"Why Europe can't (won't) defend itself" Topic

Interesting article on why Europe won't defend itself and how a return to talk fests and back patting won't change their reliance on the US.

link

And also the growing preference for a European neutrality and a wish to stay out of any Russia-US or China-US conflict. This is both in western and eastern European states.

link

Historically neutrality doesn't seem to last long when major powers go to war. In a Russia v US conflict the Europeans wouldn't be able to sit it out.

Why are we helping those who won't help themselves?

Why are we helping those who won't help themselves?

Cause you did it in 1941-1991 and there's no brakes or reverse switch on your foreign policy choo choo train.

The key is most Europeans view NATO as a redundant and one-sided arrangement.

Maybe they are misguided or just plain wrong, but that's how the electorate views NATO and in democracies the electorate have some influence over the government.

People have not forgotten the Iraq war either. They don't want to get drawn into anything similar again.

"The key is most Europeans view NATO as a redundant and one-sided arrangement"-Skarper

One sided when the USA supplies 75% of NATO's capablitiy? The real problem is Europeans are spoiled, they want a place at the table and be equals when they are not in this alliance.

As far as the electorate goes present them the bill for their own defense in the form of increased taxes or slashed spending on social welfare programs. I believe it would cure them of their emotion induced opinions…

"People have not forgotten the Iraq war either."-Skarper

Then remind them BP oil got a share of the plunder…

Let America leave – I say. Just go. The Cold War has been over for nigh on 30 years.

Is Russia a threat to Europe? Any notion of Russian tanks invading Europe is over. If it is still a threat, let Europeans organise their own treaty and leave America out.

What US ground forces remain in Europe now? Just 1 Airborne brigade, an aviation brigade, an artillery brigade and various support troops? Almost negligible. Just a trip wire for a nuclear response, as it likely was even at the peak of US commitment to Europe.

Truth is, the US likes its European bases. They serve US strategic interests, not defence of the host countries. I think everyone knows this if they stop to think about it. And why should it be any different? I'm sure the German government are aware, so they'll call the US bluff on any withdrawal threats.

The UK is content to play host to US bases for now, but they have been scaled back in recent decades.

BP is British in name only.

Skarper what is your obsession with bases you keep coming back to it? The real issue is why many European NATO countires have not met their obligations that is the subject. Base denial is a weak gambit to avoid a difficult conversation…

It's the only tangible manifestation of NATO in Europe.

The bases could stay even if NATO ceased to exist, or more countries opted out.

That's the end game. Bases stay, NATO goes. A European replacement could be formed, but I think it's a difficult proposition.

It's probably unwise for Europe to disarm further, and I would actually favour some upgrades from the current token forces most countries maintain.

I just don't think a US dominated NATO is any use any more.

Well spoken Skarper

"Then remind them BP oil got a share of the plunder…"….

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, thanks for the belly laugh!

I'm fine with them and others learning to speak Russian, and/or Mandarin.

"let Europeans organise their own treaty and leave America out"

Ha ha ha!

Tally Ho!

Skarper, sure NATO might be somewhat anachronistic but it actually acts as a great big subsidy for the European.

E.g. the territory between Poland and Greece is defended by a total of 120 jets which includes around 40 MiG-21s and nearly 30 monkey model MiG-29s. There are several hundred tanks though only 150 are T-72 (and then mainly obsolete models) and rest is T-55 or knock offs.

A lot of this stuff is not operational due to lack of spares. They are replacing some of it with tiny amounts of modern equipment.

Clearly if there is no NATO this is easy pickings for not just Russia but increasingly Turkey.

But NATO membership means that the indepdence of these countries is guaranteed by the US.

Remove NATO are article 5 and all of a sudden the Europeans need to invest serious money into militaries that have largely been dismantled for 30 years.

Agree with that arealdeadone. I've been saying for sometime, NATO should stay around even if the USSR/WP are no longer a threat. It still has an organizational structure, etc., for NATO units, training, etc. Along with some WP are in NATO now. The mission may have changed somewhat.

So change the name, but it's still a good idea to have that sort of organization in place just in case. And we know many of the non-NATO members in the UN are in worse shape and less effective than some in NATO.

And as a sidebar, just like when a base closes down in the US or overseas. It effects the local community economically.

Remember that many of the countries in former east Europe are dirt poor. How would, eg Minnesota, pay for its own defense? could Minnesota or Idaho afford a large modern defense force?

The east European countries do try to keep the 2% but they just do not have enough money that the 2% can buy that much. Without NATO they would be attacked and we would have lots of wars here in Europe. So NATO preserves the peace cause without NATO some membership countries, like Turkey might be tempted to start wars with its neighbors.

When it comes to the larger EU countries, eg Germany, France, or richer countries they could absolutely increase their spending.

The Eastern European countries lack money but they have always supported the US and help with what they can. It might not be much but they sent to troops to Iraq and answered the call when the US asked for it. They know that loyalty is not a a one way street and do what they can.

"Remember that many of the countries in former east Europe are dirt poor. How would, eg Minnesota, pay for its own defense? could Minnesota or Idaho afford a large modern defense force?"-Soledad

Then let each country bring what it can to the table. I never said or expected each country to have a "large" modern defense force! Would it be too much for the poorer nations to field a modern combined arms brigade or division? As far as I am concerned even the wealthier NATO nations are shedding their militaries and not making a real effort.

The way I see it Soledad, Minnesota pays federal tax dollars so we don't have to have our own "large modern defense force" we contribute to something larger than ourselves. Now I understand the EU is composed of a bunch of smaller countries and they need to band together and come to an understanding on what is to be created and purchased. They would have to put aside their petty agendas for that to happen.

Our spending are already close to 2% (1,87 for 2020) and will be higher in 3 years. We have our own nuclear forces, paid by our own taxes, not U.S ones. Since 1966, there has been no NATO base or American military personnel on French soil. (by the way, when we chose to bear our own defence, LBJ's administration considered de Gaulle a traitor and a soviet agent!???! I see that time are changing). France is deploying military forces against islamism in Africa, Meditteranean sea and Middle east, so that there is not another ISIS a few miles south of Europe's borders, and the price paid for that is more than money. We do our share, and not only for our country.

The eastern countries bring what they can afford. They cannot simply afford a modern combined arms brigade much less a division.

I agree the wealthy nations do not spend enough, they are "free riders". But the eastern countries? Many are dirt poor. Or their size is just not big enough to have the financial muscle to afford modern weapon systems.

Like Latvia, 1,7 million people. a GDP of about 1/5 of the US. Buying 9 F35 would eat up their ENTIRE defense budget. Just buying the damn planes… Not flying them, not maintaining them or training the pilots. So not a dime for anything but 9 aircraft…

Estonia 1.3 million people same problem…

But when push comes to shove they send troops who fight and die alongside the US. They just cannot afford high tech as it is too expensive. So they fight with what they have.

Sorry not 3 years, 5.

And everytime I read about France stepping up and helping out it puts a smile on my face!

If the Eastern European territories are under threat from Russia or Turkey as stated above then the US is the only military capable of guaranteeing their independence.

Europeans' disenchantment with NATO probably has a lot to do with not wanting to participate in any future illegal regime change wars [we can argue the toss about the legality of Iraq and Afghanistan but I'm sure many Europeans don't want to do that kind of thing again.]

Also, Germany probably thinks they are safe behind Poland and Belarus so why bother?? It's unlikely threats can make them splash out on defense.

Only way to make European countries participate would be to make it a condition of EU membership. A European Army/air force/navy could be the answer – though it's hard to imagine.

Agree with you Skarper. An European army is the answer. Having a common diplomacy and a common defence policy, as we have now, is a pure nonsense without a common army. But must admit ther's no political will in this direction today.
@Dragon: very happy that my fellow countrymen killed while "stepping up" make you smile.

That is why the eastern countries fulfill their commitment to NATO. And send their meager troops when the US needs help (Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq again).

A common European army will never work. Europe is several different countries with "no loyalties" to other countries. German troops under French command? not likely. Sending Spanish troops to defend Swedish interests, nope. Letting (corrupt) officials in Bruxelles decide how many fellow country men must die? Not more likely than the US allowing UN command US troops in war…

Would the US relinquish command of a carrier battle group to the UN? Or UN command of some divisions?

Skarper's got a point. Non-NATO Sweden, Finland and Switzerland have never been invaded, and none of them came close to meeting the 2 percent GDP defense spending guideline.

A common European army will never work. Europe is several different countries with "no loyalties" to other countries.

Really?

link

link

Was Donald Rumsfeld right after all? :)

pjm

@Fanch du Leon

Nice spin on my words to give a diabolic meaning to them it was meant as a compliment.

Now I expect some other deragotory comment don't bother I no longer desire to read anything you have to say or listen to you and won't have to…

Fanatik Sweden had one of the most effective and largest militaries in western Europe up to the 1980s. Switzerland had a massive if largely obsolete force.

Both countries have horrible terrain.

Finland was effectively disarmed and aligned its policy to take into account Soviet requirements.

In 2020 Sweden and Switzerland have largely disarmed but both are surrounded by NATO partners or EU countries.

Finland has considerably expanded its capabilities and continues to do so.

The Swedes are trying to resurrect their largely dismantled military.

As for the those two European units, they're token units.

European states also rotate small forces through the Baltics. Often a company or platoon.

Europeans' disenchantment with NATO probably has a lot to do with not wanting to participate in any future illegal regime change wars [we can argue the toss about the legality of Iraq and Afghanistan but I'm sure many Europeans don't want to do that kind of thing again.]

So they are no longer USA's allies … So should not expect support from the USA. Well IIRC many in the USA didn't want to go to WWI and WWII. But many did and died. It was a European problem yes ?

An European army is the answer.

So they leave NATO, hence no NATO. But what happens if they need the USA's support or help ? As has been in a few times in the past.

Soledad +1 The UN or NATO are pretty much useless without the US. When it comes down to it. Sadly the UN is pretty worthless as it is. Even if just in a support role, the USA may be critical.

But I believe most American civilians[i.e. voters] generally know little or could care less about what goes on it Europe. It really only comes down to economics.

The eastern countries bring what they can afford. They cannot simply afford a modern combined arms brigade much less a division.

Even looking at the pathetic 2% of GDP requirement that often gets padded with domestic security or veteran welfare, many don't meet it.

Albania – 1.26%
Bulgaria – 3.25%
Croatia – 1.68% (ramped up by inclusion of veteran welfare)
Czech Republic – 1.19%
Hungary – 1.21% (stats need updating as they've just spent a ton on new tanks, IFVs, SPHs, helicopters and SAMS. Once deliveries are complete Hungary will have the most modern military in Europe).
Estonia – 2.04%
Latvia – 2.01%
Lithuania – 2.03%
Monte Negro – 1.66%
Poland – 2.0%
Romania – 2.04%
Slovak Republic – 1.74%
Slovenia -1.04%

Now I will admit the western Europeans are often even worse – Spain 0.92%, Belgium 0.93%, Italy 1.22%, Canada 1.31%, Denmark 1.32%, Germany 1.36% etc etc. Only western countries in NATO that get to 2% are US (3.42%) and UK (2.14%).

The inclusion of veterans benefits and domestic security is used to pad out the GDP figures. Eg Croatia includes its Coast Guard equipped with inshore patrol ships in its navy. These ships are small coastal ships at less than 150-200 tons with no combat capability (the new ones armament is restricted to a single 30mm cannon and 2 0.50 cal HMGs). They are constabulary vessels primarily designed for civilian policing duties. Still the expenditure expended on them goes under defence spending.

And very often defence procurement is badly handled.

Instead of pooling resources to get economies of scale, each country maintains separate procurement processes so they get totally screwed on price.

EG the fighter issue. Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia are all looking for fighters at the same time. Instead of a joint procurement they each go for individual purchases and pay a ton for not a lot of equipment – small number of planes (8-14 each on average), very limited weapons packages. Romania went so much as to buy 1980s vintage F-16A/Bs upgraded to 1990s MLU standard (these are currently being delivered)!

They also miss out on economies of scale for logistics and maintenance.

There's lots of "jobs creation" schemes that churn out very little capability. Most of the Polish defence procurement system is like this. Sure Poland spends 2% of GDP on defence but gets very little in return for this. Massive planned procurements have resulted in nothing:

1. Requirement for 120+ attack/naval/utility choppers – 8 helicopters ordered. Rest of these programs are stuck.
2. Order for 7 multi role corvettes – 1 OPV delivered over budget and with no capability. Program cancelled.
3. Requirement for several hundreds of upgraded SPHs to replace 2S1, DANA and other SPHS with program commenced in 1997! 48 delivered.
4. Submarine replacement program – going nowhere quickly and literally reliant on Sweden buying back subs from Singapore (Swedish sub fleet is in a bad state after years of neglect).

And they don't exploit what is available. For example the US has been donating large amounts of surplus equipment including UH-60s, M2 Bradleys, MRAPS, OH-58D Kiowas, radars etc.

These items are free though countries have to pay for upgrades and transport. Still cheaper than buying new. How many NATO partners take advantage of this facility: 3 (Albania*, Greece and Croatia).

*The Albanian army is an even more comedic joke than it was in communist times. It consists of a special forces unit (reasonably equipped) and 3 battalions of infantry. You won't find anything heavier than an RPG-7 or 81mm mortar operational in the Albanian army. No AT or air defence or heavier artillery support.

The navy no longer exists though there is a Coast Guard equipped with unarmed patrol boats.

The air force has a number of transport helicopters ranging from ancient UH-1 and Bell 206s to a handful of modern Super Pumas.

For example the US has been donating large amounts of surplus equipment including UH-60s, M2 Bradleys, MRAPS, OH-58D Kiowas, radars etc.

Which all would good equipment if the users know how to maintenance and how to tactically use the equipment … Both may be a problem for some …

The idea of the US defending Germany and other European countries that can afford, but don't want to, pay for their own defense needs to end. If aggression against former WP countries is an issue then deal with that separately. Big Europe (the main NATO countries) have no desire to dance to the US tune but want the aid and the US likes staging areas closer to the action and pretend we're all one big family but it's time has passed. NATO and whether or not equal commitments are being made is more often a topic than any threat it may face. Recent joint ops and the antics of Turkey, with no ramifications, shows just how much of a sham it is.

Legion,
US provides assistance and training. They also provide spares (usually in the form of excess equipment to be cannibalised for spares).

But the preference is to spend procurement funds paying for some local half baked home brew garbage that won't work or be procured at all but will allow a political donor to buy a new BMW and a holiday house in Majorca.

Or in many instances, the funds for procurement get allocated then not spent because procurement processes keep getting started and cancelled over and over again due to changes in specifications, questions about procurement processes, government changes etc etc (like Poland or often Romania).

I suspect there is some hardcore corruption here.

Striker – nail hit on head.

NATO countries like Germany and France would rather appease than spend more money on defense to defend against Russia. It's not as if they're the ones in danger of being overrun; it's eastern European nations like Poland.

Besides, they need cheap Russian gas to keep them warm during the winter so why would they want to antagonize Russia?

Legion,
US provides assistance and training. They also provide spares (usually in the form of excess equipment to be cannibalised for spares).

Yes, I know … and even after being trained, again they may not do a lot of the maintenance properly, etc.,.

And with all the training the US does of many armies they still may not perform well tactically … Having been a Tactician and Logistician I have a strong working knowledge of these topics.

But the preference is to spend procurement funds paying for some local half baked home brew garbage that won't work or be procured at all but will allow a political donor to buy a new BMW and a holiday house in Majorca.

You have read my mind ! And the newly elected leadership in DC is talking about a 10% reduction in the budget for the military and veteran services.

I suspect there is some hardcore corruption here.

Yes Corruption with a capital C !

Big Europe (the main NATO countries) have no desire to dance to the US tune but want the aid and the US likes staging areas closer to the action and pretend we're all one big family but it's time has passed. NATO and whether or not equal commitments are being made is more often a topic than any threat it may face. Recent joint ops and the antics of Turkey, with no ramifications, shows just how much of a sham it is.

BINGO !!!!!!

Fanatik exactly.

I read a Finnish defence ministry strategy paper a few years ago.

It flat out assumed that the Germans and other major European players wouldn't respond militarily to Russian action in the Baltics.

Essentially it plays out that whilst Russia lost its buffer zone with loss of Warpac and Soviet states, the western Europeans gained one.

If they allowed every citizen to own guns, including assault rifles, Russia, and everyone else, would pause before invading…

In WW II, as today, everyone is afraid to invade the USA because most citizens are well armed, with hunting experience -- they know how to shoot accurately.

Israel has a workable plan as well: all citizens are required to serve in the military, and to have weapons in their home, to fight, if needed.

It is not hi-tech, but it is effective. I doubt Russia has enough hi-tech to really deal with a well armed, citizen militia, in every European nation. Cheers!

A NATO without the USA in it.
Ok, when I was over there, having to review reparations funding to account for damage to German land and land use for concerns was appealing.one cost that I remember was 20 Euros for every road side marker hit. Our division in a winter reformer in 1979-80 had a incident which as division Safety Officer I had to investigate, we got charged the full cost for 51 BMWs. They had been ran over by a wild M577.
Anyway let them go. The US will have a few weeks to counter the Russian maneuvers.

everyone is afraid to invade the USA because most citizens are well armed, with hunting experience -- they know how to shoot accurately.

That's an unassailable piece of logic right there. I've often wondered what was stopping Mexico and Canada.

"everyone is afraid to invade the USA because most citizens are well armed, with hunting experience -- they know how to shoot accurately."

Setting aside the question of who might ever contemplate an actual invasion of the Continental USA (rather more of a logistical challenge compared to Estonia or Latvia), is ownership of suitable firearms so prevalent in major conurbations on the East and West Coast? And what happens when said invader starts to summarily execute civilians as reprisals – would there be the will to support the continued resistance in 21st century western societies?

We have the 1984 cult classic movie 'Red Dawn' to thank for the citizen-bearing-arms-resisting-invaders nonsense. It even merited an awful 2012 remake starring the Aussie actor who played Thor believe it or not.

There are more small arms/guns in the USA that people. I've got 5 myself. Let there be no doubt, there are many hunters and gun owners in the USA. Most of my friends have a number of small arms/guns. Plus know how to use them.

"everyone is afraid to invade the USA because most citizens are well armed, with hunting experience -- they know how to shoot accurately."

Yep …

Highly unlikely the USA would/could be invaded. Albeit it still could fight one Hell of a guerilla war in the streets, forests, swamps, mountains, etc. In this case … it would be our backyard.

Let there be no doubt, there are many hunters and gun owners in the USA. Most of my friends have a number of small arms/guns. Plus know how to use them.

I believe ya. Been to one a' them political rallies.

"And what happens when said invader starts to summarily execute civilians as reprisals – would there be the will to support the continued resistance in 21st century western societies?"

If it came to that, there would be No Quarter for the invaders from that point on…

Those militias and citizen soldiers didn't save the South in their own back yard, did they?

I think a better example would be the partisans in Russian when the Nazi invaded. Yes, numbers of people armed themselves and inflicted damaged to the Nazi; Who, then reacted in typically Nazi fashion and wiped out entire villages and more.

There have always been civilians who turn paramilitary and rise up to resist an invading force, whether we're talking Russian and French partisans during WWII, the Vietcong in 'Nam or insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.