There is a great deal of hubbub about a collective “middle powers”strategy these days.
At DoW, we are not concerned that this is a serious possibility. Rather, we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will *think it is* and waste valuable time, money, and political capital on a distraction. 1/
At DoW, we are not concerned that this is a serious possibility. Rather, we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will *think it is* and waste valuable time, money, and political capital on a distraction. 1/
From our point of view, a collective middle powers strategy is based on a faulty understanding of international relations. We are flexible realists. So, we view the international scene through the prism of interest, geography, economics, military power, etc. “Middle powers” don’t have a coherent basis for alignment. 2/
It also isn’t borne out by reality, in our experience. We see an *upsurge* in desire for engagement with the United States, not a reduction. Under President Trump’s leadership, countries not only see the value of American engagement, they can no longer take it for granted. We unquestionably see an incredibly strong and continuing demand signal for U.S. military presence and engagement around the world. 3/
Take our defense industry and arms sales. There is a lot of commentary that, due to alleged frustrations with the United States, the American defense industrial base will lose out on the market for weaponry. But this is neither feasible nor accurate. 4/
The simple fact of the matter is that no alternative country or countries can compete with the U.S. defense industrial base, either in quantity or quality. The United States, as the President says, makes the best equipment, and we make it at a scale that no plausible competitor can match. If anything, access to the American DIB is a privilege, not a right. 5/
politico.eu/article/europe…
politico.eu/article/europe…
At the same time, American companies are at the forefront of advanced technology. There is no credible free world alternative to American tech and its implications for defense. 6/
This is not to say allies and partners should give up spending more or investing in their own DIB. *To the contrary.* More spending will help us all, and especially our allies’ own security. And we welcome allies’ investment in their own DIBs, but in ways that are collaborative with America’s rather than trying in vain to replicate or supplant it. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
