By Matt Underwood US demands clarity from allies on their role in potential war over Taiwan, FT reports. This whole situation feels like a request for a status report, but with stakes much higher than a delayed project. The Pentagon, according to the Financial Times, is pressing Japan and Australia for specifics on their involvement should the U.S. and China clash over Taiwan. The urgency is palpable, and the question seems simple enough: “If things go sideways, what do you do?” But the responses are anything but.
That’s because Elbridge Colby, a key figure within the Pentagon, is driving this push. His name pops up again and again, and he’s apparently quite the personality, also known for some policy choices that have, let’s just say, ruffled some feathers among the allies. Some whispers suggest a shift towards a more “go-it-alone” approach from the U.S., which is a concern when you need partners to actually come to the table.
And, let’s be real, asking for a commitment to potentially going to war is a huge ask, and the current situation is complicated by various factors. The first is the question of “who are your allies?” This is the million-dollar question. Considering how the US has, and seemingly still is, behaving, it is a surprise the US has any allies left. We’re talking about a commitment to potentially sending troops, resources, and political capital into a conflict that could reshape the world. The US itself can’t even provide a straight answer about their boots on the ground, so there’s this underlying unease in the air, with the feeling that it will be like the Ukraine situation all over again – financial aid and some support, but with no real commitment.
It seems some of the more… direct sentiments on the situation might be “We’ll let you know in 2 weeks.” The allies are demanding the same, if not more, from the US. It seems the message has changed: “Give us 2 Billion and we will tell you in two weeks, but remember we can change our minds.” It also seems like the allies would be willing to play the game if the US stopped screwing them over with tariffs. The fact that the US seems to be calling out the allies to clarify their role while failing to even answer on theirs is, well, rich. “Staying the fuck out of it” seems to be a general consensus. “We demand clarity, give zero in return. Hypocrisy.”
So, it’s no surprise to anyone that the allies, at least in the comments, are hesitant. The lack of trust is obvious. Some are probably thinking, “Why risk soldiers and resources to assist the current US regime, headed by a buffoon that calls them names, sets tariffs on them with numbers pulled out of his ass, and will never come to their aid if they need it?”
The US seems to expect all their allies to automatically align and follow their actions. But let’s face it, it’s a two-way street. And the US’s inconsistency is a big part of the problem. The very idea that a former president, who even now may again run, would potentially shrug off commitments to NATO allies is deeply unsettling. Why would anyone want to get into a war on behalf of the US if they can’t even rely on the US? Some are saying they would “rip it and throw it away” if they were given a draft paper.
The situation is made even more sensitive considering the geopolitical landscape. Everyone knows this could get ugly very fast. Any move could have repercussions far beyond Taiwan. The US has been asking their allies to declare their role in the event of a war over Taiwan because a Chinese invasion looks increasingly likely.
It’s like this: clarity is needed, but from both sides. Strategic ambiguity is there for a reason. If the US demands clarity from its allies, they should be prepared to offer the same in return. And maybe, just maybe, drop the trade war that’s hurting everyone.