From: slider@anashram.com   
      
   The potential for the United States to relinquish its long-standing role   
   as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) would represent a   
   seismic shift in the alliance’s structure, but such a move remains   
   unlikely in the short term, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman told MPs this   
   week.   
      
   Speaking before the Defence Committee on 1 April, Freedman was asked about   
   reports—most notably from NBC—that the Trump administration had considered   
   removing the US from the SACEUR role or combining it with US Africa   
   Command.   
      
   “It would be a tremendous shift for the Americans to hand over command,”   
   Freedman said, cautioning that “we have some way to go before we are   
   there.”   
      
   While acknowledging growing internal pressure within the Pentagon to hand   
   over more responsibilities to European allies, he stressed that such a   
   change would face stiff institutional resistance.   
      
   https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/us-relinquishing-nato-command-no   
   -imminent-not-unthinkable/   
      
   “You’ll see tremendous pushback in the Senate and certainly in the army.   
   Armies don’t like giving up command posts,” he noted. “So long as the   
   Americans are involved in European security, they will want what influence   
   they have over it.”   
      
   Still, Freedman acknowledged that any serious cut to US force posture in   
   Europe could eventually make continued American leadership at SACEUR   
   harder to justify. “At some point, if you’re cutting your forces below a   
   certain point, it would be very hard to explain why you’re holding on to   
   the command.”   
      
   Asked directly by Committee Chair Tan Dhesi MP whether the move was   
   imminent, Freedman replied: “I hope it is not imminent.”   
      
   The conversation then turned to whether Europe could, in the event of a   
   diminished US presence, emerge as a “third great power” alongside the US   
   and China. While acknowledging that such a shift would likely bring   
   “short-term pain” for European states, Dhesi asked whether a truly unified   
   and rearmed Europe might reach that status in the coming years.   
      
   Freedman was sceptical: “The Europeans don’t have the unity to think in   
   those terms yet,” he said, noting that “Britain, France, Germany and Spain   
   were the great powers of the past,” but the current political landscape is   
   far more complex.   
      
   While China, he observed, does not mirror the traditional model of a   
   globe-spanning great power, Europe lacks the political coherence required   
   for such a role. “There used to be talk about the EU as a civil power… not   
   so militaristic and so on,” he added.   
      
   Freedman concluded that while European nations may increasingly need to   
   “do more on their own continent,” achieving global great power   
   status—particularly in the military sense—remains distant.   
      
   Freedman is one of Britain’s foremost strategic thinkers and served as   
   Professor of War Studies at King’s College London from 1982 to 2014. He   
   was a key foreign policy adviser to successive UK governments and was   
   appointed to the Iraq Inquiry panel in 2009. Known for his analysis of   
   nuclear strategy, international conflict, and the evolution of military   
   doctrine, his views continue to shape defence debates at the highest level.   
      
   ### - makes sense all this, the US (or nato) are stepping down and europe   
   can fund it's own damn equivalent defense force, even to the point of   
   potentially becoming a 3rd/4th world power if europe can really unite and   
   become say: the federated/united states of europe, far more than just a   
   common market...   
      
   the 'panic' being - even though there's been no sign of it - that russia   
   could suddenly expand its aims to move into OTHER nations and thus the   
   rush to quickly amass a huge-enough force to fill the gap left by the US   
   and to act as a deterrent in it's own right, that europe in that sense is   
   taking-over the support of ukraine in its war with russia...   
      
   the problem being that we talk a lot here about 'peace' and 'ceasefires'   
   and how russia isn't complying, but we're not actually offering russia   
   anything or negotiating a peace settlement as such, out of the blue we   
   just want them to declare a ceasefire for nothing in return, we're   
   demanding it, there is no negotiation...   
      
   So nothing's changed... we can send weapons 'into' ukraine to use but   
   can't directly do anything ourselves from outside ukraine, we can huff &   
   puff from the sidelines and even supply the weapons and support, but we   
   CAN'T intervene directly!   
      
   e.g., the uk has just announced sending 4.5 billion in new weapons to   
   ukraine, presumably the same 4.5 billion they just took away from the   
   disabled for winter fuel payments, and ukraine will quickly use them up   
   and need more, and that's on-top of the funds already pledged (more   
   billions)   
      
   the point being that unless russia 'actually' attacks another nation   
   beyond ukraine, then this could potentially continue-on, as-is, for years!   
   literally!! and all to no avail!!!   
      
   meanwhile, they's now talking cryptically in europe, about how THIS is the   
   CRUCIAL year and the CRUCIAL battle with russia!? (the crucial year? now??   
   not 2 or 3 years later??? so was this a slip?)   
      
   fact remains: unless WE attack russia, russia can just sit there exactly   
   right where it is, for decades, and there's nada we can do about it while   
   all our economies go slowly down the drain, else we seem to be banking an   
   awful lot on russia making some bigger move, this being just like the uk   
   versus germany and the uk saying if you go into poland then we will be   
   at-war and lamenting the fact that we didn't act sooner... in that   
   instance germany did invade poland and it started ww2, but what if russia   
   never DOES go any farther, what then??   
      
   'acting sooner' would have also meant attacking germany and declaring war   
   sooner, a move into poland being a step too far being what it all came   
   down to, exactly the same situation we're now AGAIN in today! (we   
   obviously didn't learn anything from history then!) everyone waiting to   
   see if 'the enemy' takes another step and THEN we'll act, but CAN'T act   
   BEFORE that without setting-off what everyone wants to avoid: an open   
   clash!   
      
   iow: it's a total stalemate situation! russia has played for stalemate and   
   gotten there! (it's actually been a series of stalemates all through,   
   first with ukraine and now europe?) and there's fuck-all we can now do   
   without it being VERY clear that WE'RE attacking them! (we could feed   
   endless supplies INTO ukraine but they haven't got endless manpower to   
   fight with! and we can't send them any troops either!)   
      
   so what's gonna happen given THAT scenario then thang, you tell me?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)