Europe under extreme duress

[Mirage]

We shouldn’t be there because they need us. We should be there because it is in our interest.

You’re asking good questions.

Well here's one for you, too, then ?.

If they don't need us, then why is it in our interest to be there to the level we are, given: we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year during peacetime to do so, it diverts our forces and attention away from much worse threats looming elsewhere, our involvement dramatically increases the odds a conflict will go nuclear, our involvement increases the paranoia Russia feels as a cornered animal, our involvement gives European lawmakers an excuse not to spend on their own defense, etc.

 

[taxi1]

Well here's one for you, too, then ?.

If they don't need us, then why is it in our interest to be there to the level we are, given: we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year during peacetime to do so, it diverts our forces and attention away from much worse threats looming elsewhere, our involvement dramatically increases the odds a conflict will go nuclear, our involvement increases the paranoia Russia feels as a cornered animal, our involvement gives European lawmakers an excuse not to spend on their own defense, etc.

We are degrading our number 1 threat, Russia, for pennies on the dollar. Our actions in Ukraine send a clear, unambiguous message to China about Taiwan. We are defending the ideal of representative democracy while doing so. Our not invading Russia in their weakened state despite their argument that this is why they invaded Ukraine, to head off an invasion by NATO, makes them look stupid(er). The next-gen weapons are developed in this-gen wars, and we are getting a free field trial of our current stores against our #1 foe while seeing their continually degraded capabilities. I'm also not that upset that the European countries under-arm themselves, leaving them dependent on us. That gives us leverage.

This is really a war of commitment now. Putin has shifted from lightning strike to outwaiting the finicky, messy, noisy democracies that lack the long term will and commitment to see something through. We will get bored and be riven by internal dissent, and he is willing to wait us out while losing hundreds of thousands of his own that he doesn't care about anyway. It is a test of wills. He fully expects us to blink. We should stay until he understands we won't blink.

 

[Mirage]

We are degrading our number 1 threat, Russia, for pennies on the dollar.

This brings me back to my previous questions I asked the group. Why do you think Russia, who just failed to take Kiev before we even helped them, is our #1 threat? Do you feel like Alaska is at risk? What about Poland or the Baltics, being NATO Allies? What is the specific threat to US taxpayers that we are degrading? What stats or facts are you using to conclude that Russia is such a threat?

Our actions in Ukraine send a clear, unambiguous message to China about Taiwan. We are defending the ideal of representative democracy while doing so. Our not invading Russia in their weakened state despite their argument that this is why they invaded Ukraine, to head off an invasion by NATO, makes them look stupid(er). The next-gen weapons are developed in this-gen wars, and we are getting a free field trial of our current stores against our #1 foe while seeing their continually degraded capabilities. I'm also not that upset that the European countries under-arm themselves, leaving them dependent on us. That gives us leverage.

If Russia is not actually that much of a threat, then your other reasons are to deter China, to defend the ideal of a representative democracy, to make Russia look stupid by not invading, and to test weapons. Let's take these 1 at a time.

Deterring China by sending our hardware to Europe makes little sense to me. I get the principle of sending a message, but sending military hardware to Taiwan would make more sense. China likely only sees us weakening ourselves in Europe.

Defending a representative democracy... Sure, but we could do that the same way France and Germany are. We don't need permanent bases and huge expenditures year after year to accomplish that, do we?

We can make Russia look stupid by not invading whether we have huge expenditures there or not. Wouldn't it make Putin look even more stupid and take away more of his reason for invading if we weren't in Europe to the degree we are?

As for weapons testing... What weapons are you referring to? Most of what we're sending to my knowledge is javelins, stingers, Abrams, etc., that we don't need to test. Regardless, anything we want to test we could test by supporting Ukraine the way Germany and France are, could we not?

This is really a war of commitment now. Putin has shifted from lightning strike to outwaiting the finicky, messy, noisy democracies that lack the long term will and commitment to see something through. We will get bored and be riven by internal dissent, and he is willing to wait us out while losing hundreds of thousands of his own that he doesn't care about anyway. It is a test of wills. He fully expects us to blink. We should stay until he understands we won't blink.

Has Putin shifted from a "lightning strike" to "outwaiting" us, or did his "lightning strike" fail and now he is doing everything he can to try to win by throwing conscripts at the problem, before the support of his own population and oligarchs turns against him? They way you describe it is that this has all been a part of Putin's master plan, and he knew he'd end up in this situation and that we will blink. Why do you think that?

 

[taxi1]

Has Putin shifted from a "lightning strike" to "outwaiting" us, or did his "lightning strike" fail and now he is doing everything he can to try to win by throwing conscripts at the problem, before the support of his own population and oligarchs turns against him? They way you describe it is that this has all been a part of Putin's master plan, and he knew he'd end up in this situation and that we will blink. Why do you think that?

Definitely not part of his master plan, as you note, the lightning strike failed. He expected to hold Kiev in no time, and let the West deal with that, but Ukraine didn't go along. He's had to adjust. It's turned into a battle of wills now, to see who blinks.

As crappy as the Russians have fought this war, they still have an awful lot of men and material to throw at it, to destroy the infrastructure and try to bleed Ukraine out. It's not a done deal that Russia loses this thing, at all.

As they say, predictions are hard, especially about the future, but what do you expect the state of things to be a year from now? What's the possible outcomes, and most likely?

 

[Brett327]

This brings me back to my previous questions I asked the group. Why do you think Russia, who just failed to take Kiev before we even helped them, is our #1 threat? Do you feel like Alaska is at risk? What about Poland or the Baltics, being NATO Allies? What is the specific threat to US taxpayers that we are degrading? What stats or facts are you using to conclude that Russia is such a threat?

You can be a threat and malign influence on the geopolitical scene without presenting in imminent threat of attack. Russia's entire stance it to obstruct/oppose/complicate US foreign policy. While opinions vary on the precise degree, there's little doubt that Russia seeks to influence US politics and foment social tension through social media and other cyber attacks, etc.


Bottom line, they're a bad actor that works against US national interests. While they're busy stepping on their own dicks in UKR, it is in the US interest to impose maximal costs on Russia and otherwise degrade their ability to do these things. Bleeding them dry in Ukraine makes good sense, and doing it by proxy is certainly better than direct conflict.

 

[hscs]

This brings me back to my previous questions I asked the group. Why do you think Russia, who just failed to take Kiev before we even helped them, is our #1 threat? Do you feel like Alaska is at risk? What about Poland or the Baltics, being NATO Allies? What is the specific threat to US taxpayers that we are degrading? What stats or facts are you using to conclude that Russia is such a threat?

I'll turn this on you - what stats do you state that Russia isn't a threat? What you are asking, makes it seem like you have not read anything about what has happened in Estonia, Crimea, Syria, meddling in our elections, etc.

 

[Mirage]

As they say, predictions are hard, especially about the future, but what do you expect the state of things to be a year from now? What's the possible outcomes, and most likely?

I agree it's not a done deal that Russia doesn't take Ukraine, but I think even if Putin does that, he's already lost. As you say, predicting anything is a fool's errand, but if I'm betting on the state of the war in a year, I'd guess we will be about where we are right now, just with lots more dead.

Will you not humor me and answer the follow on questions I had for you?

You can be a threat and malign influence on the geopolitical scene without presenting in imminent threat of attack. Russia's entire stance it to obstruct/oppose/complicate US foreign policy. While opinions vary on the precise degree, there's little doubt that Russia seeks to influence US politics and foment social tension through social media and other cyber attacks, etc.


Bottom line, they're a bad actor that works against US national interests. While they're busy stepping on their own dicks in UKR, it is in the US interest to impose maximal costs on Russia and otherwise degrade their ability to do these things. Bleeding them dry in Ukraine makes good sense, and doing it by proxy is certainly better than direct conflict.

Oh I have no doubt Russia seeks to undermine us, influence our politics, etc. But is that reason enough to still maintain the very high expenditures we undertake to defend Europe? Would you care to address any of the other parts of my questions?

I'll turn this on you - what stats do you state that Russia isn't a threat? What you are asking, makes it seem like you have not read anything about what has happened in Estonia, Crimea, Syria, meddling in our elections, etc.

Are you turning it on me because you lack answers to my questions? If you're going to throw insults like you have, then can you tell me what specific questions I've asked make it seem like I'm unaware of the things you stated?

But, fair enough, I'm happy to answer your question. Here are some stats for you:

Russia has lost somewhere around 200,000 soldiers. It has also lost around half of its tanks (source), and ridiculous percentages of its artillery, fighting vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc. This was fighting Ukraine. Putin may or may not be able to take Ukraine (I'm doubtful), but these stats convince me that there is absolutely no way Putin will attack NATO next. Put another way, Russia is not a threat to the US taxpayer, the global order, the EU, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, democracies, global trade, or anyone else except for their current opponent. The most they will be able to do is cyber warfare, a la Estonia. Something we are equipped to respond in kind to, if we choose, from the comfort of our home turf. Hardly reason, in my mind, to keep permanent bases in Europe and keep spending countless billions on European defense. But, I'd love to hear some stats or facts that prove me wrong. Most the people that keep telling me how much we need to keep shouldering the European defense budget got quiet as soon as I started asking why, though.

 

[Brett327]

But is that reason enough to still maintain the very high expenditures we undertake to defend Europe?

Yes… why? Small price to pay to enhance regional and global stability. The weight of the US adds considerable legitimacy and military capacity to the alliance. We’re the de facto superpower, and we’re going to do the heavy lifting. It’s never going to be as equitable as you might wish, so as long as US leaders value all the benefits, then that dynamic is unlikely to change.

 

[Mirage]

Yes… why? Small price to pay to enhance regional and global stability. The weight of the US adds considerable legitimacy and military capacity to the alliance. We’re the de facto superpower, and we’re going to do the heavy lifting. It’s never going to be as equitable as you might wish, so as long as US leaders value all the benefits, then that dynamic is unlikely to change.

Well, I appreciate the answer at least. I agree, it's not going to change. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think that has more to do with our military industrial complex, its lobbying power, the jobs it creates for all our legislators' districts, etc. We spend $800 billion a year on defense, and we've spent that much compared to our gdp for a long, long time. That's 3.2% of our gdp. Russia spends around $66bl (3.1% gdp) and China $293bl (1.7%). Together with Iran, they spend a combined $384bl. I find it hard to believe we need to spend over 2 times their combined total every year, when every single one of the other countries on the top 20 list for highest military budgets is our ally, and Russia's military has been exposed as a fraud. Are we ever going to get another peace dividend, or will we just keep spending until we have no choice but to default? What will we do if we actually go to war but we have so much debt already that we literally cannot afford to increase spending to finance it? Doesn't seem wise to me.

 

[Random8145]

So the European states have neglected their militaries and spent that money on their people instead. I believe they've done so because we have enabled them by providing the defense they feel they need. At any rate, why can they not change course if we stop enabling them? By your own implicit admission, Russia hasn't been able to build a credible military until this point, and likely won't be able to in our lifetimes, so why do you not believe Europe already has the defensive power it needs to defend and deter Russia? Why do you believe Putin would think he could win a war against NATO now or at any time in our lifetimes?

Well I don't know if it's that simple given the politics of the European countries. But also, as I said earlier, I do not see the likes of France or Germany going at it with Russia to defend the Baltic states or any such small countries.

I don't know if Putin or his successor will be able to rebuild a credible military, but I think it just better centralizes the leadership to counter any Russian threat by having the U.S. presence.

Europe is like a flock of doves flying with an eagle, the U.S., leading them. Take away the eagle and the doves have to work together as a unit and I'm not sure I see that happening.

So you fear Germany will get the itch to start invading other countries if they build up their military? You haven't spoken to many modern Germans, have you?

Germany still has a white supremacist culture within it, they've in particular had problems with it in the KSK special forces units.

Deterring China by sending our hardware to Europe makes little sense to me. I get the principle of sending a message, but sending military hardware to Taiwan would make more sense. China likely only sees us weakening ourselves in Europe

I think you missed the point there. Sending hardware to Ukraine helps with deterring China because it sends the message that if they attack Taiwan, we'll support Taiwan the same. I would have to completely disagree that China sees us as weakening ourselves in Europe. To the contrary, I think they'd take it as a major sign of weakness if we were not strong in Europe and supporting Ukraine.

 

[Brett327]

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I think that has more to do with our military industrial complex, its lobbying power, the jobs it creates for all our legislators' districts, etc.

You're not wrong about that, as those things certainly have an influence. Looking at it another way, there is value in maintaining strategic defense capacity at the expense of efficiency. Something we've failed to do in some critical sectors like ship building, which is biting us in the ass right now.

 

[Random8145]

We spend $800 billion a year on defense, and we've spent that much compared to our gdp for a long, long time. That's 3.2% of our gdp. Russia spends around $66bl (3.1% gdp) and China $293bl (1.7%). Together with Iran, they spend a combined $384bl. I find it hard to believe we need to spend over 2 times their combined total every year, when every single one of the other countries on the top 20 list for highest military budgets is our ally, and Russia's military has been exposed as a fraud. Are we ever going to get another peace dividend, or will we just keep spending until we have no choice but to default? What will we do if we actually go to war but we have so much debt already that we literally cannot afford to increase spending to finance it? Doesn't seem wise to me.

Peace dividend? What maintains the peace is constant preparedness for war. As for the debt, the defense budget is not the major driver of the debt, that is the social welfare of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Unless/until they reform those, the budget will remain out of whack.

Also the spending is to ensure our troops have excellent training, equipment, that said equipment is well-maintained, and that they are well-supplied.

 

[Llarry]

Per the NBC nightly newscast last evening, there are a couple of Ukrainian Air Force pilots at a U.S. AFB in Arizona doing simulator training, with more scheduled to join them. Hmmm...

 

[taxi1]

Deterring China by sending our hardware to Europe makes little sense to me.

It’s not about hardware, it’s about will.

 

[hscs]

Russia has lost somewhere around 200,000 soldiers. It has also lost around half of its tanks (source), and ridiculous percentages of its artillery, fighting vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc. This was fighting Ukraine. Putin may or may not be able to take Ukraine (I'm doubtful), but these stats convince me that there is absolutely no way Putin will attack NATO next. Put another way, Russia is not a threat to the US taxpayer, the global order, the EU, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, democracies, global trade, or anyone else except for their current opponent. The most they will be able to do is cyber warfare, a la Estonia. Something we are equipped to respond in kind to, if we choose, from the comfort of our home turf. Hardly reason, in my mind, to keep permanent bases in Europe and keep spending countless billions on European defense. But, I'd love to hear some stats or facts that prove me wrong. Most the people that keep telling me how much we need to keep shouldering the European defense budget got quiet as soon as I started asking why, though.

As we have seen, soldiers can be replaced. What would it take for China or Iran to replace the other hardware? We gave UK 99 destroyers and hundreds of fighters when they were in need at the start of WW2. While this is all going on, Russia remains the only country that will routinely fly in our ADIZ or operate in our EEZ (and not just states #49 and 50). China doesn't do that, Iran doesn't do that. That's before we even get to the nuclear side of the house.

I am trying to figure out what you think we should do - pack it all up, and dust off the Neutrality Act? Just do this with Europe? I have seen no mention if we should shutter Yoko, Atsugi, Yokota, etc. to keep China at bay. If we don't show we are willing to lead in crisis in Europe, what makes you think that Japan, PI, Taiwan, ROK will trust us when crisis comes to their doorstep? Separately, most of the money in each Defense budget is personnel costs and not hardware that contractors overcharge.

Taking our toys and going home would cost us more in the long run, IMHO. From a pure numbers game - the ~ $400B/year that we might save would come around back at us when someone else fills in the vacuum and imposes financial costs on us (e.g. tariffs, unemployment, interest rates, higher cost per unit on remaining defense items we still need). And if we put that $400B somewhere else, contractors and the federal government outside of DOD are not exactly the stunning example of financial efficiency.....