Ett extremt läge för den transatlantiska länken kräver överblick och tillgång till många källor som belyser problemen och möjligheterna från olika utgångspunkter.

Se senast Michael Sahlin: https://kkrva.se/hur-illa-skadad-ar-den-transatlantiska-lanken-tankar-om-det-otankbara-efter-londontoppmotet/

Här är ett underlag som kommer att uppdateras kontinuerligt se https://www.lelundin.org/transatlantic-link.

  • Först en breddad AI-sökning baserad på Elisabeth Braws artikel om den amerikanska försvarsindustrin som sammanfattas med orden:

”The unintended consequences of recent U.S. policy decisions have created a paradoxical situation where efforts to “make America great again” may be inadvertently undermining one of America’s greatest strengths: its defense-industrial complex. European defense stocks are surging as governments across the continent commit to unprecedented military spending increases, while U.S. defense companies face market uncertainty despite analysts like Citi’s Jason Gursky maintaining that the “market reaction is overly harsh”.

The diplomatic rupture between Trump and Zelensky has accelerated this trend, crystallizing doubts about American security guarantees that have been building since Trump’s return to office. Meanwhile, European nations are responding decisively, with countries like the UK and Poland setting ambitious defense spending targets that will fuel their domestic defense industries for years to come.
​
This evolving situation represents a fundamental restructuring of the global defense landscape, with significant implications for international security, industrial policy, and geopolitical relationships. As European defense capabilities grow and U.S. influence potentially wanes, the world may be witnessing the early stages of a new era in global security architecture—one where European nations take greater responsibility for their own defense and rely less on American guarantees.”

– –
  • Därefter en sökning rörande Trumps beslut att pausa biståndet till Ukraina:
”This analysis explores the legal complexities surrounding President Trump’s decision to suspend military aid to Ukraine and the potential implications for NATO allies. The suspension, aimed at pressuring Ukraine into peace talks with Russia, raises questions about presidential authority in foreign affairs, especially when congressional appropriations are involved.
Key Points

  • Ukraine Aid Suspension: President Trump paused over $1 billion in military aid to Ukraine, despite congressional appropriations, to encourage peace negotiations with Russia. This action highlights the tension between presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief and Congress’s appropriation authority.
  • NATO Obligations: Unlike Ukraine, NATO involves binding treaty commitments, particularly Article 5, which mandates collective defense. The U.S. Senate ratified this treaty, giving it legal force under the Constitution.
  • Congressional Limitations: Recent legislation prevents any U.S. president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without congressional approval, reflecting concerns over potential U.S. withdrawal from the alliance.
  • Legal Ambiguity: The Constitution is silent on treaty withdrawal, leading to debates about presidential authority. Historical precedents show presidents have unilaterally withdrawn from treaties, but legal ambiguity persists.
  • Comparative Authority: The president’s authority to pause aid to Ukraine does not breach a treaty, unlike potential actions against NATO allies, which involve treaty obligations and congressional restrictions.
  • Constitutional Tensions: The separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches creates ongoing tensions in foreign policy decisions, often resolved through political rather than legal means.

Conclusion
​The legal framework surrounding presidential authority to withhold aid is complex and varies between Ukraine and NATO allies. While the president can pause aid to Ukraine, similar actions toward NATO allies face stronger legal constraints due to treaty obligations and congressional actions. The resolution of such disputes often depends on political dynamics rather than clear legal guidelines.”