- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
U.S. National Defence Strategy Pivots Away From China And Russia
- Thread starter 7gtz
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
I'm not believing that.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2025
I'm not believing it either.
For reference, here are the 2018 and 2022 UNCLAS National Defense Strategies:
For reference, here are the 2018 and 2022 UNCLAS National Defense Strategies:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Location
- Perth Western Australia
Patients and time will show the truth. Significant decrease in media reports supporting propaganda against these two countries will be the first signal if true.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Location
- Perth Western Australia
In all honesty Russia and China are not believing that either 
seems some members here have something in common with their chosen adversaries.
seems some members here have something in common with their chosen adversaries.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2023
- Location
- New Delhi, India
Related.
The U.S. Department of Defense informed European countries last week that military support under a program known as Section 333 will be cut to zero from the next fiscal year, a Lithuanian defence ministry official said on Friday. Section 333 is an authority under which the U.S. provides training and equipment to enhance the security of partner states.
U.S. informed Europe of cuts to military aid, Lithuania says
The U.S. Department of Defense informed European countries last week that military support under a program known as Section 333 will be cut to zero from the next fiscal year, a Lithuanian defence ministry official said on Friday.www.reuters.com
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
Some initial thoughts:
- The plan, if adopted, would mark a seismic shift in main US geopolitical vectors,
- It's strikingly at odds with Trump's hawkish stance vis-a-vis China, which suggests that Hegseth, Colby + their allies at the WH are increasingly going over Trump's head and pursuing their own independent policy,
- It also runs counter to Trump's own 2018 NDS, and is unlikely to be viewed favorably in Congress where there's little support for isolationist policies,
- Paves the way for more widespread use of uniformed military to quell domestic unrest, and then - further down the road - military conquest directed against America's neighbors.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 15, 2022
Why? It's actually more than plausible - many downright expected something like this to happen. There's no shortage of signs that America is withdrawing from the world.
Yes; this will end in disaster - but that's no reason to disbelieve it.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
The US is pulling back in certain areas where the US believes that it has born an out-of-proportion financial and personal burden, such as in the case of Europe. That has long been a complaint of the current US president.
There is no sign of the US pulling away from the Asian theatre. There may be more emphasis put in more regional threats, but a number of those threat come from China.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
Consistent with the President's intent, the NDS will prioritize defense of the U.S. homeland, including America's skies and borders, and deterring China in the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, the NDS will prioritize increasing burden-sharing with allies
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/R...opment-of-the-2025-national-defense-strategy/
Given that the EU gdp is equal to or larger than Chinas at just under 20 trillion. And Russians at less than 2 trillion. Maybe defense responsibility sharing is a logical step to take, just saying.
Why exactly should the US take the brunt of the military expenditures to deter adversaries in both Europe AND Asia? When the EU has the second largest economic base in the world?
It’s logical question. Why does Europe need a massive US presence in Europe when Europes economic size is over ten times larger than Russias? Of course we remain in NATO but we don’t necessarily remain the big bad.
The NDS focus’s defense of the US mainland from boarder integrity to missile defense. While also defining we provide the necessary counter and deterrent to China in the Indo-Pacific. Again it seems to be a perfectly logical division of responsibility and resources.
IF the US cannot defend and secure our boarders and sky’s. What leverage of force can we be expected to bring on any adversary. Save of course nuclear.
We have been fighting terrorist for 20+ years. Adversaries who could not readily attack our homeland. Any war with Russia or China would be a diametrically different war. One where either nation could and would likely strike US with conventional or nuclear missiles. Or even newer weapon technologies.
It is a new world as I have said.
Europe needs to step up, which I believe many in Europe now see and are responding to.
The US needs desperately to modernize and expand offensive and defensive capabilities to defend the homeland.
This is not 1949 or even 1980, where the only serious threat to the US homeland was Russian nukes. The offensive risk to the US are completely different today and much more diverse.
While we also continuing to remain engaged in the Indo-Pacific.
So for me after reading it and seeing what it actually says. Then gaming it out, it makes perfect sense. It’s not an isolationist document by any measure.
It’s we need to protect the western hemisphere. Or in not distant future we won’t be able to help ourselves. While also remaining engaged with our allies. And actively engaged with China in the Indo-Pacific.
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/R...opment-of-the-2025-national-defense-strategy/
Given that the EU gdp is equal to or larger than Chinas at just under 20 trillion. And Russians at less than 2 trillion. Maybe defense responsibility sharing is a logical step to take, just saying.
Why exactly should the US take the brunt of the military expenditures to deter adversaries in both Europe AND Asia? When the EU has the second largest economic base in the world?
It’s logical question. Why does Europe need a massive US presence in Europe when Europes economic size is over ten times larger than Russias? Of course we remain in NATO but we don’t necessarily remain the big bad.
The NDS focus’s defense of the US mainland from boarder integrity to missile defense. While also defining we provide the necessary counter and deterrent to China in the Indo-Pacific. Again it seems to be a perfectly logical division of responsibility and resources.
IF the US cannot defend and secure our boarders and sky’s. What leverage of force can we be expected to bring on any adversary. Save of course nuclear.
We have been fighting terrorist for 20+ years. Adversaries who could not readily attack our homeland. Any war with Russia or China would be a diametrically different war. One where either nation could and would likely strike US with conventional or nuclear missiles. Or even newer weapon technologies.
It is a new world as I have said.
Europe needs to step up, which I believe many in Europe now see and are responding to.
The US needs desperately to modernize and expand offensive and defensive capabilities to defend the homeland.
This is not 1949 or even 1980, where the only serious threat to the US homeland was Russian nukes. The offensive risk to the US are completely different today and much more diverse.
While we also continuing to remain engaged in the Indo-Pacific.
So for me after reading it and seeing what it actually says. Then gaming it out, it makes perfect sense. It’s not an isolationist document by any measure.
It’s we need to protect the western hemisphere. Or in not distant future we won’t be able to help ourselves. While also remaining engaged with our allies. And actively engaged with China in the Indo-Pacific.