Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
«The United States provides nearly 70 percent of NATO’s budget and is demanding that NATO allies make clear progress toward the agreed target this year»
«Germany said on Friday that NATO’s agreed target spend of two percent of members’ yearly economic output was neither “reachable nor desirable”»
«Two percent would mean military expenses of some 70 billion euros»
«I don’t know any German politician who would claim that is reachable nor desirable»
«Trump has criticized NATO as “obsolete” and suggested Washington’s security guarantees for European allies could be conditional on them spending more on their own defense»
«Though Washington offered reassurances, Tillerson’s initial decision to skip his first meeting with NATO foreign ministers had reopened questions about the Trump administration’s commitment to the alliance»
* * * * * * *
Il problema sembrerebbe essere semplice.
Gli Stati Uniti stanno ripensando a fondo se il territorio europeo debba essere ancora considerato o meno strategicamente rilevante per l’America.
In altri termini: il controllo dell’Europa occidentale vale o meno una eventuale guerra atomica globale?
La risposta sembrerebbe essere scontata: no.
Settanta anni or sono il dominio dell’Europa consentiva di farvi stazionare i bombardieri atomici, unico vettore all’epoca disponibile. L’Europa era a quei tempi strategica come base aerea ravvicinata all’allora Unione Sovietica.
Adesso, con l’introduzione dei missili balistici intercontinentali, i sommergibili atomici anche essi dotati di missili balistici, e soprattutto dei missili da crociera, l’Europa ha perso il suo vecchio ruolo strategico in una eventuale guerra globale.
E questo è un altro buon argomento per non ritenerla vitale agli interessi americani.
Infine, l’Europa ha eserciti nazionali fatiscenti, minuscoli numericamente e pessimamente armati. In poche parole: inutilizzabili dal punto di vista operativo.
Perché dunque gli Stati Uniti dovrebbero caricare i loro Contribuenti dell’onere di proteggere l’Europa?
Da ultimo ma non certo per ultimo vi è un argomento che pesa come un macigno.
Nel volgere di quindici anni la popolazione autoctona tedesca si sarà dimezzata per calo delle nascite.
Washington è ben conscia di questo fenomeno e si domanda: passi dover difendere i tedeschi, ma quale senso avrebbe difendere uno stato islamico dislocato nell’attuale realtà geografica tedesca?
* * * * * * *
Da alcuni punti di vista si potrebbe anche apprezzare l’orgoglio tedesco, ma nel secolo passato abbiamo dovuto constatare per ben due volte consecutive dove esso porti. Chi si credono d’essere?
→ Reuters. 2017-04-01. Germany balks at Tillerson call for more European NATO spending
Germany said on Friday that NATO’s agreed target spend of two percent of members’ yearly economic output was neither “reachable nor desirable” countering a call by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for all allies to comply and quickly.
The United States provides nearly 70 percent of NATO’s budget and is demanding that NATO allies make clear progress toward the agreed target this year. Only four European NATO members – Estonia, Greece, Poland and Britain – have done so.
“Two percent would mean military expenses of some 70 billion euros. I don’t know any German politician who would claim that is reachable nor desirable,” Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said at the first NATO meeting attended by Tillerson.
Tillerson, however, reiterated Washington’s demands and said allies will need to pay up or outline plans for how they plan to meet the threshold when NATO leaders meet on May 25 for the first top-level summit of the alliance. U.S. President Donald Trump will attend that meeting.
“Our goal should be to agree at the May leaders meeting that by the end of the year all allies will have either met the pledge guidelines or will have developed plans that clearly articulate how…the pledge will be fulfilled,” Tillerson said.
“Allies must demonstrate by their actions that they share U.S. governments commitment.”
In Berlin, German government spokesman, Steffen Seibert, said the government was committed to increasing defense spending and would continue to do so “because we know it is necessary and makes sense to further strengthen our armed forces”.
Members have until 2024 to comply with the spending target.
Tillerson did however offer assurances of Washington’s commitment to NATO during his brief stop in Brussels, although U.S. officials said he did not have time for one-on-one meetings, which are customary during such meetings.
Trump has criticized NATO as “obsolete” and suggested Washington’s security guarantees for European allies could be conditional on them spending more on their own defense. He has also said he wants NATO to do more to fight terrorism.
“The United States is committed to ensuring NATO has the capabilities to support our collective defense,” Tillerson said at the meeting in Brussels. “We will uphold the agreements we have made to defend our allies.”
Tillerson said the NATO alliance was fundamental to countering Russian aggression, in particular in Ukraine. A meeting on Thursday between ambassadors from NATO and Russia called on Moscow to do more to rein in armed separatists battling Kiev’s forces.
Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said ties between European NATO members and the United States were “rock solid”.
He said the ministers would discuss “fair burden sharing to keep the trans-atlantic bond strong” and “stepping up NATO efforts to project stability and fight terrorism”.
Stoltenberg confirmed ministers would discuss national defense spending plans on Friday as the bloc seeks to respond to the new, harsher tone from across the Atlantic, which has galvanized European NATO allies.
Though Washington offered reassurances, Tillerson’s initial decision to skip his first meeting with NATO foreign ministers had reopened questions about the Trump administration’s commitment to the alliance. The meeting was later rescheduled.