The problem with that is that its a self fulfilling prophecy. Obama's "managed decline".But I also know we cannot prevent it anymore than we can stop the globe from spinning, so I'd rather prepare for, and adapt to, a multipolar world than waste time trying to maintain a unipolar world.
The problem is, the day it becomes a multipolar world, what your further plans are going to be?
Continue "managed decline", or become one of the major powers competing for leading role the next time bipolar/unipolar world happens?
SK, Australia and about half of NATO. On top of that France, UK and Japan which are major powers.What do you define as a 'medium power', I think I need to ask before I make any assumptions of which nations you are referring to.
Exactly. If they thought 80-90% of them will get through anyway, that would not be a sufficient reason to not trust them.Because, as you said, they aren't just trusting their ICBMs?
Status-6 is what happened when some Russian realized that the Tsar Bomba warhead may not fit in a plane, but could fit in a sub/torpedo, and acted accordingly. Luckily it seems only 2 subs can actually carry them, and the torps are not being left 'on-station' at this point.
Then there's the Soviet 'mole missiles' which are pretty much uninterruptible earthquake bombs, likely deployed by subs, if they actually exist as more than propaganda and old Soviet BS. They are of limited use or dependability because of where they are (very hard to retrieve or refurbish a warhead buried in the continental slope, and every easy for it to fail if there are problems with the drilling device), but they could certainly cause problems on their own or used in concert with things like Status-6.
Status-6 due to its nature of high endurance unmanned vehicle can be deployed by all sorts of cheaper methods, if need be.
The difference with the mole bombs is that subs hanging around different continents are shadowed, and western powers are pretty good at that. If they got spotted doing it, it would be a massive scandal, and the warheads would be interfered with, destructively if need be.
Which is a completely different kind of warfare than staring down Russia. And regardless of that is stretching France's readiness and funding.And what does that prove? Yes, they're concerned (at the present) with Green energy. That does not mean that France lacks power--as in military power. France has a very capable military and often performs its own military activities in West Africa and beyond.
France to ask allies for help in Central Africa
It wants troops or logistical aid to head off a possible genocidal civil war
www.independent.co.uk
France Struggles to Retain Colonial Ties in Africa
Despite strong efforts to maintain its historic bonds with its former colonies in Africa, France's position is far from guaranteed.
worldview.stratfor.com
Crisis in the Sahel Becoming France’s Forever War (Published 2020)
Riding along with French troops hunting Islamist militants in France’s unwinnable West African war.
www.nytimes.com
If France is doing fine, why is it still asking for help, to add insult to injury, from tiny countries in border crisis with Russia's ally?
And that's the problem with greens. They, ultimately, want general "taxpayers" to pay. Meanwhile NGOs, banks, international talking circles and such are not steel or concrete industry, green agenda won't hit their pocket much.When you can afford to be pious at the expense of others, you'll find that money is no object. When you are suddenly alone and must pay for it yourself, you will be rather stingy.
Germany of all countries understands their Clausewitz.They very much are not. The EU is not a military power, it is an economic bloc. This is rather obvious, because the moment they all stopped making money is when they began to turn on each other. The only meaningful way that the EU can integrate its various military assets is though NATO. The Germans, more or less lacking a military worth speaking of, is not suited to repel a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe. You can expect that to change, but it's going to take years for the Germans to make the changes. Assuming they have the will left to make those changes.
They don't have the political will to play military brinkmanship and the "western club" would look askance at them if they tried, so they have put themselves in a position to reach similar goals by mercantilist and political means instead.
Iranians are not afraid of Saudi navy any more than anyone is afraid of Saudi army.You ignore the greater threat to their oil shipments. The Iranians won't be the only ones targeting oil tankers leaving the gulf. Saudi military will target Iranian oil tankers. And at the same time there's an escalating war between the Gulf States, there's going to be an escalating conflict in Eastern Asia. The Iranians will not only have a massive logistic issue in their own back yard, but so will the Chinese. There is an overland route, but that is difficult to defend and to my knowledge, is not really an option at this point. Even if it were/is, the margins are going to be different going over land.
That the Asia conflict will go red hot at the very same moment is... unlikely.
Yes, Sauds bought lots of nice toys they have little idea what to do with. Their adventures with Yemen show both them and the Iranians, through their proxies, what to expect from each other. If the Saudis could leverage their nice toys effectively, they would be expected to do better in Yemen. Yet they made it a stalemate, even though they are merely fighting Iran's budget proxies, rather than their proper forces.Nor are the Iranians without any weakness in their own weapons. Most of their aircraft are horribly outdated or cheap copies of horribly outdated tech. The Saudis, for all their horrific incompetence, are going to have a massive technological advantage in any battle. They can also be bolstered by regional allies such as Israel--who are not only competent, but technologically sophisticated.
Israel won't send much material support due to distance and their own politics.
I for one have considerable trust in Saudi military incompetence.And when you take the time to read a map, you'll notice that the Iranians are going to have just as much difficulty pushing out of their mountain nation as anyone would be in pushing in. Their supplies are still going to have to go through those mountains. Saudi Arabia may still fall (and that will be no big loss in my book), but it is not going to be easy and I don't think it's going to be quick. The only exception to that thought is if Saudi incompetence exceeds itself.
US own political establishments mean so.Then let Russia and their neighbors decide that. Why should America, half a world away, place itself as defender of Ukraine, when France and Germany drag their feet?
If they don't, there is a simple way USA could explain its new not-give-a-shittism based policy.
Namely, announce that if the central european countries were to, hypothetically, take all nuclear non-proliferation treaties and similar liberal internationalist peace initiatives and do what they need to protect themselves, USA won't say a word about it and will veto any sanctions against them. Then enjoy the global political earthquake.
Until then, USA is bound into that mess, in one way or another.