Europe under extreme duress

[MIDNJAC]

Yes, cripes, Trump slipped my mind so I forgot to mention him.

EDIT: So I had written a response on this but remember last time this started the mods requested we stop as Trump is a hot-button political topic. Suffice it to say, I think it is debatable that Trump was soft on Russia. Some say yes, some say no.

That's fair. I don't personally believe he changed the status quo, for better, or for worse.....just maybe a little different approach than some others.

 

[taxi1]

That's fair. I don't personally believe he changed the status quo, for better, or for worse....

He was not a friend of Ukraine, and not a friend of NATO. Those were huge changes to the status quo, and they played to Russian interests.

 

[Hotdogs]

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.

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?

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.

What claims would you like data for?

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.

You’re all over the place. You stated personnel was the highest cost or most important in terms of permanent bases in Europe. Please give us a reference. The total number of service members for all of Europe is roughly half the size of JBLM and other large U.S. bases. Paltry requirement for the benefit gained (mentioned above).

In addition to Russia, Africa and the potentially destabilizing affect on vital trade routes throughout Europe, Southwest Asia, and the Indian Ocean. Not to mention the ability to export extremism. Did you think Russia sent PMCs into Africa just to make friends? Why was France running all over western Africa? Why are we involved in East Africa? Are the Balkans and Turkey better off with or without a US or NATO presence? What demographic changes in the global south are likely to affect stability? You need to go read some basic macroeconomics and international political economy material to grasp what would occur. It is very complex and not easily reduced to platitudes that make everyone feel better about themselves. The average American benefits from free trade more than you realize. Western collective security is a mainstay of the post-World War II order. If that goes away - We’d witness the return of imperial ambitions from dictators and authoritarians to secure resources vice acquiring them through trade. Which was how it was done in every single era since the dawn of time. The last 70 years is an anomaly. Unless you want to revert back to mercantilism and watch America lose out on its ass because we haven’t had a low cost manufacturing or export base since the mid-1970s. I could keep going but I think you get the point.

“Russia barely defeated invading armies, while fighting for their survival”

Are you high? Russia invaded both Austria-Hungry and Poland in both World Wars that started those conflicts. Not to mention invasions of the Eurasian steppe, Caucasus, Finland, Bulgaria, China, and many others within the last century. Quit acting like they’re historically innocent.

You’re asking if Europe can coalesce a large multinational theater-level campaign against the Russian military successfully (Sans U.S. support). To which I argue - No, they can’t. Maybe some individually (UK / France, and that’s about it), but not at scale and it wouldn’t be decisive. Not taking into account industrial capacity or operational/tactical competency - Europe would struggle mightily. You only need to go back to recent events in Libya and the Bosnian wars to understand that perspective.

Please cite some peer reviewed content that we can digest. You have yet to provide any to assert your claims above… except “I have experience in history and strategy” but haven’t revealed any of your credentials. I’m genuinely curious on where you are getting this perspective, because we don’t want to assume it’s some ignorant right-wing MAGA horseshit. I legitimately want to believe these are your original thoughts/conclusions.

 

[taxi1]

The last 70 years is an anomaly.

So true. It’s been an amazing run, really.

Wouldn’t have happened without us either, I think.

 

[Random8145]

He was not a friend of Ukraine, and not a friend of NATO. Those were huge changes to the status quo, and they played to Russian interests.

?

 

[taxi1]

?

Don’t suggest Biden has mental problems and then humble brag about your posting restraint.

 

[nittany03]

To dogpile on what a lot of other folks have been saying here . . . War on the Rocks covers it well.

The Art of Vassalization: How Russia’s War on Ukraine Has Transformed Transatlantic Relations

TL;DR there is a significant problem with major Western European actors instinctively looking for US top cover before taking risky geopolitical steps. The example was basically everyone saying "Ukraine needs MBTs! Leopard 2 is perfect! Germany, you've got the green light, go!" And Germany still going "oh, no, we don't 'go it alone . . .,'" even as the narrator voice observes that they're not, in fact, going it alone. And that the "going it alone" rhetoric only ended when the US agreed to also provide Abrams.

What's more, there's also significant internal strife between the Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans, as the Eastern Europeans see the Westerners as cosseted, addicted to Russian petroleum, and unwilling to face cold hard reality.

So US leadership is actually papering over a lot of things that could turn European collective defense against Russia into a chaotic shitshow of finger-pointing.

 

[Random8145]

Don’t suggest Biden has mental problems and then humble brag about your posting restraint.

Not bragging at all. Regarding Biden, all I said there is Putin saw Biden's mental state. I didn't criticize his administration's policies. As for him, I think it is pretty clear he is suffering from mental decline.

 

[Mirage]

You’re all over the place. You stated personnel was the highest cost or most important in terms of permanent bases in Europe. Please give us a reference. The total number of service members for all of Europe is roughly half the size of JBLM and other large U.S. bases. Paltry requirement for the benefit gained (mentioned above).

In addition to Russia, Africa and the potentially destabilizing affect on vital trade routes throughout Europe, Southwest Asia, and the Indian Ocean. Not to mention the ability to export extremism. Did you think Russia sent PMCs into Africa just to make friends? Why was France running all over western Africa? Why are we involved in East Africa? Are the Balkans and Turkey better off with or without a US or NATO presence? What demographic changes in the global south are likely to affect stability? You need to go read some basic macroeconomics and international political economy material to grasp what would occur. It is very complex and not easily reduced to platitudes that make everyone feel better about themselves. The average American benefits from free trade more than you realize. Western collective security is a mainstay of the post-World War II order. If that goes away - We’d witness the return of imperial ambitions from dictators and authoritarians to secure resources vice acquiring them through trade. Which was how it was done in every single era since the dawn of time. The last 70 years is an anomaly. Unless you want to revert back to mercantilism and watch America lose out on its ass because we haven’t had a low cost manufacturing or export base since the mid-1970s. I could keep going but I think you get the point.

Yikes!

Your post is just one logical fallacy and hypocritical remark after another. You start out telling me I'm all over the place and lambasting my lack of data, and then launch into all sorts of claims that pulling our permanently stationed European troops while staying in NATO will somehow affect everything from trade routes in the Indian Ocean, free trade, and lead to greater exportation of extremism, all without a mention of your reasoning let alone some data. You then launched into straw men like what I'm suggesting means the end of collective security and a return of mercantilism (I never suggested leaving an alliance), and my favorite part, where you very condescendingly and pretentiously tell me what I know and don't know.

“Russia barely defeated invading armies, while fighting for their survival”

Are you high? Russia invaded both Austria-Hungry and Poland in both World Wars that started those conflicts. Not to mention invasions of the Eurasian steppe, Caucasus, Finland, Bulgaria, China, and many others within the last century. Quit acting like they’re historically innocent.

Next you wrongly concluded that me saying Russia barely beat back invaders from France and Germany (Napoleon and Hitler) meant I thought they were historically innocent in all conflicts. I was discussing the historical balance of power between Europe and Russia.. I said nothing of guilt. Would you like reference to a peer reviewed document stating Hitler and Napoleon both nearly defeated Russia, or will you take my word for it?

You’re asking if Europe can coalesce a large multinational theater-level campaign against the Russian military successfully (Sans U.S. support). To which I argue - No, they can’t. Maybe some individually (UK / France, and that’s about it), but not at scale and it wouldn’t be decisive. Not taking into account industrial capacity or operational/tactical competency - Europe would struggle mightily. You only need to go back to recent events in Libya and the Bosnian wars to understand that perspective.

So Ukraine has beat back a Russian attack with some of our old equipment against a version of Russia that had great equipment, but you don't think Germany could do the same, with the help of the rest of Europe, even for long enough for us to get troops in theater, against the current version of Russia with WW2 tanks and a joke of an economy? Can you explain why?

Please cite some peer reviewed content that we can digest. You have yet to provide any to assert your claims above… except “I have experience in history and strategy” but haven’t revealed any of your credentials. I’m genuinely curious on where you are getting this perspective, because we don’t want to assume it’s some ignorant right-wing MAGA horseshit. I legitimately want to believe these are your original thoughts/conclusions.

Here you go again with your ad hominem BS. My credentials don't matter, and whatever political BS you want to try to color me with doesn't matter. I don't care what you think about me or my opinion. Argue against my logic with logic. Reason is what matters, not anything else you posted in the paragraph above.

What a shit show of a post.

 

[Random8145]

Would you like reference to a peer reviewed document stating Hitler and Napoleon both nearly defeated Russia, or will you take my word for it?

I would actually say that regarding Hitler, it is very debatable whether he ever really came close to defeating Russia, and to the extent he caused massive damage, that was due to Stalin's having decapitated the Russian military. Russia (well Soviet Union) then proceeded to very thoroughly kick Germany's rear.

 

[vxc961]

I’m not a mod or someone that anybody on this board cares about, but I come to this thread to see news and opinions on the war. I’m interested in your opinion, but I think a lot of these “ad hominem attacks” against you are just signals that you could dial it down a notch or two.

So anyway, I thought this article on Bils was interesting.

FBI Interviews Sarah Bils, the Donbass Devushka, as the DOJ and NCIS Probes Her Past

The DOJ and NCIS confirm that Bils is under multiple investigations, as details of a trouble past come to light.

malcontentment.com

 

[Mirage]

I would actually say that regarding Hitler, it is very debatable whether he ever really came close to defeating Russia, and to the extent he caused massive damage, that was due to Stalin's having decapitated the Russian military. Russia (well Soviet Union) then proceeded to very thoroughly kick Germany's rear.

"One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."
-Nikita Khrushchev

 

[nittany03]

I’m not a mod or someone that anybody on this board cares about, but I come to this thread to see news and opinions on the war. I’m interested in your opinion, but I think a lot of these “ad hominem attacks” against you are just signals that you could dial it down a notch or two.

I am a mod, and I also agree y'all all can dial it down a notch or two.

 

[Random8145]

"One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."
-Nikita Khrushchev

I didn't say the Soviets didn't have help, just that it is questionable that the Germans ever came close to defeating them. The United States alone, the British, or the Soviets, none likely would have been able to defeat the Axis war machine. Around 70-80% of German forces were arrayed against the Soviets. If they could have focused all of that against the Anglo-American forces, it would have likely been impossible to defeat them.

 

[Hotdogs]

Yikes!

Your post is just one logical fallacy and hypocritical remark after another. You start out telling me I'm all over the place and lambasting my lack of data, and then launch into all sorts of claims that pulling our permanently stationed European troops while staying in NATO will somehow affect everything from trade routes in the Indian Ocean, free trade, and lead to greater exportation of extremism, all without a mention of your reasoning let alone some data. You then launched into straw men like what I'm suggesting means the end of collective security and a return of mercantilism (I never suggested leaving an alliance), and my favorite part, where you very condescendingly and pretentiously tell me what I know and don't know.


Next you wrongly concluded that me saying Russia barely beat back invaders from France and Germany (Napoleon and Hitler) meant I thought they were historically innocent in all conflicts. I was discussing the historical balance of power between Europe and Russia.. I said nothing of guilt. Would you like reference to a peer reviewed document stating Hitler and Napoleon both nearly defeated Russia, or will you take my word for it?


So Ukraine has beat back a Russian attack with some of our old equipment against a version of Russia that had great equipment, but you don't think Germany could do the same, with the help of the rest of Europe, even for long enough for us to get troops in theater, against the current version of Russia with WW2 tanks and a joke of an economy? Can you explain why?

Here you go again with your ad hominem BS. My credentials don't matter, and whatever political BS you want to try to color me with doesn't matter. I don't care what you think about me or my opinion. Argue against my logic with logic. Reason is what matters, not anything else you posted in the paragraph above.

What a shit show of a post.

So as usual you’ve got nothing - Got it.

You’re the one asserting a change from the status quo. If you make assertions or posit theories about a particular topic provide some literature to back it up (Myself and many others have done that numerous times in this thread and others).