"NATO's East Is Rearming, But It's Because of Putin,.." Topic

…Not Trump

"Donald Trump has taken credit for a rise in military spending by NATO states, but in the alliance's eastern reaches, it's his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who's driving the rearming effort.

Last month, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thanked the U.S. President for "clearly having an impact" on defense spending by allies while Trump said his demands had added $41 USD billion to European and Canadian defense outlays.

But the jump in acquisitions behind the former Iron Curtain of aircraft, ships and armored vehicles began when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, well before Trump's 2016 election victory, according to analysts including Tomas Valasek, director of Carnegie Europe in Brussels. While the median defense expenditure of NATO members is 1.36 percent of gross domestic product, below the alliance's requirement of 2 percent, eastern members comprise seven of the 13 members that are paying above that level…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

True, this started due to Putin's actions, especially around the Baltic State countries, but Trump has indeed succeeded in holding NATO's feet to the fire, like no other President before, and their commitment to increase spending on their own defense, has indeed accelerated.

It will be interesting to see if it continues.

From what I've heard in the news, even Frau Merkel has agreed Germany needs to spend more.

Trump should get all the credit here because most of Western Europe did not feel the need to increase defense spending even after the Crimea takeover (which occurred way back in 2014), and Putin has been re-vitalizing the Russian military and adding new hardware for years. They were more than happy during all that time to let the Americans foot the bill for defense because previous US administrations didn't mind doing it.

But no more. The rules have changed under Trump so now they must accept new realities. Saying that they're finally increasing their defense spending because of Putin and not Trump is simply "saving face" at this point.

If you disagree with the well supported article, provide factual information to support your position.

The article mostly talks about the eastern NATO countries, like Estonia and other former Warsaw Pact countries.

I think the President's impact has put the pressure on the rest of NATO, like Germany, to pony up and spend more.

Actually, IIRC, Trump wasn't grumbling at the eastern NATO nations. It was the western states outside of the UK that he has an issue with.

Eastern NATO doesn't need to be reminded about Russia being a threat. They see it every day now and lived it everyday for 40 years. Ironically, nearly every nation in that group was part of the USSR or the Warsaw Pact.

But I don't think that money is the issue here. The problem is getting NATO to spend their money on creating effective forces that can dissuade Russia from getting frisky. You know, like actually fielding complete and ready field divisions, operation fighter wings, and commissioned and manned capital ships.

No more AFVs mounting wooden "machine guns"…

link

Why do people need to provide proof if they disagree with the article. It could be wrong from the beginning.

Here is a fact:

Since Trump took over and started talking about more money needing to be spent, Germany is taking several hundred Leo 2A6's out of mothball. France and Germany are working together on a new modern tank and aircraft. The British have said they will spend more.

It's obvious that Trump is trying to get the wealthy western European countries to bear their fair share rather than the poorer eastern European nations that needed no such prodding because they're much closer to Russia.

But the rich nations of western Europe are insulated by geography (i.e. the eastern European countries provide them a nice buffer) so do not feel directly threatened by Russia. Hence, they devote more to social welfare than defense. Extra incentives and pressure must be applied to get them to spend more.

Germany should increase its military by thousands and its tank force by hundreds, but it is only increasing it by 5000 men and 40 tanks link
link

Germany announced in 2015 it was taking tanks out of mothballs, that would be in response to Putin's actions and not Trump's as he hadn't taken the oath of office until 2017.

link

"The moves were seen as a signal that Nato regards Russia's seizure of Crimea and its military forays into eastern Ukraine as much more than a temporary crisis"

France and Germany were working on a joint tank venture back in 2016 when they were talking about the new cannon that it would use

link

"Papperger said that work on the MGCS concept development has already started. The new main battle tank is in a concept development phase between the German and French governments and industry. The concept development phase should be completed by 2017.

The new MGCS's focus on increased firepower is directly being driven by Russia's Armata program."

The effort to raise NATO defence budgets happend back in September 2014 again before Trump was president.

link

Similarly the UK had met the NATO 2% target back in 2016 again before Trump was President their defence budget was 2.21% of GDP.

Not hard to do some basic research.

Frau Merkel said this year, finally, that Germany and NATO countries need to spend more on their own defense, after Trump held her feet to the fire, when he met with her, and others about the issue.

It was in the news.

Look it up.

I doubt it was just a coincidental statement, in response to prodding by Obama, years ago.

I find it difficult to believe that the worlds largest superpower doing a 180 on foreign policy is not a significant factor in the planning and behavior of its' allies.

To tie this back to gaming, might I suggest O8 3mm miniatures, available from Pico Armor in the USA. My next project is a modern Polish force, after I finish my Cold War Dutch.

Well, I prefer 15mm, but I think you have better ultramodern equipment availability in 3mm or 6mm.

His Trumpness did note that the North Atlantic Treaty did require spending 2% of GDP on the military, and that not spending that money could be considered as a breach in the treaty absolving the US of needing to defend a country in breach.

While they should be spending the money on defense as required by the treaty, almost all of them have supported us and sent troops to Afghanistan to help in the ongoing fight against Al Qaeda after Article 5 was invoked when we were attacked on 9-11 link

6mm for me, and/or 12mm, depending upon the scenario, my mood, and available forces.

Not too many German tanks to field, so that makes it a bit more economical.

Limited Luftwaffe air capability too, at least that is serviceable, from what I've read.

Looks like the Poles and US are probably going to be the main Western force mainstays.

AirWar:C21 for the air rules, with either 1/600th, or 1/300th aircraft, depending upon the force size, and availability.

I would say even the US forces would be limited. Currently, I believe we have only a single brigade augmented with some additional training units.

While they should be spending the money on defense as required by the treaty, almost all of them have supported us and sent troops to Afghanistan to help in the ongoing fight against Al Qaeda after we invoked Article 5 when we were attacked on 9-11 link

No paulgenna- we have more than that.

We have a armored brigade from the 1st Cav (1st Brigade, Ironhorse), the 2nd ACR, and the 173rd Airborne Brigade. So, roughly, 3 light infantry battalions, 3 medium infantry (motorized/Stryker) battalions, two combined arms heavy battalions, one heavy recce battalion, one medium recce battalion, and one light recce battalion. Toss in the supporting slices like arty, engineers, and so on and you have about one mixed arms division, but I don't believe that there is an operational HQ commanding all of these forces and none of them are in the same AO as full maneuver units.

link

I believe that the cavalry and airborne are permanent forces while the heavy brigade it rotational. The Ironhorse replaced the 1st ID's own Dagger Brigade back in the spring.

An interesting aside, one battalion of the 173rd, the 1st Battalion, 143rd Infantry, is actually a Texa National Guard battalion participating in the Army's Associated Units Program. Looks like these weekend warriors got themselves an all expense paid vacation to Italy. Here's a video of them training with Israeli and Italian troops in an airmobile op.

link

28mm Fanatik: "But the rich nations of western Europe are insulated by geography (i.e. the eastern European countries provide them a nice buffer) so do not feel directly threatened by Russia."

They need to wake up, because it is precisely those same nations that created most of the conditions for two extremely costly world wars. And in both cases the prize was always Western Europe. The poor Eastern European countries caught in between were just "flyover country" in the conflicts. They didn't have the population or economies to support any real defense systems.

I understand the concept of defense in layers, but can any nation really be a buffer against a determined nation with modern military capabilities? "Geographical isolation" is an illusion in the 21st century, just like the Maginot Line was in the 20th. Bombers, missiles and amphibious/paratrooper operations can all circumvent the "buffer" countries.

Dan

Supposedly, we've got a lot of armor stored in Norway.

Wonder who will get crews to them first, assuming they survive a first-strike, if the balloon goes up?

They need to wake up, because it is precisely those same nations that created most of the conditions for two extremely costly world wars.

Except they won't wake up any time soon until Russia's military actually becomes a credible threat. Russia's military currently is high tech but relatively small, geared towards quick and decisive asymmetrical "hybrid warfare." As such, Russia lacks the conventional capability to hold territory even if it succeeds in temporarily taking them.

Western Europe also believes it's better to appease the Bear by allowing Russia its sphere-of-influence. Don't incite "color revolutions" and cause trouble in Russia's near abroad and Europe will be peaceful.

BTW Putin and Merkel just reaffirmed their commitment to the Nord Stream pipeline.