war of attrition. |
Striker | 20 Dec 2020 10:10 a.m. PST |
I'm pretty sure that may have gone on behind the curtain? It probably did but the public statements and constant "beware of Russia" statements for public consumption can't help any dealings with them. I'm not in the business but I can't see why a Russian boogeyman wouldn't beef up defense spending, maintain the (not very relevant) status quo, and let pols act "tough on enemies". From the little reading I do on it, US generals seem to be all in for getting in the face of Russia's policies, yet mums-the-word on China. Based on past foreign incursions I doubt we are up to speed on all the ways Balkan/Black Sea meddling can go wrong, best to just stay out. A Soviet Black Sea fleet! I wonder how that could be bottled up very easily? |
Legion 4 | 20 Dec 2020 10:18 a.m. PST |
I'm going with it's all Classified … And hopefully nobody save for jihadis want a shoot'n war … |
raylev3 | 20 Dec 2020 12:08 p.m. PST |
Several of you don't understand how the civ-mil relationship in the US works. The civilian leadership sets foreign policy, not the military. The military may have opinions, but they don't make the decision. If the US thinks Saudi Arabia is our friend, that's because the civilian leadership has decided that….it's then the military's job to support that decision. (The last thing you want is a politicized military.) As for whether or not Saudi Arabia is our friend, I think what you're dealing with is a situation where the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Iran has been vehemently anti-US since 1979, AND they're a threat to the Sunni nations in the region. The reasons for all of this are outside this discussion, and WAAAAY complicated, but, again, my point is the political leadership decides policy…just as in Australia. |
Legion 4 | 20 Dec 2020 12:23 p.m. PST |
Yes, in the USA the military works for the elected or appointed leadership. They can recommend, etc., but, in the end if it is a legal lawful order, we took an oath to follow it. |
arealdeadone | 20 Dec 2020 3:18 p.m. PST |
raylev, yes we know how the military-civilian relationship works. Hence my first comment mentioned "Members of the US political and military elite. " The whole US foreign policy establishment has been in a state of inertia since Clinton. The only policies that were not in line with the Clinton-era (and in some cases Truman or Eisenhower) are: 1. Obama's nuclear deal with Iran (since revoked and returned back to the 1980 stance). 2. Obama easing up on Cuba . Has since been revoked and US has reverted to 1960 stance (a great example of how spite and nostalgia driven US foreign policy is regardless of any concept of rationality). 3. Trump's withdrawal from Trans Pacific Partnership (which Hillary Clinton also adopted). Many analysts believe this will be revoked by Biden and US will go back to 1980s Reagan era on economics – neoliberalism.
4. Trump's reversal on stance with China. Again Biden has again promised to ratchet down the rhetoric and the actions. I suspect US will probably try to go back to pre-2017 stance on China over time.
Note Trump and Obama both failed to withdraw troops from the forever wars – there was opposition from Congress and the military alike. The end result of this inertia is stagnation and decay. What worked in 1993 will not work in 2021 especially when other parties have clawed their way up.
The US remind me of Byzantium – still powerful yet completely in denial this power is being eroded. |
Legion 4 | 21 Dec 2020 10:22 a.m. PST |
Frankly I don't see anything much different ahead in the next 4 years. As IMO it will mirror what happened for 8 years before the current US leadership. Save for continuing to with draw down many troops from place like Iraq, A'stan, etc. They are all "broke" beyond anything we can do. Along with Somali, all failed or failing countries. Albeit with all the Chinese spies, etc., in the USA and strong ties to some politicos, etc. They, the CCP, may be closer to world domination than ever … without firing a shot … Maybe the pen will be mightier than the sword ? Just write a check, transfer funds, etc. No blood shed save for a possible paper cut … |