Il funzionario Trump critica la strategia dei poteri intermedi, definendola una "distrazione"

A senior U.S. defense official has criticized the concept of a “middle powers” strategy, dismissing it as a distraction during a period of intense global geopolitical discussion. In a series of social media posts published on Tuesday, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby rejected the notion that countries might shift away from buying American military hardware, arguing that such concerns were unfounded and inaccurate. He emphasized that the Department of Defense was not worried about losing the arms market to other suppliers, but rather about some allies and partners wasting resources on what he called a misaligned focus. Colby stated that the idea of a collective middle powers strategy was built on flawed assumptions about international relations. He described the U.S. approach as one of “flexible realism,” emphasizing factors such as national interest, geography, economics, and military strength as key determinants in foreign policy. According to him, the term “middle powers” lacked a clear foundation for strategic cooperation. The official also stressed that access to the U.S. defense industry was a privilege, not a guaranteed right. While he encouraged allies to invest in their own defense capabilities, he argued that such efforts should complement, not replace, American military production. This stance aligns with broader U.S. policy goals aimed at maintaining dominance in global defense markets while fostering partnerships that support mutual security objectives. Prime Minister Mark Carney has been a vocal proponent of the middle powers concept, having discussed it extensively in speeches throughout the year. At the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, Carney urged middle powers to unite in order to protect their interests against the influence of larger, more powerful states. He warned that if these nations failed to collaborate, they would become vulnerable to exploitation by dominant global players. Carney reiterated this message in a speech given in Australia earlier this year, asserting that middle powers possessed greater influence than commonly recognized. His remarks reflected a growing sentiment among smaller and medium-sized nations seeking to assert their agency in a world increasingly dominated by major powers like the United States and China. Canada’s United Nations ambassador, David Lametti, noted that Carney’s vision for middle powers had already started taking form. He highlighted the establishment of various cooperative frameworks designed to address specific regional and global challenges. These initiatives, according to Lametti, aligned with Carney’s belief in multilateralism beyond traditional diplomatic channels such as the United Nations. The debate over the role of middle powers in global affairs has intensified amid shifting alliances and evolving threats. As tensions rise between major powers, smaller states are exploring new avenues for collaboration to enhance their strategic positions. The contrasting views expressed by Colby and Carney underscore the complexity of navigating international relations in an era marked by uncertainty and competition. The U.S. position, as articulated by Colby, reflects a continued emphasis on maintaining American leadership in defense and security matters. Meanwhile, the Canadian perspective, championed by Carney, highlights the need for middle powers to band together to safeguard their interests and increase their influence on the world stage. Both approaches represent distinct strategies for addressing the challenges posed by an increasingly fragmented and unpredictable international landscape.