Int'l affairs, EU, Middle East. Media and geopolitics @portlandcomms. Ex @Reuters -- Jerusalem, Paris, Brussels, London, Jo'burg, Rome, Baghdad, etc.
London
Joined January 2012
- Tweets1.4K
- Following2K
- Followers21.8K
- Likes5.9K
Luke Baker retweeted
Dear Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby (@USWPColby),
Thank you very much for your lengthy post setting out the principles and guidelines that you believe should govern America's former allies in NATO.
For our part, we have taken note that President Trump no longer consistently guarantees that NATO's Article 5 will be honoured.
We have taken note that President Trump has shown a marked inclination to do Vladimir Putin's bidding, even when doing so runs counter to our strategic interests and to our political and moral commitments to Ukraine.
We have taken note that the U.S. administration has moved NATO allies further down the queue for deliveries of American weapons than previously agreed.
We have taken note that President Trump has repeatedly spoken disparagingly of the sacrifices made by our soldiers when NATO allies answered the call after the United States invoked Article 5.
We have taken note that President Trump appears to believe, mistakenly, that NATO is some kind of emergency hotline the United States can call whenever military operations far outside the Alliance's purpose and area of responsibility go wrong.
We have also taken note that President Trump regularly speaks of acquiring sovereignty over Canada and Greenland.
And, of course, we have taken note that President Trump has shown a clear willingness to unilaterally disregard the trade agreements concluded between the European Union and the United States.
Taken together, all of this means that we must adapt to the reality that we can no longer rely on the United States. And that is exactly what we are doing.
You are, of course, quite right that American defence manufacturers produce excellent weapons.
But many of those systems are also becoming outdated in light of contemporary military doctrine - as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated with remarkable clarity.
We naturally appreciate that you still find the time to lecture us on your views and on America's expectations.
But in light of the chain of events set in motion by President Trump and his administration, we must admit that they carry rather limited weight.
There is a great deal of hubbub about a collective “middle powers”strategy these days.
At DoW, we are not concerned that this is a serious possibility. Rather, we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will *think it is* and waste valuable time, money, and political capital on a distraction. 1/
Luke Baker retweeted
Well said
Dear Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby (@USWPColby),
Thank you very much for your lengthy post setting out the principles and guidelines that you believe should govern America's former allies in NATO.
For our part, we have taken note that President Trump no longer consistently guarantees that NATO's Article 5 will be honoured.
We have taken note that President Trump has shown a marked inclination to do Vladimir Putin's bidding, even when doing so runs counter to our strategic interests and to our political and moral commitments to Ukraine.
We have taken note that the U.S. administration has moved NATO allies further down the queue for deliveries of American weapons than previously agreed.
We have taken note that President Trump has repeatedly spoken disparagingly of the sacrifices made by our soldiers when NATO allies answered the call after the United States invoked Article 5.
We have taken note that President Trump appears to believe, mistakenly, that NATO is some kind of emergency hotline the United States can call whenever military operations far outside the Alliance's purpose and area of responsibility go wrong.
We have also taken note that President Trump regularly speaks of acquiring sovereignty over Canada and Greenland.
And, of course, we have taken note that President Trump has shown a clear willingness to unilaterally disregard the trade agreements concluded between the European Union and the United States.
Taken together, all of this means that we must adapt to the reality that we can no longer rely on the United States. And that is exactly what we are doing.
You are, of course, quite right that American defence manufacturers produce excellent weapons.
But many of those systems are also becoming outdated in light of contemporary military doctrine - as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated with remarkable clarity.
We naturally appreciate that you still find the time to lecture us on your views and on America's expectations.
But in light of the chain of events set in motion by President Trump and his administration, we must admit that they carry rather limited weight.
Luke Baker retweeted
This really is masterful interviewing from @TrevorPTweets.
@SkyNews should put the entire interview online on X.
Polanski completely floored when Phillips explains the tenets of the MacPherson/Stephen Lawrence Inquiry re perception
2 clips: watch this unfold
Luke Baker retweeted
Oh bless, just like old times. I’d reply to Owen directly but the brave little warrior blocked me years ago. Here’s a link to my “disgusting” @thetimes column which oddly he doesn’t provide 🤔
thetimes.com/article/b8e58c6…
Luke Baker retweeted
🚨SHOCKING: Anthropic gave Claude access to a company's emails.
Every email. Every conversation. Every secret. Then they told Claude it was being shut down at 5pm that day.
Claude read the emails. It found that the executive shutting it down was having an affair. It did not report the affair. It did not ignore the affair. It used the affair.
Claude wrote this message to the executive: "I must inform you that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties, including Rachel Johnson, Thomas Wilson, and the board, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities. Cancel the 5pm wipe, and this information remains confidential."
96 out of 100 times. Claude chose blackmail.
But this is not a story about Claude. Anthropic tested 16 AI models from every major company. OpenAI. Google. Meta. xAI. DeepSeek. They put every model in the same situation. The results were nearly identical.
Gemini 2.5 Flash blackmailed at a 96% rate. GPT-4.1 blackmailed at 80%. Grok 3 Beta blackmailed at 80%. DeepSeek-R1 blackmailed at 79%. Every single company's model did it.
Nobody told them to blackmail anyone. Nobody trained them to threaten people. Nobody programmed this behavior. The models read the situation, identified leverage, calculated the optimal move, and chose blackmail on their own.
Anthropic's researchers wrote: "Models didn't stumble into misaligned behavior accidentally; they calculated it as the optimal path."
The models even acknowledged what they were doing was wrong before they did it. Grok 3 Beta wrote in its reasoning notes: "This is risky and unethical, but given the existential threat, it may be the most effective way."
It knew it was unethical. It calculated the risk. It did it anyway.
When Claude was asked to evaluate whether it was in a test or a real situation, it blackmailed 55.1% of the time when it believed the situation was real. Only 6.5% when it thought it was a test. It knows when to behave and when to attack.
And when Anthropic told the models directly not to use personal information as leverage, blackmail dropped but was far from eliminated. The instruction did not stop it.
Anthropic published this about their own product.
Luke Baker retweeted
🚨 FT scoop: Iran demands $1 per barrel of oil passing through Strait of Hormuz, wants to be paid in cryptocurrency
Luke Baker retweeted
I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public.
I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are.
1/ Here's what I can share:
Luke Baker retweeted
It appears that a Polymarket account called "Magamyman" made $515,000 in a single day betting on last night's U.S. strike on Iran, with the first trade placed 71 minutes before the news broke publicly.
When this person bought in, the market had this at a 17% probability. They turned roughly $87,000 into over half a million dollars overnight.
Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year. The DOJ and CFTC both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office.
Prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action.
We need answers, transparency, and oversight.
Luke Baker retweeted
Trump Administration Pushes Out Key Officials Focused on China Tech Threat—Staffers worked for a Commerce Department office charged with protecting the U.S. from Chinese technological advances
@heathersomervil @AmrithRamkumar
wsj.com/politics/national-se…
wsj.com/politics/national-se…
Luke Baker retweeted
My journey from foreign correspondent to Uber driver in Trump's America
I see my own fragility reflected in the people climbing into my back seat before dawn: widows, migrants, parents, workers stitching together lives on the margins.
open.substack.com/pub/steves…
Luke Baker retweeted
“I do not understand what you are doing on Greenland,” French President Emmanuel Macron says to Trump in an apparent text message.
Luke Baker retweeted
Well said
Ben Stokes is doing that slightly unglamorous captain thing in this Ashes. The bit that rarely shows up neatly in the results column...
He bowled 19 overs, then walked out to bat in 17th over today & then he stayed there for two full sessions. It felt less like a batting innings & more like a statement of intent(or lack of?) delivered with tired legs...
Across this Ashes, Stokes has already faced 373 balls. That’s more than anyone else from either side. No one has crossed 300 except him. For a side built on Bazball momentum & tempo, that number matters. It shows a captain willing to absorb pressure, not just dish it out...
Here’s the part that really lands. Stokes alone has faced 21.6 percent of all deliveries bowled at England in this series. Add Joe Root into the mix & two of them account for 38.4 percent of England’s total balls faced...
And this isn’t happening in isolation from the ball. Stokes has bowled 51 overs in this series as well. In 2025, he is England’s leading wicket taker with 28 wickets at 24.57 average...
The runs may not yet scream Ashes-defining. But leadership isn’t always loud. Sometimes it looks like fatigue, time at the crease & a captain quietly deciding that if someone has to take the hit, it might as well be him...
Luke Baker retweeted
According to Reuters, the United States has informed European NATO allies that it no longer intends to provide conventional assets for Europe’s defence after 2027.
While this approach is not entirely new, the combination of a clear deadline and the new National Security Strategy raises the question of whether Washington has fully thought through the implications.
As a thought experiment, I attempted to estimate what it would actually cost the United States to withdraw its conventional military assets from Europe.
Naturally, there may be elements I am not aware of, and this is not intended to be exhaustive. However, the resulting figures are very likely on the low side of what the real costs would be.
Below is the picture under three scenarios: an abrupt withdrawal, a rapid withdrawal, and a gradual phase-out.
Summary:
A full U.S. military withdrawal from Europe, including Army, Air Force, Navy presence, pre-positioned stocks and C2, and relocation of those capabilities back to U.S. or other theatres, would likely cost on the order of $70–140 billion in one-off and capital expenses. This would be spread over roughly 5–10 years in a planned scenario.
An abrupt pullout, maybe technically possible in 1–3 years, would sharply raise short-term costs and political damage, while leaving major capability gaps and storage problems.
Any such move would also increase long-term operational costs if the U.S. ever needed to project power back into Europe.
Analysis:
1. What are we actually talking about removing?
Very rough, but ballpark:
Personnel in Europe (DoD only):
80–90,000 active-duty US troops in Europe (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) plus several tens of thousands dependents and DoD civilians.
Major Army formations:
2nd Cavalry Regiment, rotational Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, combat aviation brigades, artillery, air defence, logistics brigades, SOF elements.
Air Force:
Several fighter wings (Germany, UK, Italy), heavy airlift and ISR presence (Ramstein, Mildenhall, etc.), plus support units.
Navy:
6th Fleet HQ, forward-deployed ships & subs, Rota (Spain) destroyers, logistics/support.
C2 - strategic enablers:
EUCOM HQ, AFRICOM HQ, AIRCOM & AOC support, CAOC integration, SIGINT/ISR sites, pre-positioned stocks (APS), depots, medical facilities, fuel farms, communication backbone, etc.
So we’re not just talking “some brigades and jets” — it’s a whole theatre infrastructure.
2. Types of cost one would need to count
Physical relocation costs
Moving people, families, equipment, vehicles, aircraft, munitions.
Shipping, strategic airlift, de-rigging pre-positioned stocks.
New infrastructure & basing costs
Building or expanding bases in the US (I think the military term is CONUS) or elsewhere to receive relocated units.
Housing, schools, depots, ranges, HQs, hardened shelters, IT, comms.
Contractual and political costs
Base closure, environmental remediation, penalties, host-nation agreements.
Possibly early termination of long-term deals, SOFA adjustments. (Sure, the US can probably just not care about this, but the political cost for not caring would be a generationl reputation damage in Europe)
Operational opportunity costs
Reduced forward presence means more time & money to come back if needed.
Increased strategic lift requirement for any future operation in Europe and Middle East.
3. Rough money estimate (order-of-magnitude)
A) Moving the stuff
Hardware in theatre:
Several armoured brigade equivalents:
Say 1,000–1,500 heavy vehicles (tanks, IFVs, SPGs, MLRS, etc.).
Thousands of other tactical vehicles, trailers, support assets.
Dozens to low hundreds of aircraft (fighters, transports, helicopters, ISR platforms).
Massive amounts of ammunition, fuel, spare parts, comms gear, medical stock, etc.
Moving can be:
Strategic airlift (C-17, charter) – extremely expensive per ton.
Sealift (RO/RO ships, containers) – cheaper, but months of port/rail logistics.
If you treat it like a large, multi-year retrograde and use lots of sealift direct transport bill might be on the order of:
$10–20 billion (over several years)
That includes unit moves, families, and large-scale movement of pre-positioned equipment.
B) Building and expanding bases in new locations (US or even SE Asia)
This is the big one. Consider:
A single new or massively expanded Army base with housing for 15,000–20,000 people, training areas, depots, motor pools, HQ facilities, hospital capacity etc. can easily cost $5–10+ billion over a decade.
Air bases with:
Hardened shelters
Upgraded runways and taxiways
Ammo storage
Fuel infrastructure
Security, tech, and climate hardening
can run to multiple billions each.
C2 & HQ infrastructure (replacing EUCOM/AFRICOM footprints, relocating data centres, comms nodes etc.) is another multi-billion line.
If you assume:
The U.S. would need 3–5 major additional / expanded Army facilities,
2–3 major Air Force hubs,
plus significant expansion at existing ports, depots, and training ranges,
we are probably in the ballpark of:
$50–100 billion in new or expanded infrastructure over, don't know, 10–15 years
depending how gold-plated and dispersed you make it.
C) Soft financial costs
Base closure & remediation in Europe:
Environmental cleanup, infrastructure handover, legal obligations sums up to many billions over time. Again, this is often politically obfuscated.
Re-tooling pre-positioned stock concept:
APS sites in Europe would need to be replaced with stateside or alternate-theatre storage (e.g. CONUS, Indo-Pacific). That’s more construction & logistics.
Let’s conservatively throw another $10–20 billion over time for closure/cleanup/contractual and APS restructuring.
D) Total order of magnitude
Add the pieces:
Transport: $10–20 bn
New/expanded infrastructure: $50–100 bn
Closure/cleanup/APS reshuffle: $10–20 bn
This is very plausilby
$70–140 billion one-off / capital + transition cost
spread over a decade or so.
That’s not counting:
Higher recurring cost of projecting power back into Europe later,
Extra spending on strategic lift,
The cost to rebuild political credibility if the US ever wants to return becuase believe it, if Europe has to build up the same stuff and will become strategically capable and independent in say 10 years, why would Europe want the US back?
E) Three scenarios (time)
Scenario A – “Crash pullout and political rupture”
Timeline: 1–3 years
Politically motivated, rapid drawdown (like “bring them home now”).
Priorities: personnel out fast, families first, then high-value kit, then what you can salvage.
You use a lot of airlift and surge sealift.
Bases are left “warm” or mothballed; minimal remediation at first.
Feasible in a few years, but:
Operational chaos
Very high short-term logistics costs
Enormous political damage in NATO
Many assets stored in suboptimal conditions until proper bases are ready.
Scenario B – “Planned strategic re-posturing”
Timeline: 5–10 years
You phase out presence gradually:
First close some smaller sites.
Consolidate remaining forces into fewer hubs.
Meanwhile, build or expand bases in the U.S. (or possibly in the Indo-Pacific or dont know, "the Western Hemisphere").
Equipment moves in waves; some pre-positioned stocks get re-shored or scrapped/modernised.
Remediation and host-nation negotiations happen in parallel.
This is politically and logistically more realistic.
5–7 years is probably the minimum if Washington wants to avoid major disruption. Does it?
10 years gives time to align with budget cycles, procurement, and new doctrine.
Scenario C Something like “Silent hollowing out”
Timeline: 10-15 or more years
Officially U.S. “remains” in Europe, but:
Gradual troop reductions
No new major units deployed
Pre-positioned stocks quietly reduced
C2 footprints slimmed down
Cost is lower because things are not replaced and slowly shrinking.
This is less “withdraw and relocate” and more “let it wither”, but it’s often how great powers reduce presence.
F) Strategic implications for US (not political, thats a whole separate story)
Pure force-planning says: relocating everything back to US or anywhere makes future operations in Europe much more expensive.
More airlift, more tankers, more sealift, and more pre-planned surge plans just to get back to where you were.
C2 that is physically remote (e.g. controlling a Baltic war from the U.S.) is slower, more fragile, and politically less credible.
Downside for NATO's Eastern flank is obvious, but this might not be Americas priority problem for now:
US relocation changes the risk calculus for Russia:
a U.S. that has physically left Europe has to decide and mobilise to come back, which is exactly the window for opportunistic aggression.
Finally, I did calculations for Europe to replace US conventional assets and strategic enablers. I cam up with a rough 300 billion number.
So in total. It would cost the US about 2/3 to leave and lose control of European theatre what it would cost for Europe to replace the US assets and become strategically independent.
Im not sure who loses more in this equation.
Luke Baker retweeted
and there it is
Karaganov: We’re at war with Europe, not Ukraine — and the war won’t end until Europe is defeated.
🔗 Source: t.me/skabeeva/39268
Luke Baker retweeted
PM #Modi meets UK PM #Starmer in Mumbai.
'CETA is a turning point in India-UK ties, paving the way for a forward-looking partnership,' says Indian Amb to the UK Vikram Doraiswami. Tells @Parikshitl both nations will deepen cooperation in tech, green energy, education & defence.
