Good post, Gordo and fair, but the Europe of today is not what it was 25 years ago.

They are compromised, so us having to go it alone is not surprising. In the New World, we cannot rely on them, which is exactly what we are all witnessing.

You only have to take their actions as proof

MD1993 said:

---

Europe is a user society. They needed the US to stop the war. They needed the US to rebuild their countries. They needed the US to keep the Soviets calm. Then and now, they use the US for protection so they can provide socialist government-provided benefits without any cost for security.

They are users, just like Canada.

---

POTD.
I hope you don't mind if I quote that profound statement on other media sites because that is the very nub of our relationship with them.

MD1993 said:

---

Europe is a user society. They needed the US to stop the war. They needed the US to rebuild their countries. They needed the US to keep the Soviets calm. Then and now, they use the US for protection so they can provide socialist government-provided benefits without any cost for security.

They are users, just like Canada.

---

Don't forget about the Marshall Plan. (you didnt)

We have helped them every step of the way. They need to get off of their high horse.

That's a pretty myopic view.

Not liking the way an alliance is playing out doesn't make the other party a rival. Open disagreements also don't translate to a rivalry.

We were allied with the UK, France and Israel when we actively worked to stop their operation in the Suez. That didn't make us rivals and we were cooperating on other geopolitical issues at that same exact time.

"….. who partnered with the US only out of necessity"

That's kind of how alliances work and always have. We don't ally out of unconditional love.

Vestal_Flame said:

---

The OP is looking at the dog from the wrong end.

To say, "Is Italy a reliable ally?" is to misapprehend the game that America is playing.

A better analysis starts with:

1.) What is our primary strategic objective?
2.) Who is our primary adversary?
3.) What other states have interests that will be abetted by the achievement of our objectives or the frustration of our adversary?

In the Cold War, our 1) objective was to make sure that we fought the 2) Soviets on foreign soil, so that we could choose to engage the Soviets in peripheral theaters of conflict, where our relative naval superiority kept the risks low.

Our allies in 3) NATO had a strong interest in making sure that the battle line was drawn at their Eastern borders.

I'm not going to say that the alliance was perfect or happy, but the alliance aligned the interests of the United States with the interests of a good many other countries, and we contained the Soviets without bloodshed. We did not care that the Italians were socialists, so long as the 6th Fleet had a parking space at Naples.

It's important to remember that the Chi-coms were (sometimes) a "good" ally in containing the Soviets, just like the Soviets had (sometimes) been a "good" ally in containing the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

I submit to you that our discomfort with the quality of our alliances in Europe is largely driven by a lack of mental clarity with regard to our strategic objectives and our primary adversary.

For me, I'm still a child of the Cold War. I still hate the Russians. Jesus smiles every time that the treads of a Leopard tank crush out the intestines of some Russian *******.

---

I'm not really arguing whether or not they've been reliable.I'm just making the point that if acted more as client states in vassals than they have an ally.

They feel like they are getting to the point that they should stand up on their own.And because they are not truly an ally, there's a lot of resentment towards us

nomad2007 said:

---

That's a pretty myopic view.

Not liking the way an alliance is playing out doesn't make the other party a rival. Open disagreements also don't translate to a rivalry.

We were allied with the UK, France and Israel when we actively worked to stop their operation in the Suez. That didn't make us rivals and we were cooperating on other geopolitical issues at that same exact time.

"….. who partnered with the US only out of necessity"

That's kind of how alliances work and always have. We don't ally out of unconditional love.

---

Sorry, Im at volleyball tournament. So my replies tend to be hit and miss all at once.

Yeah, just go to the uk or france or germany and look in their bookstores.And there is an incredible amount of resentment about their role in our alliance structure

They have been mostly reliable client states.And they are rivals, looking to assert more dominance in the alliance.

That's mainly the point as to why we are getting a lot of resistance. From our supposed partners

Why they are making deals on the side against our interest

Edit: i'm trying to keep up with this thread.But honestly, i'm having to make quick replies with voice text and not giving it the attention it deserves.

Check back later

nomad2007 said:

---

That's a pretty myopic view.

Not liking the way an alliance is playing out doesn't make the other party a rival. Open disagreements also don't translate to a rivalry.

We were allied with the UK, France and Israel when we actively worked to stop their operation in the Suez. That didn't make us rivals and we were cooperating on other geopolitical issues at that same exact time.

"….. who partnered with the US only out of necessity"

That's kind of how alliances work and always have. We don't ally out of unconditional love.

---

Well, NATO "allies" such as Italy, Spain and France have denied us usage of air space and bases for military aircraft involved in attacking Iranian IRGC infrastructure and Spain is basically allying itself with Iran, while not spending anywhere near enough for its own defense. Britain initially denied use of bases as well but could not get enough Labour Party allies in Parliament to permanently deny usage. Austria has also denied airspace.
Germany has been fairly supportive, IIRC.

UTExan said:

---

Well, NATO "allies" such as Italy, Spain and France have denied us usage of air space and bases for military aircraft involved in attacking Iranian IRGC infrastructure and Spain is basically allying itself with Iran, while not spending anywhere near enough for its own defense. Britain initially denied use of bases as well but could not get enough Labour Party allies in Parliament to permanently deny usage. Austria has also denied airspace.
Germany has been fairly supportive, IIRC.

---

When I am frustrated by the performance of our NATO allies, I remind myself that their strategic interests are not identical to or fully aligned with our own. Further, our NATO allies are mostly democracies. I suspect that this war is pretty unpopular. A friend told me that gas is over 10 Euro/gallon in Eindhoven.

On Friday, this was the front page in Brussels.



My guess is that our war is not polling well with the populations of our NATO allies, and nobody wants to get caught supporting a war that is going to prove costly at the next election.

It's not like we went to them in advance and asked them to join a coalition of the willing.