Europe under extreme duress

[Random8145]

“A paper published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (iiss), a think-tank in London, concludes that the number of combat battalions in some of nato’s largest armies barely changed between 2015 and 2023, despite the growing threat from Russia. France and Germany have each added one battalion’s worth of forces, a piddling amount, and even Poland has added only two. Britain has lost five over that period. “Most…nations now can only field one full-strength brigade,” laments a senior nato general—a number that would dismay any cold-war general transplanted to the present”

NATO is drafting new plans to Defend Europe

I know land warfare is not your expertise despite your tone, but our ability to project land power via the sea is rapidly diminishing. We are not capable of REFORGER sized exercises or operations on short notice by any stretch of the imagination now.

In terms of manpower we have less than 75k permanently stationed service-members in Europe. During the Cold War that number was over half a million. The vast majority of these personnel are attributed to staffs for command and control, sustainment, training, and associated garrisons. The primary US maneuver brigades are the remnants of V Corps and SETAF. Further, our presence there also provides deterrence and reassures allies to the multitude of threats from the east and North Africa.

Lastly, even if we transferred those personnel to deter China - the Asian treaty allies are not as amenable to US troops on their soil as NATO countries. Nor is putting more material and equipment inside the 1IC smart given the current threats.

You need to start providing peer reviewed data and analysis to support your claims. Removing forward presence almost always invites adversarial encroachment.



You have zero experience in land warfare. Frankly, your hubris in the subject is noxious (Borderline Rumsfeld-esque). Russia defeated multiple invading European armies in the last couple hundred years. They have royally fucked away the initial invasion, however they are learning and gaining valuable experience that no major NATO ally has in the last 70 years. They will reconstitute their forces and continue to threaten US and allied interests for the foreseeable future. Less posting, More reading.

Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine

Regarding the U.S. presence in Europe, they have worked to greatly increase readiness since Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. For example, there were stocks of military vehicles and equipment in Europe leftover from the Cold War. But most of these were older and so-so maintained, kept there just as a backup in case a major emergency broke out. Since 2014 however, they have replaced a huge amount of them with brand-new equipment and vehicles, and are also opening a very large maintenance facility as well. The idea of this is that if a war breaks out, all the U.S. need do is send over the troops, who can then utilize the equipment that is already stationed there.

In addition, the U.S. has greatly increased its training with our allies in the region, in order to increase the interoperability of our forces with theirs.

 

[Random8145]

Imagine the fight if we spin off a thread for Chuck and Mirage to argue: Invade Russia vs Pull out of Europe

 

[Brett327]

Personally, Id like to see the United States engage in a kinetic war with Russia. I get frustrated with active duty types that show trepidation towards this idea.

Sweet baby Jesus. Classic Chuck. You do realize they have nukes... right? That's a lot of hand waiving, even for you.

 

[Mirage]

If they can't decide and get attacked eventually, that will be a major problem.

The leadership of them might decide they have much to gain, not lose, especially if they view it that the other Europe countries will fold easily. And our deterring that would be more difficult without having the troops there.

In my view, is extremely unlikely any European country decides to try to take over Europe again in this century. Not enough risk to make any decisions based on. So let's agree to disagree.

“A paper published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (iiss), a think-tank in London, concludes that the number of combat battalions in some of nato’s largest armies barely changed between 2015 and 2023, despite the growing threat from Russia. France and Germany have each added one battalion’s worth of forces, a piddling amount, and even Poland has added only two. Britain has lost five over that period. “Most…nations now can only field one full-strength brigade,” laments a senior nato general—a number that would dismay any cold-war general transplanted to the present”

NATO is drafting new plans to Defend Europe

I know land warfare is not your expertise despite your tone, but our ability to project land power via the sea is rapidly diminishing. We are not capable of REFORGER sized exercises or operations on short notice by any stretch of the imagination now.

In terms of manpower we have less than 75k permanently stationed service-members in Europe. During the Cold War that number was over half a million. The vast majority of these personnel are attributed to staffs for command and control, sustainment, training, and associated garrisons. The primary US maneuver brigades are the remnants of V Corps and SETAF.

I don't understand how any of the quoted portion above has bearing on why our forces are needed in Europe. Are you trying to say that if Russia invades Europe we will need to do an amphibious assault, and we aren't capable? As in.. you think Russia will take their WW2 tanks and sweep across to Portugal before we can get anyone in theater? I'm confused.

Further, our presence there also provides deterrence and reassures allies to the multitude of threats from the east and North Africa.

So the US should keep troops in Europe to deter.. what countries? Egypt and Morocco? Syria? What evidence convinces you that that is a legitimate threat that US taxpayers need to be concerned about?

Lastly, even if we transferred those personnel to deter China - the Asian treaty allies are not as amenable to US troops on their soil as NATO countries. Nor is putting more material and equipment inside the 1IC smart given the current threats.

If they want the additional troops, great. If they don't, then the point still remains that downsizing in Europe does not greatly affect our readiness in Asia. In fact, it allows us to be more laser focused on China.

You need to start providing peer reviewed data and analysis to support your claims. Removing forward presence almost always invites adversarial encroachment.

What claims would you like data for?

You have zero experience in land warfare. Frankly, your hubris in the subject is noxious (Borderline Rumsfeld-esque). Russia defeated multiple invading European armies in the last couple hundred years. They have royally fucked away the initial invasion, however they are learning and gaining valuable experience that no major NATO ally has in the last 70 years. They will reconstitute their forces and continue to threaten US and allied interests for the foreseeable future. Less posting, More reading.

Meatgrinder: Russian Tactics in the Second Year of Its Invasion of Ukraine

The first 2 sentences are possibly the most hypocritical I've ever read, but thank you for telling me what my experience is. I am not discussing tactics, but history and strategy, and I have ample experience in both. Not that it matters for anything other than your ad hominem fallacy.

As for history, I'm happy to give examples. You alluded to some good ones. Russia barely defeated invading armies, while fighting for their survival, during the Napoleonic Wars and WW2. The aggressors were not unified of course, and the wars were fought with roughly equal technology. To emphasize, they nearly were conquered by both France and Germany while those powers were fighting many other adversaries simultaneously.They also lost to invading armies in WW1 and the Russo-Japanese War. Defense is easier than offense in war.

They are currently doing their best to invade Ukraine, and with some older weapons given to Ukraine with hasty training, the Russians are stalled and back on the defence. What do you imagine would happen if all of Europe declared war on Russia tomorrow? Unless the answer is "Russia would not cede any ground", when Russia would be defending, then why do you think Russia would be able to have any success with attacking? Even more so if Europe is defending their homes and the Russian conscripts are only their because they got a get out of jail free card. Do you remember how they ran out of gas and supplies just trying to get to Kyiv? If you don't think Europe would establish air superiority, bomb the Russia encampments into oblivion, and then break the Russian lines, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[sevenhelmet]

That wasn't Europe tapped out.. that was a lack of will. If they are somehow fighting for their homeland against Russia, they will not get tapped out so easily.

I can't believe there are folks here that are still so scared of Russia's conventional military. Say it isn't so... Even a cursory knowledge of WWII is proof enough that Russia is no match for a combined Europe, let alone given the current balance of power.

But alas, I'm sure we won't agree. Interesting discussion all the same.

Respectfully, we have been down this road with you already. Somehow you equate giving assistance to Ukraine to being scared of Russia. They are not the same.

You advocate for pulling out of Europe, which is only beginning to come to its senses with respect to its own military strength. If our goal is a Europe that defends itself and requires less of our national treasure so that we can focus on China more effectively (correct me if I misunderstand your point), you wouldn’t want to leave that turkey half-cooked. If we make a sudden exit from Europe now, we’ll only have to go back in future, and with more end strength. Russia need not be a peer threat to force our hand in that fashion.

Assistance to Ukraine, while politically charged, is arguably better investment of tax dollars than 20 years in Afghanistan. We’ve been afforded a rare opportunity to “see behind the curtain” publicly and make Russia politically and economically less relevant (side point: why the F are they still on the UNSC?). However, our goal should be to free Ukraine from Russian aggression, not to destabilize Russia. The devil you know, and all that. @ChuckMK23, your plan sucks. You can do better than that.

Scared? No. Pragmatic about a country that has nukes and a history of bloody revolution? Yes.

Finally, happy anniversary of American Independence. I hope all you Great Americans can relax and enjoy a little celebration today. ??

 

[ChuckMK23]

Sweet baby Jesus. Classic Chuck. You do realize they have nukes... right? That's a lot of hand waiving, even for you.

Do you not have confidence in our strategic triad to deter any use on their part?

 

[croakerfish]

Do you not have confidence in our strategic triad to deter any use on their part?

I’m going to need absolute faith, not just confidence to light that firecracker.

 

[MGoBrew11]

Do you not have confidence in our strategic triad to deter any use on their part?

…they haven’t used them yet.

We don’t go to war just because we can win.

 

[Brett327]

Do you not have confidence in our strategic triad to deter any use on their part?

They have red lines. Suggest you become familiar with them.

 

[Random8145]

I get frustrated with active duty types that show trepidation towards this idea.

Maybe because they're the ones who'd have to fight it?

 

[nittany03]

Personally, Id like to see the United States engage in a kinetic war with Russia. I get frustrated with active duty types that show trepidation towards this idea. In my heart I feel that Russia as a US adversary in a kinetic conflict would fold up like a cheap tent. And the change in political structure would be a renaissance in Europe. true renaissance that would change the course of human history and lead to a rise in quality of life for millions and bring peace for decades.

I'll have what he's having.

 

[hscs]

Do you not have confidence in our strategic triad to deter any use on their part?

This guy agrees.

 

[jmcquate]

This guy agrees.

View attachment 38325

POE! Grain alcohol and rain water for everyone.

 

[Mirage]

Respectfully, we have been down this road with you already. Somehow you equate giving assistance to Ukraine to being scared of Russia. They are not the same.

You advocate for pulling out of Europe, which is only beginning to come to its senses with respect to its own military strength. If our goal is a Europe that defends itself and requires less of our national treasure so that we can focus on China more effectively (correct me if I misunderstand your point), you wouldn’t want to leave that turkey half-cooked. If we make a sudden exit from Europe now, we’ll only have to go back in future, and with more end strength. Russia need not be a peer threat to force our hand in that fashion.

Assistance to Ukraine, while politically charged, is arguably better investment of tax dollars than 20 years in Afghanistan. We’ve been afforded a rare opportunity to “see behind the curtain” publicly and make Russia politically and economically less relevant (side point: why the F are they still on the UNSC?). However, our goal should be to free Ukraine from Russian aggression, not to destabilize Russia. The devil you know, and all that. @ChuckMK23, your plan sucks. You can do better than that.

Scared? No. Pragmatic about a country that has nukes and a history of bloody revolution? Yes.

Finally, happy anniversary of American Independence. I hope all you Great Americans can relax and enjoy a little celebration today. ??

When I said folks are scared of Russia, I was talking not about giving aid to Ukraine, but about the posts indicating Europe could not handle Russia in a war by themselves.. including your own, which seemed to say we'd have to go help. Us aiding Ukraine so substantially is water under the bridge at this point. I'm more concerned about our annual expenses.

I wasn't trying to reignite this whole thing. In the pages of posts leading up to mine that kicked this off, it seemed everyone agreed Russia is now super weak and has been for some time. However, as soon as I indicated we should do something about that and stop treating them like such a threat that we need to spend a ton of money we don't have every year on them, now folks all seem to think they're this huge threat again.

So I'm curious. You strike me as a smart and reasonable person, and I don't get it. Why is it that you think if we leave Europe, but stay in NATO and assure Russia that if they attack a NATO country we will attack them from both their East and West, Russia will finish up with Ukraine and then go looking for an exponentially bigger fight? And if they do, why do you think we and our Allies won't be more than capable of doing better than Ukraine has done, just because we didn't have Americans prepositioned there?

 

[sevenhelmet]

So I'm curious. You strike me as a smart and reasonable person, and I don't get it. Why is it that you think if we leave Europe, but stay in NATO and assure Russia that if they attack a NATO country we will attack them from both their East and West, Russia will finish up with Ukraine and then go looking for an exponentially bigger fight? And if they do, why do you think we and our Allies won't be more than capable of doing better than Ukraine has done, just because we didn't have Americans prepositioned there?

I think, given your background, that you could answer your own question. Leave Europe and yet simultaneously assure Russia that we will attack them from both sides? Sounds like we’d really be talking out of both sides of our mouth under that kind of policy. I would fully expect Russia (and others) to challenge our credibility were that strategy adopted.

It *might* save money in the short term (although given our force structure and expenses, I doubt it would be very much), but we’d lose far more in the long term when we have to deploy bigger forces somewhere against someone. Might not even be Russia. To say nothing of leaving potential allies hanging, and giving Putin exactly what he’s hoping for- withdrawal by the West.

History shows that isolationism doesn’t work out well for us. If the US wants to be a superpower, having a global presence comes with the territory. A cogent argument can even be made that Russia invading Crimea and Ukraine is the result of decades of US and allied focus in the Middle East, at the expense of eastern Europe.