Europe under extreme duress

[Random8145]

Some of them will need new jobs, as we downsize to a peacetime military.

Aren't we already a peacetime military?

 

[wink]

...as we downsize to a peacetime military.

You can call it what you like, but downsizing of any sort with China threatening would be boneheaded. Or will we have a thread split where you argue we let the Australian's come to Tiawan's aid and insist Japan help the South Koreans in a dust up.

 

[Mirage]

Personally I think it would be a bad idea to have the Europeans handle their own defense for a couple of reasons:

1) They'll argue repeatedly over who should be the leader

2) One of them might decide to become the primary military of Europe, which could be a bad thing if due to political issues they decide to try conquering Europe.

3) If a war breaks out, we're still involved anyway, so why not stay and maintain our leadership position.

1. Who cares
2. That's silly. They would have way more to lose by trying to "conquer Europe", and we would still be able to maintain the peace and deter that without having 65,000 troops stationed there permanently.
3. Because it costs too much money and provides too little benefit given how incredibly unlikely it is. What if a war breaks out in Argentina? Should we preposition troops there just in case?

Aren't we already a peacetime military?

You wouldn't know it by our budget, which only goes up. That's the point.

You can call it what you like, but downsizing of any sort with China threatening would be boneheaded. Or will be have a thread split where you argue we let the Australian's come to Tiawan's aid and insist Japan help the South Koreans in a dust up.

Does downsizing in Europe and sending some of those troops to Asia hurt our readiness regarding China?

 

[ChuckMK23]

I respect your opinion, your questions are on point. We both hope Russia tanks

Yes! And this would be the equivalent of finding a vaccine for a deadly disease. The world would be better off.

However, part of me understands Russians are Russian. People who rise to the top of the hierarchy in Russian society have always been amoral, ruthless, demonic and savage.

Is there hope for Russia if Putin meets his doom?

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.

 

[HSMPBR]

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.

Conquering the world on horseback is easy; it is dismounting and governing that is hard.
- Genghis Khan

The most terrible of all my battles was the one before Moscow. The French showed themselves to be worthy of victory, but the Russians showed themselves worthy of being invincible.
- Napoleon

Hitler wanted to destroy Russia- everyone needs to remember how that ended.
- Putin

 

[hscs]

My suggestion was that we close our European bases and send the message that our European allies are now primarily responsible for the defense of Europe. We would still be in NATO, and therefore join any war and provide that deterrence factor.



You quote pre-Ukraine numbers and are employing pre-Ukraine thinking. Russia also outnumbered Germany during WWII. The thing is, if they fought again today, Russia would still be using the same tanks they fought with the last time whereas the combined European force would not. Short of nukes being used, it would be no contest. No serious person could argue otherwise at this point.

At what point does our debt become a bigger threat, in your mind, than China? What expeditionary threat does China pose to the US tax payer that requires us to spend double what we did in 2002? We just learned that we now only have 1 near peer competitor instead of 2, doesn't that change the calculus in favor of reduced spending? Serious questions that I hope you will answer directly.

What is your definition of pre-Ukrainian thinking? My definition is - Russia pre-2014 was scary but wouldn’t do anything offensive.

How do you believe it would be no contest of Germany and France against Russia?

I am a serious person and will argue that 215k European soldiers would struggle against a force 4-5 times greater even if said forces were operating with old equipment. Old equipment has won the day in plenty of other conflicts.

I will answer your question directly and ignore your tone, but you won’t like the answer based upon your past responses. My answer: you have over simplified the issue to the most extreme Attacking the national debt cannot be solved by bringing a bunch of soldiers home and abandon one of our strongest alliances. Getting after the debt requires increasing revenue (taxes, building more things here, closing loopholes) and decreasing all costs (entitlements, discretionary, defense). However, if you do too much of one or the other, you drive the system out of balance and create a recession which then drives up the debt. If it were that easy, someone witch a PHD would have solved it and won the Nobel Prize, and we wouldn’t have these arguments in the same forum where we admire Moonwatches.

 

[sevenhelmet]

It was remarkable in 2011 how quickly Europe was tapped out militarily- against Libya.

Sure, they can handle Russia on their own. And we’ll be over there in a decade or two, mopping up the mess.

 

[MGoBrew11]

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.

Holy war hawk Batman!

Yeah I bet that renaissance would be just as good as the one Iraq experienced in 2003 ?.

 

[croakerfish]

Yes! And this would be the equivalent of finding a vaccine for a deadly disease. The world would be better off.

However, part of me understands Russians are Russian. People who rise to the top of the hierarchy in Russian society have always been amoral, ruthless, demonic and savage.

Is there hope for Russia if Putin meets his doom?

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.

HUH?? Are we passing around a crack pipe tonight?

 

[jollygreen07]

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.

Nah.

-Everyone on active duty.

 

[Mirage]

What is your definition of pre-Ukrainian thinking? My definition is - Russia pre-2014 was scary but wouldn’t do anything offensive.

Pre-Ukraine thinking was Russia had a huge, scary military that it would use offensively. Now we know they have a weak and incompetent military that could not be realistically used to challenge NATO, if they are ever even able to take and hold a 4th of Ukraine.

How do you believe it would be no contest of Germany and France against Russia?

I am a serious person and will argue that 215k European soldiers would struggle against a force 4-5 times greater even if said forces were operating with old equipment. Old equipment has won the day in plenty of other conflicts.

If you don't see it, then it's not worth me pointing out. Modern weapons playing defense against hordes of Russian conscripts and ancient tech... Come on.

It was remarkable in 2011 how quickly Europe was tapped out militarily- against Libya.

Sure, they can handle Russia on their own. And we’ll be over there in a decade or two, mopping up the mess.

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.

 

[Random8145]

1. Who cares

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

2. That's silly. They would have way more to lose by trying to "conquer Europe", and we would still be able to maintain the peace and deter that without having 65,000 troops stationed there permanently.

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.

3. Because it costs too much money and provides too little benefit given how incredibly unlikely it is. What if a war breaks out in Argentina? Should we preposition troops there just in case?

Argentina is not a historical threat like Russia is. Also, why does keeping the troops in Europe cost more than keeping them at home?

You wouldn't know it by our budget, which only goes up. That's the point.

I'd say it goes up due to inflation, same as the cost of everything else.

 

[Random8145]

Personally, Id like to see the United States engage in a kinetic war with Russia.

Some light-hearted poking:

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.

Aside from the nuclear issue, that would likely be worse than Iraq. The Russian people WOULD NOT LIKE IT and would view it as their suspicions about the West justified. You think they are paranoid now, just try that!

I doubt the Russians could mobilize a defense like in WWII, but they would try a guerilla warfare resistance, which we would have to defeat by killing them, and thus by killing the very people we claim we are there to help.

Also, successfully invading Russia is a wee bit difficult. The climate and terrain are among the most severe in the world.

 

[Hotdogs]

By that logic, our NATO allies should have bases and be storing equipment in Alaska, just in case.

You are still thinking in a pre-Ukraine paradigm. We are not needed to defend Europe. This isn't 1955. Europe is rebuilt and Russia is impotent, thanks largely to us. We can leave it to them now. Convince me I'm wrong with facts and data. How do you imagine a war going between Russia and Europe if it started with us not having any bases or equipment there? Explain to me how Europe would lose that war.


Facilities aren't the expensive thing.. people are. We will put those people to better use deterring China. Some of them will need new jobs, as we downsize to a peacetime military. What we do with the equipment I leave to the supply guys. It's not needed in Europe, though.

This is a straw man argument. We will still have access to European airfields and straits, and I am not saying we 100% pull everything out. But we don't need large, permanent bases with thousands of personnel there. Even if we lost some capability, though.. oh shucks. I guess the world police response time will be a little longer.

“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.

Pre-Ukraine thinking was Russia had a huge, scary military that it would use offensively. Now we know they have a weak and incompetent military that could not be realistically used to challenge NATO, if they are ever even able to take and hold a 4th of Ukraine.

If you don't see it, then it's not worth me pointing out. Modern weapons playing defense against hordes of Russian conscripts and ancient tech... Come on.
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.

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

 

[Random8145]

Pre-Ukraine thinking was Russia had a huge, scary military that it would use offensively. Now we know they have a weak and incompetent military that could not be realistically used to challenge NATO, if they are ever even able to take and hold a 4th of Ukraine.

If you don't see it, then it's not worth me pointing out. Modern weapons playing defense against hordes of Russian conscripts and ancient tech... Come on.

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.

Europe did get tapped out. They ran out of munitions I believe and the French aircraft carrier had to be withdrawn because it couldn't maintain the op tempo (hope that is right term)

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.

Russia proved itself a match for the Axis.