Some time ago, the Houthis carried out selective strikes against merchant ships in the Red Sea, specifically picking out Israeli merchant ships and supporting Israeli countries, almost cutting off the Suez Canal and the Red Sea route.
According to foreign media sources, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin gritted his teeth during his visit abroad and said that the US military will form a 10-nation fleet with nine countries to escort merchant ships in the Red Sea. Later, the matter was not followed, and only now there is no news, but there is not a single good news for the United States.
As the most loyal ally of the United States, Australia did not participate in the US escort operation this time, and the explanation given by Australia is that their navy only has 11 major ships, of which 8 are old-fashioned frigates. So Australia simply rejected the invitation of the United States in the first place.
Next is not so bad news, that is, Italy and France, sent **, however, each sent only one, this attitude is very clear: attitude first, escort second, focus on participation.
The most outrageous news was that the Netherlands and Norway sent only 18 staff officers to participate in the convoy, and not even a single ship. Seeing this news, one can't help but want to ask the Netherlands and Norway, where are these 18 staff officers here to command the US military?Or are you here to eat?
Excluding the small countries of Bahrain, Seychelles, and Spain, only Canada and Britain have not expressed their position in the ten-nation coalition, but, to put it mildly, with the naval strength of Britain and Canada, even if the main forces are gathered, they will not be able to do air defense covering the Red Sea, right?You must know that ocean-going merchant ships do not leave early and return late, they sail 24 hours a day, the Red Sea shipping is so heavy, the air defense system built by several ships, and some blind spots left behind, are enough for the Houthis to fight guerrilla warfare.
Therefore, in essence, the ten-nation coalition in the mouth of the United States may only be left with its own money and efforts in the end, you know, the cost of launching a ship-based missile is as high as 2.1 million US dollars, the United States does not think that missiles are expensive, and other countries still think that missiles are expensive!
Let's take a look at the Houthis again, so far, it has behaved quite easily, even bombing a few merchant ships, almost no losses of its own, when the United States formed the ten-nation coalition, it was not afraid at all, let the United States let the horse come, not afraid of as much as it comes, and even more and the better, why do you say that?
As we said earlier, it costs $2.1 million to launch a shipborne missile, but the cost of the Houthi "flying motorcycle" is only a few thousand dollars, and whether it is intercepted by a US missile or hit a merchant ship, it is all a matter of blood.
But I think the key point in this matter is not whether you win or lose, but the appeal of the United States and the attitude of your allies.
In the past, the United States raised its arms and shouted, who among the NATO allies dared not obey?Wherever the United States pointed, they would fight, and now, for a trivial matter of escort service, various countries are pushing back and obstructing, and the problem is too big.
In the final analysis, what the United States dragged NATO to do in the past was profitable and not very risky, and those NATO countries were naturally willing to saddle up the front and back, but the matter of escorting troops to the Red Sea against the Houthis is unprofitable and risky, and the essence is to maintain US maritime hegemony, who would want to come?Countries are just double standards, and they are not stupid. Project Sword
Looking at it this way, in fact, NATO is not a joke?