Thread by @andrewmichta

🧵I've seen many headlines of late declaring the end of @NATO. I think it's time to restate what I've tried to convey over the past three months: Let's step back, breathe, and stop playing into the hands of those who-both in the US and Europe-would like to end our alliance. 1/12

It's time to stop hyperventilating and finger-pointing, for ultimately what matters is not what European allies did/didn't do in the past, or what Donald Trump and others have/haven't said. What matters is the future of transatlantic relations, i.e., of Western democracies. 2/12

Let me restate the obvious: It makes not geostrategic sense for the administration to do anything that potentially weakens @NATO, for the alliance is a force multiplier for the US. Likewise, all talk about a European army or any other structures that bypass NATO is damaging. 3/12

Here is why: 1. Yes, Europeans can spend the money, rebuild their DIB, and field forces again. The problem is it would take about a decade to get there, and in my assessment, Europe doesn't have that much time, for it is likely that the things will crest in two/three years. 4/12

2. If the idea is not to meet European capabilities requirements in @NATO, and instead to build a European army outside its structures, it's time to ask the basic questions about who can bring the nuclear umbrella to the table to deter Russia (neither France nor the UK can). 5/12

Next, 3. Outside @NATO, European governments will have to address who will provide high-end enablers, warfighting HQs, C2, ISR, etc. Again, this is about everything the alliance has done, with the US providing critical capabilities. How will this be done, by whom, how fast? 6/12

Last, 4. The idea that weapons will only be procured in Europe begs the question about the reasoning behind it. The US just announced the NGAD to build the F-47, a sixth-generation fighter. Since we are among friends, Europe hasn't been able to produce yet even a fifth-gen. 7/12

This decision on procurement is not just about cross-platform integration with the United States military; it's another step to undercut transatlantic connectivity. It will favor French and German defense industry, but how will it impact Europe's larger security interests? 8/12

Let's get to brass tacks: The EU is a treaty-based market/regulatory organization, that in recent years has increasingly tried to function as a quasi-unitary state, with pressure for a new Union Treaty aimed at centralizing decision-making even further. IMO it won't work. 9/12

The European Union spans diverse nations whose interests are rooted in their national neighborhoods. To argue that, say, Portugal would send soldiers East to defend Lithuania against Russia shows how divorced EU elites have become from the basics of geopolitics and warfare. 10/12

Even the largest EU states, Germany or France, are not in the same league with the US, China or Russia when it comes to military power indices. They are wealthy economies, but as I once said to a European politician: Just because you are fat it doesn't mean you are strong. 11/12

I say this not to denigrate our European allies-I've been an ardent supporter of @NATO and transatlantic relations my entire professional career. I recognize that the messaging coming out of Washington has been damaging to allied solidarity. But we need each other. Period. 12/12