Your reddit embeds didn't work my dude.No they hadn't. They temporarily stopped offensive, not defensive intel sharing. They won't let you put a bullseye on a T-80 BVM tank in a hull down position for F-16s, but will let you know where to destroy Shahed drones that are coming to Ukrainian cities.
The US military is not an unlimited resource, I would rather they deter this....
Type 004 aircraft carrier - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Then this.
Plus Europe minus the UK is too far away from Taiwan for it to matter to them geographically. Their navies (again minus the UK and possibly France) is too underequipped to deal with the PLAN.
Can Europe Fight for Taiwan? - War on the Rocks
Should a war erupt with China over Taiwan, many observers seem to think that Europe would be largely irrelevant as far as the actual fighting iswarontherocks.com
Ukraine
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
The role the US has in NATO against Russia is :
- nuclear umbrella (yes, there are two other nuclear powers in NATO but both have small stockpiles amd one relies on US tech)
- air force (no other NATO army relies so heavily on air superiority in its doctrine and has the planes to back it up.)
- intelligence (no other NATO country has that huge a spy network, sattelites and intelligence sharing)
Only after that comes the army. The European armies are big enough and even better equipped with artillery and tanks. It is more an issue to get everyone to work together if whatever is not a common NATO mission (which thus must include the US ) and ground forces need to be backed up by air forces (which is hard to provide without the US). The NATO command structure has also a lot of US personnal embedded, making it a pita to work without.
The branches of the US military NATO would need the least against Russia is the US Navy and the US Marines. NATO has so many other navies and controlls nearly all the relevant ports. Europe alone could easily blockade Kaliningrad and St.Petersburg, Turkey could easily control the Bosporus and then then it is over for the Russian navy.
But the main NATO problem is that if the US stops providing reliable backing, what will the other nations do ? Whithout the US they can't counter Russian nukes and if the strongest country is allowed to renege on the allience, others (who are far away from the action or particularly scared by the nukes or currently have a Russian friendly gouvernment) might back out as well.
The US always made sure it retains the leadership position in NATO (and sabotaged common European defense initiatives). By withdrawing during a crisis the NATO therefore becomes leaderless. And i probably don't have to explain you how this is an issue.
Last edited:
There's one real piece of positive evidence there: two unnamed defence officials telling CNN that the US is still sharing defensive intel.
Who? What's the actual quote (we get shown a summary from Anderson Cooper)? Does that mean all the same defensive intel (they don't say)?
Anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the loss of intel didn't directly affect advance warning or defensive systems needed for that particular attack; we obviously don't know for certain. But the timing of the intensified bombardment was no coincidence. It was an effort to convince Ukrainians (and their non-American supporters) that Ukraine cannot stand without the US and things will be worse if they try.
Last edited:
