Michael Waßmann

Wessen Lack ich sauf, dessen Lied ich sing.

@BladeTheHunter3 @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox And of course it would be good IF the US took care of Iran. But they put themselves in a position, where they have to do whatever they are going to do. Meanwhile Europeans get that result, get to morally grandstand and still save military resources for Russia, like we were told.

@BladeTheHunter3 @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox Because the Spaniards are ... ugh, the French are dramatic and the Germans point at rules? Welcome to Europe my man. You wanted us to stand up for ourselves. Trump talks shit all the tie but can't take a little bit of European moralizing? He lives in a world of his own making.

The U.S. wants to be the global hegemon. That means managing allies, not insulting them. If you don't want to do it, someone else will and then you get to live in their world instead of yours. This really isn't rocket science.

@BladeTheHunter3 @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox We are being treatened with NATO dissolution. And we are going to have to replace more US aid for Ukraine. The US strategy is to leave European defence to us anyway, so they can go after China. So we are going to need to spend limited our military resources wisely.

@BladeTheHunter3 @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox Ukraine, France and UK are helping to protect nations and bases under fire from Iran. Germany and the UK are providing infrastructure and logistics bases necessary to facilitate US operation. What are they getting out of it? What does Ukraine get?

@itto13bitty @Michael7ucci >don't ask your allies for help >get mad your allies don't help you whatever mate. do what you need to do, but dont blame us for your presidents strategical failure to build a coalition before getting stuck in the sandbox AGAIN.

@MichaWassmann @Michael7ucci We have no European allies save a few countries that want out of the EU. You all made that clear. You can take care of yourselves from now on. Bye parasites.

Even at this late hour, European leaders still don't realize the choice. 🇺🇸 or 🇨🇳🇷🇺 There is a 0% chance of the EU being a 3rd major power. Partner with the most powerful, innovative & dynamic part of (your own) western civilization: USA. Or get torn up by China and Russia.

@BladeTheHunter3 @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox I think you overestimate US importance. And calling it "aid" is a joke. The US sells arms, we buy them. My groceries aren't "aid" from the supermarket. But you didn't answer my second point: Why help the US? Ukraine helps US allies. But Trump wants to fuck them over anyway.

@MichaWassmann @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox I don't think you understand the significance of aid and intelligence free or not since the war began 4 years ago.

@MattheusBerg @PhilipLeButt Ahja. Also nichts für ungut, aber so eine Phrase wie "neues Verhältnis von Staat und Bürger", das erklärt mir wirklich gar nichts. Und dann ist es ja nicht einmal real, sondern nur irgendwie symbolisch. Laut Artikel ist es noch so neu, dass es das 2003 schon gab.

@MichaWassmann @PhilipLeButt Es ist ein Symbol dafür, dass man ein neues Verhältnis von Staat und Bürger etablieren möchte. Und das kann nur gut sein.

Das ist der Weg.

@Kingkiko61 @MsMelChen Whatever the excuse for Trumps strategic failure to build a coalition: The US wanted to deal with Iran alone. Without European allies. And now they have to. So why should Europeans waste a single AD missile on this? The US played itself.

@MichaWassmann @MsMelChen It’s obvious the US saw the threat of Iran having a deliverable nuke, at some point in the near future, far more seriously than Europe. This is the fundamental difference. Not consulting with Europe beforehand indicates a serious issue, the US does not trust Europe.

May I offer a different perspective on the whole transatlantic family feud brewing over NATO. Europeans are furious at what they call American unilateralism and "wars of choice," while Americans are done subsidizing allies who won't lift a finger when Washington actually needs them. Given all the sentimentality and historical baggage, there’s been a lot of bad blood and high grade insults thrown both ways. A lot of pride here is at stake. But given that I am not American or European, what I can provide is an Asian perspective. The whole thing looks very different as there are no blood ties or cultural nostalgia to pull me either way. Because of distance, the default Asian lens on America has always been colder, clearer, and far more pragmatic than the European one. Asians have never lived under the illusion that their relationship to the US is one based on shared values. If they ever did, the illusion was shattered during the Cold War. Instead, Asian nations saw the relationship to America as a cold, interest-driven bargain in a dangerous neighborhood full of communists, insurgents, and bigger powers. Fast forward to today, and this lesson still holds. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia all partner with America because their interests (not values) align - especially when it comes to countering China. These nations have reasons to be alarmed about Beijing's ambitions in the South China Sea, around Taiwan, and across the Indo-Pacific. They don't need lectures about democracy or liberal international order to see the value in US forward presence, intelligence sharing, tech transfers, and security guarantees. It's a straight-up transactional deal: the US keeps the sea lanes open and the PLA at bay. Meanwhile, Asian nations host your bases, buy your weapons, and join your alliances (Quad, AUKUS, etc.). When interests diverge, they adjust pragmatically, without the drama and meltdown. Probably not many in the West know this, but one of the forces that shaped this attitude was the US pullout of Vietnam and the rest of America’s Cold War shenanigans. Lee Kuan Yew was one of America’s loudest cheerleaders in Southeast Asia. In 1967 he flew to Washington, testified to Congress, and begged Lyndon Johnson (and later Nixon) not to cut and run in Vietnam. He warned that a hasty US exit would trigger the dominoes - Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and then pressure on the rest of Southeast Asia. Singapore became a logistical hub, providing a haven for US troops on R&R, oil refineries supplying the American war machine, and Lockheed servicing aircraft. At one point, US military-related spending made up 15% of Singapore’s entire GDP. Singapore didn’t support the war because it loved American democracy but because it kept the communists tied up and bought Southeast Asia time to build up its own economy and military. Then came the pullout - the Paris Accords in 1973 and then Saigon falls in 1975. Despite all the lobbying, despite the blood and resources America had spent, domestic politics in the US (the anti-war movement, Congress, Vietnam syndrome etc.) ended it. LKY watched in disbelief as the superpower that had promised to hold the line simply walked away. The lesson was that American commitments are real only as long as they serve American interests and American voters don’t get tired. It’s a brutal one to internalize. LKY was disappointed and noted American “unreliability” but Singapore didn’t collapse into panic or anti-Americanism. They just recalibrated and kept pursuing pragmatism by building its own deterrent, diversifying partners, and later offered the US naval logistics access (Sembawang port) when the Philippines kicked them out of Subic Bay in the early 1990s. Malaysia drew the same conclusion. The Tunku was pro-Western and anti-communist early on, but Malaysia never joined SEATO and pushed ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality) instead. When the British announced their East-of-Suez withdrawal in 1968 and Nixon’s Doctrine (1969) told Asians “you defend yourselves first, we’ll just help,” Kuala Lumpur accelerated its neutralist tilt. The message was clear - don’t count on Washington to bleed indefinitely for distant allies. South Korea is similarly pragmatic but it operates under far higher stakes due to baggage from the Korean War and the ongoing North Korean threat. American intervention literally saved the South from conquest, resulting in a bond that is forged in blood. While South Korea had to learn the same lessons - that the American umbrella isn’t permanent, sharing a border with a nuclear-armed adversary forces tighter coupling with Washington. The reverberations of Nixon’s 1973 opening to Beijing cannot be understated. It shocked the entire region that America, the great anti-communist crusader, suddenly would cozy up to Mao to counter the Soviets. If Washington could flip on core principles when interests demanded it, why should smaller states pretend the relationship was about anything deeper? The core Asian critique of the European approach to dealing with America is that it is entirely bound up in moral values and civilizational kinship. This means that every disagreement feels like a betrayal and breeds resentment on both sides. Because Europe is so hyped up on abstract values, it makes NATO feel like a sacred club that America is disrespecting. Asia's interest-based lens sees alliances as tools - useful until they're not. Maybe Europe thinks the Asian approach is cynical but the irony is that this is actually what keeps Indo-Pacific partners far more reliable counterweights to China than many NATO members ever were against Russia.

@BladeTheHunter3 @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox Trump already stopped supplying weapons. Europe pays for them. Meanwhile Ukraine has helped US allies in the region defend themselves - and still MAGA hats want to fuck them over even harder. If that's the thanks we can expect, why help you? You're not helping us either way.

@MichaWassmann @defencewithac @Mr_Andrew_Fox Without American weapons do you think the situation in Ukraine will look the same? The US saved Ukraine's ass, it's a fact.

@era3477 @HoyasFan07 The Russian navy could strike critical targets all over Europe if left unchecked. And for Russia itself, it has a habit of getting really upset about winter ports. So I'm not sure that assessment is correct either.

@era3477 @HoyasFan07 I hate saying this to a PolishFella, but I'm afraid I have bad news on who gets to be the Germans in this scenario. If you have a big land army fighting on the continent against Russia, you will rely on oceanic trade and those trade routes will need protecting.

ok sorry but this idea that navies incl blue water navies aren't important for deterring or defeating Russian aggression aimed at NATO is entirely absurd. But par for the course with twitterX commentary. In reality (this is widely known), naval forces are *extremely*

@Kingkiko61 @MsMelChen I did not say Iran is not "a" concern. I said it's not priority No. 1. You understand the difference, right? Also, we agree, we are looking at this from an unsentimental, self-interested perspective, right? That's what you want from Europe, right? We agree on that?

@MichaWassmann @MsMelChen The prospect of Iran and Russia teaming-up as nuclear threats to Europe isn’t a concern? Russia didn’t help Iran develop those ICBMs that reach Europe just for fun. They definitely have a strategic plan to corner Europe.

@Mindpron @pl_european @BogdaninFl Just get back to me, when you can come up with an answer.

@MichaWassmann @pl_european @BogdaninFl

Should Europe deny US forces the use of its bases to bomb Iran? Imo, yes. The US President has threatened to bomb Iranian critical infrastructure, which could constitute a war crime and, if carried out, would likely create an unprecedented refugee and humanitarian crisis.

@Mindpron @pl_european @BogdaninFl Still nothing, huh?

@MichaWassmann @pl_european @BogdaninFl

@Mindpron @pl_european @BogdaninFl Which countries did you mean by "Western Europe"? :)

@MichaWassmann @pl_european @BogdaninFl