[Shadow_Flanker]

BartSimpson wrote:

The US is starting to head back towards isolationism and is entering a phase of decline under Mr. Obama.

This leaves US allies having to consider a future absent the protection of a US military umbrella.

If this U.S. decline continues to the probable isolationist position mentioned in later posts (closing of base or bases in the far east, reduced fleet deployments, USN dedicated home fleet, etc.) what would the U.S. do if a nation comes under threat from a belligerent nation like Russia, China or Iran? Would the U.S. step up to protect, or stay back and let NATO handle the issue? Could NATO even handle a full blown military campaign without American support?

[DanSC]

Shadow_Flanker wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

The US is starting to head back towards isolationism and is entering a phase of decline under Mr. Obama.

This leaves US allies having to consider a future absent the protection of a US military umbrella.

If this U.S. decline continues to the probable isolationist position mentioned in later posts (closing of base or bases in the far east, reduced fleet deployments, USN dedicated home fleet, etc.) what would the U.S. do if a nation comes under threat from a belligerent nation like Russia, China or Iran? Would the U.S. step up to protect, or stay back and let NATO handle the issue? Could NATO even handle a full blown military campaign without American support?

Iran might become belligerent, Russia should be OK once Putin's out of power, and I'm hoping China's smart enough to bomb its customers.

[Shadow_Flanker]

Russia's current president is very much in the same mindset as Putin (Putin endorsed Dmitry's presidential campaign). We might the same in him as we did in Putin. China is a bit of a gray area though, if I'd had to guess I'd say probably India or Vietnam would be in their sights.

The absence of a U.S. military umbrella could a blessing in disguise though. It could the kick in the ass for those NATO partners who aren't properly pulling their weight and rely on uncle sam for their national defense to finally step up and begin to pull their weight in the alliance, like increasing defense budgets, sending of troops to NATO missions, and better their abilities to defend their own borders.

Could that be a good thing in the end, or would it back fire?

[DanSC]

I like the idea of NATO powers having more influence in the world, but we've all seen what happens when Europe is full of large armies

As for Russia, next year could be very interesting. Medelev is up for re-election, but Putin is eligible to run again, and likely will. In an election between Batman and Robin, who wins?

[Shadow_Flanker]

DanSC wrote:

I like the idea of NATO powers having more influence in the world, but we've all seen what happens when Europe is full of large armies

As for Russia, next year could be very interesting. Medelev is up for re-election, but Putin is eligible to run again, and likely will. In an election between Batman and Robin, who wins?

I would like to see NATO become the more unified force it was during the cold war, and not let any tom, dick, and harry country become a member. Especially if that member can't defend itself or even send troops abroad, not to mention their lack of defense funding, and political unwillingness.

I thought one could only run for the Russian presidency for a maximum of two terms. Did they change the rules recently?

[DanSC]

Shadow_Flanker wrote:

I thought one could only run for the Russian presidency for a maximum of two terms. Did they change the rules recently?

There is a limit of two successive terms, but no limit on total terms.

[Shadow_Flanker]

Would that be considered using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law?