this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
16 points (80.8% liked)
World News
35987 readers
428 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why would Russia agree to that?
Russia would gain Crimea, the US military would no longer be in Europe, sanctions against Russia would be lifted, and with UK and French troops in Ukraine, Russia would not be able to conquer Ukraine.
Russia already has Crimea.
But if you mean a full withdrawal of the US from Europe, then they would probably take my. US would never agree to it though
The US would withdrawal fully if it meant the end of the war in Ukraine.
The US would never give up its vassals in Europe for a single country.
The US has already said it will start withdrawing troops from Europe and Hegseth considers China a bigger threat than Russia.
You think they’re going to close all 38 of their bases across all of Europe? That would be a big strategic break from full spectrum dominance, which is US policy, and part of the plan to contain the growth of China.
From https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5292882-pentagon-china-risks-global-instability/
In late March, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance to the Pentagon. According to the guidance, as quoted by The Washington Post, “China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.” The Pentagon is instructed, per the report, to plan only for contingencies with China.
Given the trends in the new administration, none of this is surprising, but it is shocking.
The document is a blueprint for geopolitical malpractice. The guidance’s identification of China as a major security threat, and thus a priority, is appropriate. But the prescribed downgrading of American commitments in Europe and the Middle East is a recipe for global instability, including in Asia. Violent conflagrations will follow.
I find that incredibly implausible.