In previous posts, ComNavOps has called for the US to leave
Europe, militarily. In fact, I’ve stated
that it is long past time to allow and, indeed, require Europe to stand on its
own. That position was met with less
than total agreement due to unreasonable fears of Russia attacking and
conquering Europe. With the ‘data point’ of the Ukraine conflict, it’s time to
re-examine the belief that Europe can’t stand on its own.
To begin, review this post, “Europe– Why?”
Now, with the evidence of Russian inability to defeat a
single country the size of Texas which had little in the way of a military
before the Russian invasion, let’s again ask ourselves why we’re maintaining a
major military presence in Europe?
If Ukraine can successfully stand against Russia, surely the
combined might of Europe can do so without any US presence.
For those of you who can’t comprehend what you read, a
reduced military presence in Europe does not mean zero military interaction
with Europe. We can certainly maintain relations
and military basing/leasing arrangements in the event of need. We can even maintain some small military
presence if there’s a specific reason to do so - direct support of the Middle
East, for example. Removal of our
military forces does not mean cutting off all cultural, financial, and trade
relationships. Those would continue as
before.
Withdrawing from Europe would force Europe to step up and
take responsibility for their own defense.
It would also free up huge resources for the US to focus on China.
I’m not going to belabor this any further. The only previous reason for not withdrawing
from Europe was the pathological fear that Russia would instantly conquer all
of Europe. That’s been emphatically
shown to be pure fear-fantasy.
There is no longer any reason for the US to maintain a
significant military presence in Europe.
The US should withdraw from Europe, immediately.
"If Ukraine can successfully stand against Russia, surely the combined might of Europe can do so without any US presence."
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, part of Ukraine's ability to stand against Russia is due to support from the US, in terms of weapons shipments and intelligence sharing, and the utter ineptitude of the Russian military. You've cautioned before that we should not read too much into military theory based on the Ukraine war due to the ineptitude of the Russians, however does that mean that you consider the present Russian ineptitude a condition that they cannot recover from?
I'm reminded of the US Army during Vietnam and the post-Vietnam era, when it was a rival to 2022 Russia, and the recovery and turnaround of the Army during the Reagan era, with the Army of Excellence program. It seems a little overconfident to me to completely write off the Russians.
"does that mean that you consider the present Russian ineptitude a condition that they cannot recover from?"
DeleteCorrect. The Russian ineptitude (to include professional incompetence, production quality issues, maintenance challenges, etc.) are not the result of a one-time, short term condition like the US during Vietnam. Instead, it is the result of the inherent Russian/Communist system and culture. Therefore, it can't be corrected. It's who and what they are.
Reports throughout the Cold War and the aftermath have pretty well confirmed that Russia was impressive on paper but not nearly so much in reality.
"It seems a little overconfident to me to completely write off the Russians."
Did someone suggest completely writing them off? If so, that would be foolish.
"Did someone suggest completely writing them off? If so, that would be foolish."
DeleteYou argued that the ability of Russia to conquer Europe is a fantasy, and that there is no longer any reason to maintain a military presence in Europe and that the US should withdraw from Europe immediately. Taken as a whole, including your commentary on Russian ineptitude above, it does sound like you no longer consider them a threat.
" it does sound like you no longer consider them a threat."
DeleteOf course I consider them a threat! HOWEVER, it's a threat that can be easily managed by Europe without our constant presence.
"The Russian ineptitude... are not the result of a one-time, short term condition like the US during Vietnam. Instead, it is the result of the inherent Russian/Communist system and culture. Therefore, it can't be corrected. It's who and what they are."
DeleteCulture CAN change. Look how radically China did so during the past 40 years, with her military changing from a low-tech one that would be, at best, a speedbump to its contemporary counterpart in the US military, to a high-tech one that we rightfully consider a near-peer.
So far, Russia lacked a Deng Xiaoping analogue who could FORCE her government to make the necessary changes, but who knows what'll happen in the future?
"Culture CAN change."
DeleteSure, anything is theoretically possible but the reality is that the Russian/Soviet/Communist system has stifled them since before WWII (maybe earlier? a weakness in my history knowledge!). It's not likely to change anytime soon so I'll stick with my statement that it can't be corrected. If some miracle appears to be happening, I'll re-evaluate but I'm pretty comfortable that nothing will change.
The Russian army falling on its face in Ukraine has certainly changed the math on what kind of support Europe needs for its own defense.
DeleteLutefisk
As the Soviet and Warsaw Pact threat disappeared we have drastically reduced our footprint in Europe, In fact the Army now calls it US Army Europe and Africa. We reduce our footprint based on the threat. So why single out Europe for leaving? Size? By that argument, Africa is way bigger than either the US or Europe so why are we increasing our presence there? Is it becuase Europe has a start at unifying and Africa lloks to be chaotic for a LONG time?
ReplyDeleteWhat is your consistent strategic vision for US forces overseas? Why not leave Korea like the Phillipines? IF leaving would be the kick in the pants that Europe needs to truly unify then maybe that is a good reason. But I haven't heard anyone say why leave
Europe or NATO other than we pay too much for them.
We pay too much for ships, planes, and tanks here so if it is about money there are other places to look hard at also.
You ask good questions and I'll try to offer some answers.
Delete"we have drastically reduced our footprint in Europe"
As off 2022, we had around 70,000 Army troops in Europe with the bulk being based in German. The USAF official website reports 35,000 personnel at bases throughout Europe along with 217 aircraft of various types. On any given day, the Navy has dozens of ships assigned to the European theatre. So, well over 100,000 personnel, a couple hundred aircraft, dozens of bases, and dozens of ships. That's a pretty substantial force that should be used elsewhere and it's an enormous cost that should be directed elsewhere.
"So why single out Europe for leaving?"
Because they no longer need us. They are fully capable of meeting ALL their defense needs.
"Africa ... why are we increasing our presence there?"
Unlike Europe which is relatively stable and presents no threats to us, Africa is a breeding ground for terrorism, Chinese expansion, resource abuse/utilization, etc. In other words, we have pressing national strategic interests in Africa and those threats are increasing daily.
"What is your consistent strategic vision for US forces overseas?"
We allocate resources (military forces) where the threats are. There are no threats in Europe that Europe can't handle on their own. Africa (and S.America) are emerging threats as I stated above.
"Why not leave Korea"
Absolutely we should evaluate leaving Korea! I'm less sure about NKorean military capabilities so I'm less definite about the situation but, yes, we should be evaluating leaving Korea.
" IF leaving would be the kick in the pants that Europe needs to truly unify"
I've never suggested that Europe needs to unify although some degree of military unification would seem wise. That, however, is up to them. At the least, each country needs to start providing for their own defense which means increasing their military spending to around 4% GDP as opposed to the current sub-2% level which has them using the US as their personal, unpaid, defense force.
"I haven't heard anyone say why leave Europe or NATO other than we pay too much for them."
We need to leave because there's no national strategic threat to the US in Europe. We need to leave to force Europe to take responsibility for their own defense (increase their defense spending). We need to leave to reallocate our resources to our current major national strategic threat which is China. We need to leave because we're spending a LOT of money with no return on investment.
"We pay too much for ships, planes, and tanks here so if it is about money there are other places to look hard at also."
Of course we should be looking at other sources of cost reductions, however, the cost of maintaining well over 100,000 personnel, a couple hundred aircraft, dozens of bases, dozens of ships, etc. dwarfs the 'waste' cost of ships, planes, and tanks.
Hope those answers help with some perspective.
Part of the reason US Forces Japan and US Forces Korea are a thing is because our presence in the region, putting South Korea and Japan under our nuclear umbrella as our allies, forces them to play nice with us and each other.
DeleteOtherwise, there's a non-zero chance you'd see the Koreans joining up with the Chinese to attack Japan. But well, South Korea likes us more than they hate Japan (this is a tad oversimplified, haha).
"putting South Korea and Japan under our nuclear umbrella as our allies, forces them to play nice with us and each other."
DeleteThat's a bit removed from a realistic understanding of geopolitics. SKorea and Japan don't co-exist because of the presence of US troops, they co-exist because it's in their best interests not to engage in war and bring destruction down on their happy, thriving financial situations. Our mitigating 'presence' (to whatever extent it exists) is not military, it's financial in the form of trade, military sales, etc.
SKorea is not going to risk all the benefits of US economic cooperation to ally with China against Japan. There's a lot of unlikely scenarios that we should, nevertheless, prepare and plan for but that's not one of them.
100,000 is down from over 400,000 so we are jsut trying to see if there a level that would help stabilize that region. As I said when Ukraine started just deploying the 1st infantry and armored divsions to Ukraine would have stopped Russia from invading. Instead we (use alone) will spend over $100B in direct aid to the Ukrainian armed forces. Count in rebuilding funding and the cost 100,000, if they were used, would be cheap.
DeleteMy strategic view is that having strong, sized for the immediate threat in the region, is a bargin becuase wars or even combat is expensive. At least we will have rotated our stored munitions and replace them with new ones.
President Eisenhower was in TOTAL agreement with you. One of the reasons he allowed the recreation of the German military in 1956 was specifically to get American troops completely out of Europe. Ike always saw our bases in Europe as what they actually were: Occupation Forces. He stated several times, the longer they stayed there, the more the US would be forced to be the first reaction force to a Soviet invasion. A role which we had no reason to shoulder and no reason to pay for during peacetime. Better to continue our role, as in both World Wars, as the reinforcement forces.
ReplyDeleteA CONUS based Army would also have the strategic flexibility to attack through Vladivostok and open up a two front war with Russia if we chose.
Nicely described !
ReplyDeletePutin's goal is NOT to occupy Ukraine but to preserve current Russia. He has to put aside enough force for a possible war with NATO directly. His strategy is to exhaust West to settle with his terms.
ReplyDeleteRather than occupy Kiev and set a poppy government as Soviet Union did on Afghan, he leaves Kiev government for US and EU to support. Russian force focus on killing competent Ukrainian soldiers in battlefield to disarm Ukraine.
If he can exhaust West to settle under his terms, then, NATO, etc. US lead alliances will collapse as many Europeans will scare Russia militarily and seek peace with it than follow US. If US wins - trigger a color revolution in Russia to further divide Russia to replay Soviet Union dissolution, then, most if not all Russian nuclear weapons can be removed, and US can lead allies to counter China.
It has become an ugly but live to death battle for Putin and US.
It is a mess!
France and the UK have naval interests in the Pacific. I'd be inclined to refocus nd scale down in there direction and probably Poland's. GIve Germany the short end of the stick to get others in line.
ReplyDeleteIf European nations are pushed to take on their own defense, for example by scrapping the obsolete NATO, that will likely create serious competitors to US weapon megacorps who are essentially monopolies now.
ReplyDeleteSo, it would be good for Joe Average but bad for LockMart, and that's why it won't happen.
Also, empires never voluntarily abandon territory if they can avoid it.
NATO members in Europe have twice the population and six times the economic power of Russia. We should withdraw most of our non-combat forces from there. I wrote an article about this long ago.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.g2mil.com/wiesbaden.htm
Russia and China are different. Russia fights war ( i.e. uses war as tool of expansion). Otoh, China fights peace ( i.e. uses tool other than war for expansion). If the US leaves EU high ground, first militarily which surely will lead to eco-geopolitically, China will step into the vacuum and thank you very much.
ReplyDelete"If the US leaves EU high ground, first militarily which surely will lead to eco-geopolitically, China will step into the vacuum"
DeleteThat's utterly absurd. Removal of US troops and aircraft will not result in any vacuum. It's not as if China is suddenly going to place troops and aircraft into European countries.
The US and Europe will continue all their traditional cultural, financial, intellectual property, trade, and military coordination. Abandoning THOSE would create a vacuum that China might be able to fill, to some degree, but the US and Europe are not going to do that in any conceivable reality.
It's unlikely China will step in - China is not America, it wants its relationships to be transactional.
DeleteNote that China has a defense support treaty with Ukraine and has been conspicuously silent in sending support (and in fact is propping up the Russians so it can turn them into their vassal state).
Meanwhile America, which has no treaty with Ukraine, has gone Arsenal of Democracy.
What is purpose of NATO? Russians out & Germans down. If the US muscle leaves Europe, EU san Americans will be German and French lead and they will seek its own independent foreign and economic policies. Since Germany, France, Italy..have no big boy dream, and China, a world away, is dangling all these $$ opportunities, they will go for it, line hook sinker and all.
DeleteRemember, we forced UK, Germany, and others to cut off Huawei. We surely strong armed Europeans to ‘stay away’ from China, not out of EU’s own volition. In addition, this Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed many EU members’ unwillingness to go full in supporting UKr. Simply said, Europeans have different views of geopolitics from Americans and littoral E.Asians. Plumber’s rule: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Keep Russians out (we’re doing that), and Germans down(only if we stay).
I agree that Europe needs to stand on its own feet, and the US leaving militarily is the right incentive for them to grow up. The EU has a larger population and a larger GDP than the US - the fact that we are their unpaid mercenaries is an embarrassment to both sides of the Atlantic. Having lived in Europe for many years, HOW we leave will be important.
ReplyDeleteWe can say 'should' all we want, but the complexities of the many countries and their histories are real. Germany will be reluctant to lead or even honor commitments to their Eastern neighbors. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Serbia will be eyeing their minorities on neighboring countries and rethinking maps. The risk of some former communist countries falling back on their thousand year old habits of authoritarianism and border wars is real (which would lead to additional insecurity in Western Europe), and very much not in our interest. We benefit from a stable block of democracies in Europe that support our values and international norms (that China and Russia want to undermine).
Leaving in the right way involves giving these countries lots of warning (we will begin our phased withdrawal starting in 2025, with our exit complete by 2035) and keeping the NATO treaty.
The NATO framework is critical to ensuring the good behavior of little countries in Eastern Europe: Hungary and Romania, as well as Greece and Turkey, could have easily gone to war without it over the last 30 years, as two examples. The squabbles aren't worth risking the NATO security blanket or the threat of the US picking a side (or punishing both participants).
The phased withdrawal gives Europe the time to build their capability to a comfortable level. And it avoids the instability of a sudden departure: "The US is an unreliable partner! Russia won! Politician X is a Russian stooge!"
Let's get out, but let's do it in a way the helps us and doesn't create new problems.
I should also emphasize that NATO is the trusted insurance policy that tones down the tension throughout Europe like a heavy sedative. It keeps Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Poland from even considering their neighbor to be a risk. The end of NATO would be an unpredictable shock across Europe.
DeleteAs Pug Ismay reportedly said, the purpose of NATO is to keep the USA in, Russia out, and Germany down.
DeleteI suppose I am probably more of a Europhile than a lot of USA military people. But I will admit that I got more than my fill of NATO politics because my boss was USN representative on a bunch of mine warfare committees. Brussels was where you went to hear the Belgians cry and moan because they got left out of all the decisions. One such meeting was being chaired by a Royal Navy captain who had heard enough complaining. He said, "Please refresh my memory, Jean-Francois, how many wars have Belgium won?"
Remember how NATO came about. After WWII we were scared that the Soviets would take a moment to catch their breath and the overrun all of Europe. Whether that was ever their plan is questionable, as is whether they could ever actually have succeeded. But it was a real fear in 1945. So, we made them a deal and bribed up an alliance. We'll put enough troops in to protect you from the Russians, and we'll give you preferred access to sell stuff to our economy (the only one that was in shape to buy anything in 1945), and our Navy will protect your sea lines of communication (since most of your navies are at the bottoms of some oceans), and in return you only have to do one thing--follow our orders when it comes to fighting the Russkis. It worked really well with a few glitches--we ended up on the wrong side in Vietnam because we supported the French, and the Brits built an ASW force for the GI/UK gap that turned out to be ill-suited for the Falklands operation (although Jack Tar and Tommy Atkins made that one work despite it). But we did keep the Russians out and the European economies recovered with great alacrity. Problem was, the day the Berlin Wall fell, that model became outdated, and we have yet to figure out this new paradigm.
Ross Perot said something in 1992 that I had been thinking for some time—in the post-Cold-War era economic power would be more important than military power. We didn't listen, but China did. We are now in Cold War II, the enemy is China, not Russia, and the battle is being fought more economically than militarily. We probably cannot win a war inside the China Sea—the Chinese home court advantage is too great—but China cannot seriously contest us outside that area, and with the Chinese economy so dependent on consumer goods exports and oil and gas imports, and their ability to hold their country together dependent on keeping the peons too busy working to revolt, we can defeat them by beating them everywhere else. We need to learn and adapt, and do so quickly.
Your last paragraph correctly pointed out the new ‘cold war’ is fought more economically than militarily, yet you said ‘China can’t seriously contest us outside of China sea.’ While that’s true militarily, but Chinese forte is its economy, hence its challenge ( to us) is economic outside of China sea. Hence the paradox: China gradually has mil.superiority inside China sea, thus it can ‘wait out’ Taiwan without war, globally (i.e. outside of China sea) it gradually has economic superiority and has no trigger/cause to go to war.
DeleteChina is using its military as weapon of deterrence ( inside China sea) and its economy as weapon of choice in the new Cold War.
"The US should withdraw from Europe, immediately."
ReplyDeleteThat might tempt the French to have another go at taking the Rhineland. And why not?
Europe has experienced enough war and devastation to realize the benefits of peaceful trade over war. In addition, NATO would still exist and an attack by France on Germany would automatically trigger an all-out war by NATO against France.
DeleteThis is too silly to even contemplate.
We'll see just how incompetent Russians truly are once their new offensive kicks off.
ReplyDeleteMight do you well reading up what Col. MacGregor has to say. Several other writers have some interesting perspectives on what really is happening and not just buying into the MI6 propaganda.
Do you have any actual point, backed up by facts and logic, to make or are you just offering an unsupported opinion?
DeleteRegarding propaganda, I've repeatedly cautioned against taking anything, from any side, at face value since EVERY bit of news from the conflict is propaganda. The one absolute true fact in this conflict is that Russia, with several times the military size and resources of Ukraine, has failed utterly to accomplish the majority of their objectives. That's not opinion or propaganda, that's fact. One might debate, to some small degree, the reason(s) for that failure but gross incompetence is the inescapable conclusion.
"Might do you well reading up what Col. MacGregor has to say."
DeleteMacGregor is just salty that his studen H.R. McMaster became a 3-star and head of TRADOC while MacGregor stalled out at COL.
MacGregor's approach is also an basically an American BTG and its entire CONOPS relies on being able to see the enemy and shoot first. Things go very wrong when the Reconnaissance Strike Group does not see the enemy first and shoot first.
If the 2nd ACR was facing a peer enemy at 73 Easting, MacGregor might not have survived to be a shill for the Putin regime.
Delete:Lutefisk
As Putin hasn’t shared his thinking very widely we can only speculate as to his objectives.
DeleteMy view is that his overriding objective was to prevent Ukraine continuing on its path to becoming an independent, economically viable, western oriented state, with membership of both the EU and NATO as realistic options in the foreseeable future. Anything else would have been a bonus.
If that was indeed his objective, then despite the undoubted and demonstrable incompetence of his armed forces to date, his objective has been achieved.
Ukraine today consists of a powerful, although heavily degraded military, but without a functioning economy behind it, and totally dependent on the continuing materiel and financial support of its western allies.
13 million of its population are refugees, and many more would follow them if the borders weren’t closed to men of military age.
Ukraine is completely uninvestable, it’s infrastructure is being destroyed on a daily basis, and the cost of repairs and reconstruction alone is somewhere north of $800 billion.
Membership of the EU and NATO remains a distant dream, and yet we’re only about a year into what’s shaping up to be a long and drawn out conflict
Far too early for either side to claim victory, or even to see where the advantage lies, but Putin certainly doesn’t need to worry about NATO tanks on his border anytime soon.
"objective was to prevent Ukraine continuing on its path"
DeleteHow would Putin/Russia benefit from that? You don't start a war unless you perceive a benefit in it.
Are you asking how it would benefit Putin/Russia if Ukraine were prevented from continuing on its path to liberal democracy and membership of NATO and the EU, and from exiting permanently its dependent relationship with Russia?
ReplyDeleteI would have thought that the advantage to Russia (or at least the perception of advantage) of keeping Ukraine firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence was pretty obvious.
Apart from reinforcing Putin’s narrative of the ‘Russian World’ surrounded by hostile adversaries, which plays directly into Russia’s long history of paranoia and general insecurity, on a practical level NATO membership would mean enemy tanks returning to their positions of November 1942 - a day’s drive from Moscow - while a Russian-aligned, or at least neutral, Ukraine would give Russia an additional several hundred miles of strategic depth.
Separately, surely it’s hard to imagine that Putin thought he could effectively re-colonise Ukraine, the largest country in Europe and its 45 million people, many of whom have a very long history of hating Russians, by invading it with an army of 150,000 troops.
My view is that this assault was always a ‘spoiler’, and anything else Putin can manage to grab along the way is just a bonus.
"I would have thought that the advantage to Russia (or at least the perception of advantage) of keeping Ukraine firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence was pretty obvious."
DeleteIt's obvious only if Putin thought that Ukraine would joyfully join Russia and become a willing, eager, thriving partner of Russia ... ... and that was never going to happen. So, even if he had been able to occupy Ukraine, what did Putin stand to gain from possessing a rebellious territory (constant insurgency) that would consume huge amounts of Russian military forces to occupy an unfriendly and unwilling country?
No rational person - and its quite possible that Putin is not rational or sane - could possibly believe that NATO/EU would invade Russia so the 'benefit' of some hundreds of miles of strategic depth is a non-existent benefit. It would be like the US fortifying the Canadian border - there's no actual threat there. So, again, what is the benefit of Russia occupying Ukraine?
The rationale is nowhere near obvious. Feel free to explain it.
Okay - happy to, although I'm not quite sure where to start...
Delete‘It’s (the advantage to Russia of Strategic Depth) obvious only if Putin thought that Ukraine would joyfully join Russia and become a willing, eager, thriving partner of Russia ….’
'what did Putin stand to gain from possessing a rebellious territory (constant insurgency) ..'
No, I disagree. Before the invasion it wasn’t unreasonable for Putin to think that there was sufficient pro-Russian sentiment east of the Dnieper to make the prospect of the annexation of those Russian-speaking areas feasible, and any subsequent insurgency manageable. In any event, there’s little or no historical examples of an effective insurgency within Europe, which would be especially problematic in the flat steppe-lands of eastern Ukraine, so he probably thought he didn’t have too much to worry about.
But occupying the whole of Ukraine, no - obviously not, and that’s pretty much what I said in my post
"...it’s hard to imagine that Putin thought he could effectively re-colonise Ukraine, the largest country in Europe and its 45 million people ... by invading it with an army of 150,000 troops.'
So since clearly he didn't think that, perhaps ask yourself what he did believe, and what he sought to achieve through his invasion.
A starting point would be to try to understand the situation from the enemy’s viewpoint and perspective.
If you know anything of Russia’s history, you will understand that after a series of devastating invasions from the west, the most recent of which cost them about 25 million lives, Russians are determined to ensure that any future conflict is fought on someone else’s territory, and not theirs.
So having understood that that is indeed their perspective, is it not apparent to you that Russia would view 800 miles of additional distance between NATO forces and its own territory (Strategic Depth) as anything but ‘a non-existent benefit’?
NATO is a US-led, anti-Russian military alliance, and the idea that Russia would ever look at Polish, German or U.S. tanks on its border in the same way that a Mountie might look across the 49th Parallel at the North Dakota National Guard is - shall we politely say - somewhat naive. NATO may be a defensive alliance, but there’s no difference at all between a defensive tank and an offensive tank.
So the prospect of a Ukraine in NATO was apparently (and unsurprisingly) something Putin found intolerable, and that I think was probably the trigger for his invasion. I seriously doubt that there are many regrets about that decision, except perhaps for regretting that he didn’t make his move a couple of years earlier.
The media is full of commentary about what Putin is really thinking, or what his likely next steps might be, or whether he’s actually insane as you suggest, or dying of some rare form of cancer; none of this in my view adds very much to the sum of our knowledge, or to the debate in general.
With our response to Putin’s invasion we’ve turned a not very significant and quite peripheral threat to the security of part of eastern Europe into something much more serious, and allowed ourselves to be drawn into something between a quagmire, a bottomless money pit, and a holy crusade, with - just to make things interesting - the greater than zero possibility of a low-level nuclear exchange.
But whichever way the war finally ends, the damage to Ukraine is irreparable.
I think it would be valuable to watch Peter Zeihan's view on what Putin wants from this war.
DeleteI don't know if he is right, but it at least has the benefit of being somewhat logical and comprehensive.
Lutefisk
"Okay - happy to"
DeleteFirst, let me say you've offered an excellent piece of writing. You've laid out your position and supported it with logic. I disagree with almost all of it but, regardless, this is the kind of comment I love. In fact, rather than dispute anything you've offered, I'm going to leave it as is and readers can decide for themselves whether they find it persuasive or not.
There's one aspect of your belief that I'd like you to expand on a bit and it's the fundamental rationale for your belief: that Putin/Russia felt in danger of invasion from the West. In my long life, I've never read or heard a single mention or proposal about invading Russia, that I can recall. Even during the Cold War, the West's entire military planning was defensive. There was no offensive, invasion plan ever contemplated. Germany, perhaps the source of Russian fears, has been permanently defanged and has no ability to mount a threat to Russia. The US would never condone or support any invasion of Russia. With all that said, where do you think Putin/Russia gets its fear? What is the imminent threat that Putin fears so much that he would initiate a war that is devastating his own military and economy and turning Russia into a world pariah? I understand cultural psyche and latent fear but, at some point, the past is the past and no longer applies to the present/future. A far more realistic invasion fear by Russia should be the threat from China, far to the east.
If you can explain where/how Putin sees an imminent, realistic threat from the West, sufficient to justify a war, that would nicely complete your analysis and give readers a full explanation and understanding of your thinking on why this occurred.
Excellent comment and thank you for the effort you've put into it !
@Anonymous, perhaps you'd be willing to include a username at the end of your comments to distinguish your writing from other Anon's - and to be able to give you credit for a nice essay?
Delete"I think it would be valuable to watch Peter Zeihan's view"
DeleteThere's a million analysts out there. Perhaps you'd care to offer the bullet point summary of what his view is relating to this topic?
"...imminent, realistic threat from the West, sufficient to justify a war..."
DeleteSure: Pure speculation on my part of course, but I won’t let that stop me, as it never seems to stop anyone else.
I would imagine that - looked at from the perspective of our Russian adversaries - when an anti-Russian military alliance tells you it’s planning to park its tanks on your borders but that you really don’t have anything to worry about because they’re only defensive tanks you’re going to give a very hollow laugh.
It might even be true today, but Russians take a long view of these matters, and Russia obviously thinks that when it comes to NATO it's safer to keep the whole lot of them as far away from its borders as possible, and clearly wasn't about to allow its next door neighbors to join the club.
So when in 2008 George W. Bush announced his support for Georgian and Ukrainian membership of the NATO club, Russia promptly invaded Georgia.
And when in 2014 the United States and the EU fomented the Euromaidan revolution that overthrew Putin’s buddy Yanukovych, Russia invaded Crimea.
Some pretty clear signals here.
I don’t think that Putin saw any imminent threat, but he saw instead a Ukraine that was being drawn steadily into the NATO tent - not de jure perhaps, but de facto certainly - and decided that his window of opportunity was closing, and that the risks of aggressive military action were worth taking (or perhaps he thought he had no choice in the matter).
But mostly I think it's that Russia is a neurotic and paranoid sort of a place, and Russians don’t necessarily see the world in the same terms as we do, and the lesson that they’ve drawn from their long history of being invaded from the West, is that the more space between Moscow and their enemies, the safer they are.
Okay, that nicely explains your thinking. Readers can decide for themselves whether they find it persuasive. Thanks for sharing your thoughts in a well written presentation(s)!
DeleteI'll offer one thought for you. In a logical extension of what you suggest in Putin/Russia's motivation, supposed Putin occupied Ukraine. Would that end his security concerns or would he simple assume that tanks would be lined up around Russia-Ukraine and he'd feel compelled to invade the next country? In other words, is there a distance from Moscow at which Putin would say, I now feel secure and don't need to invade another country or, no matter how far the borders of Russia extend, would he always see a looming threat and not stop invading countries until he conquered the entire world? Logically, the kind of deep-seated paranoia you're describing has no logical limits and global conquest would be the only 'rational' solution for such a person. Any thoughts?
Thanks - 'Any thoughts?' - yeah, a few :)
DeleteThere are a number of slightly differing but closely linked narratives that, in my view, don’t stand up to much scrutiny, but are used to explain why it's necessary to continue to provide unlimited support to Ukraine.
One of them is your own - I paraphrase - ‘if Russia, paranoid and looking for security, succeeds in Ukraine, why would he stop there?’
And we see this same narrative repeated in a slightly different format thus;
This is a war for Civilization - America can’t stand aside while Ukrainians are fighting and dying.
This conflict is a Manichean struggle between a freedom-loving democratic Ukrainian people and the ‘Orcs’.
Putin’s objective is to re-establish the Soviet Union.
Putin is pure evil, and also insane, and a reincarnation of AH, only worse, and is committing a literal genocide against Ukrainians.
The world will never be safe unless Russia is defeated, humiliated, and so weakened that it can never again threaten its neighbors. Ideally the Russian state would be broken up and fragmented.
And we see this argument made repeatedly;
If we don’t defeat Russia’s armies east of the Dnieper, there will be no stopping them - sooner or later we’ll have to fight them on the Vistula or the Elbe, or the Rhine, or one day Macron will wake up and see them watering their shaggy Cossack ponies in the Seine. Okay - I exaggerate; nobody’s saying exactly that but that’s the gist of it.
I think it’s all warmongering nonsense.
The one year scorecard for US and European support for Ukraine has been the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the destruction of Ukraine as a viable state for at least a generation along with its economy and physical infrastructure, and Russia pushed into the arms of China, Iran and North Korea. If that’s not a failure of American statecraft, I hope I never see a failure of American statecraft.
On your separate point about American’s ‘emotional attachment’ to the cause, it’s perhaps a reflection on our knowledge of the world that we still conflate the Soviet Union with Russia. The Soviets represented an existential threat; the Russians have always been terrible neighbors, but fortunately we’re not their neighbors, and today they’re no threat to the United States, and nor is the conflict in Ukraine so critical to us that we should be underwriting a large scale conventional war in Europe that could well last for a decade or more.
For one thing, we can’t afford it, and we certainly can’t spend the same dollars twice. The $50 billion (or whatever the real number is) that we’ve committed in the first year could have made Taiwan safe for a generation, or built us a couple new shipyards, doubled our rate of production of SSNs, or built us 4 extra CVNs.
Every decade or so we seem to find ourselves pouring untold gazillions of American taxpayers’ dollars into the jungles of south east Asia, the sands of the Middle East, the squalid wastelands of Afghanistan, and now, apparently, the snowy wastes of the Ukrainian steppe.
The only real issue to me is ‘what exactly does a lasting peace look like, and how do we help these guys get there?’.
PZ
"There are a number of slightly differing but closely linked narratives that, in my view, don’t stand up to much scrutiny,"
DeleteAfter a string of excellent comments, this one missed the mark a bit in that it didn't actually answer or address the question of at point, if any, Putin would be satisfied that his goal of Russian security (just to be clear, that was your suggested rationale, not mine) has been met?
In other words, if Putin can't sleep at night because of Western tanks around his borders, will he sleep any better when his border includes Ukraine but there are still tanks around that new border? Or, will he feel he needs to conquer the next country and then the next and so on because no matter what the border, there will always be tanks around it.
Recognize that I'm asking this to explore your suggested rationale to see what you feel the limits of it are.
" it’s perhaps a reflection on our knowledge of the world that we still conflate the Soviet Union with Russia"
DeleteDo you offer the same dismal assessment of Putin/Russia's statecraft and knowledge of the world that they seem to conflate past history with the NATO/EU, which has never invaded Russia nor even hinted at it?
Thanks - good question there.
DeleteNo, I don’t think it would logically follow that a country seeking security through strategic depth would look to press on forever, seeing existential threats on every new border.
Of course that doesn’t mean that Russia wouldn’t do its best to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors, but all countries do that to a greater or lesser extent, the United States no exception.
From Putin’s quoted remarks he appears to view the largely Russophone part of Ukraine east of the Dnieper much as France saw Alsace and Lorraine post-1871, so in terms of ‘land grab’ I would think that was probably the limit of his ambitions, although, with history in mind, the analogy isn’t a comforting one.
Important to bear in mind that during WW2, which many Russians seem to think finished only last week, relatively little of the fighting took place in Russia proper, but rather in Ukraine and Belarus, which served, as they did in 1812, as shock absorbers, and gave Russia time to gather its strength and mobilise its economy and manpower resources - hence perhaps Putin’s attachment to both countries, and his evident desire to see them return to his Russian World.
I have no more insight into Putin’s thinking than anyone else, but I suspect that he sees NATO as a creature that wears many hats, and conflates NATO proper with the NATO that invaded his Serbian ally, and the Coalition of the Willing that invaded Iraq, and the various US allies that fought together in Afghanistan and the other U.S. allies that overthrew the Libyan government, not to mention the key NATO players that are presently advocating the break up of his country.
DeleteFor a person given to a paranoid perspective on things, the fairly recent past has given him plenty to worry about.
As for his statecraft - such as it is - his Weltanschaung seems to be very bleak one, which should concern us more than it seems to be concerning us.
@PZ: "why it's necessary to continue to provide unlimited support to Ukraine"
DeleteAFAIK, US has continuously denied Ukraine's requests for very long range weapons like ATACMS or fighter jets. In my mind, these count as limits. Sure, the limits might change over time, see GLSDB, but this still doesn't qualify the US support as unlimited.
"we still conflate the Soviet Union with Russia"
Those conflating modern day Russia with the Soviet Union and the older Russian Empire are looking primarily at the objective behind their actions, which seems to be the same, while those opposing this view are pointing at capabilities, which are certainly different. The problem with building you foreign policy looking at capabilities alone is that is far easier to wrongly estimate capabilities than intent. Based on capabilities assessment, almost everyone expected the Russian to easily crush the Ukrainians and that has been proven wrong.
"The one year scorecard for US and European support for Ukraine has been the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people"
First, why aren't the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on Russia's scorecard, since their actions have a far bigger impact on those than the support from US/EU? Second, would that scorecard look any different if the US and EU would have not provided their support? Maybe less military personnel being killed but, based on what we've seen in Bucha and Irpin, more from the civilian population?
As for the argument the Russian would continue their advance into neighbouring countries, if not defeated on the Dnieper, the probability of them showing up on the Elbe or the Seine is very low but becomes higher than comfortable when you look at other places. I come bearing news, all from Reuters, you can search by the titles:
Feb 13th: Russia rejects accusation of plot to destabilise Moldova
Feb 21st: Putin cancels decree underpinning Moldova's sovereignty in separatist conflict
Feb 21st: Biden affirms Moldovan sovereignty after Russian coup plot allegation
Effectively we have a former soviet republic, Republic of Moldova that, like Ukraine, has a Russian-backed separatist movement on their soil. Russian troops are stationed in the breakaway region and simply refuse to leave, despite being asked to do so by the Republic of Moldova's government and even by the UN. Even if the Russian supposedly recognised the sovereignty of Moldova over that territory and they even agreed to retreat by 2002, this obviously never happened. Now they refuse to recognise the sovereignty of a foreign nation over its own territory, the last step before a formal annexation of that territory by Russia. The difference between Republic of Moldova and Ukraine is the Russians done't have direct access, Moldova being shielded by Ukraine. But if Ukraine is to fall, or at least lose it's Souther regions, Russian will be able to form a bridgehead. At that point there will be 100% probability Russians will appear on Dniester (not to be confused with Dnieper) and 99% to show up on the Prut river, finally reaching a NATO border and the old border of the Soviet Union / Russian Empire.
There is also a non-negligible probability the Baltics will follow as they are too small, too remote and, depending on political timing, too strategically insignificant for US do anything about it, which in turn will provide proof NATO is indeed useless and should be disbanded, something Russian dreamt of since it was established.
So, if Ukraine falls, we probably won't have Russian tanks on the English Channel but other nasty things are likely to happen.
"what exactly does a lasting peace look like"
A lasting peace might be achieved if the Russians are convinced Ukraine is too strong (on its own or through third-party guarantees) to be successfully invaded again. It will not matter where the actual border will be, pre-Feb 22 borders, Dnieper or through the middle of Kiev, if the Russian believe they can still change it by force, peace won't last.
Tintin
The benefit of occupying Ukraine is just that, a land grab. Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one. It's Russia's foreign policy since forever: when you can, grab more land. You don't get to grow from a small principality at the edge of Europe to the biggest country on Earth if you allow yourself to have doubts about the policy of permanent expansion. It's something so entrenched that there's no other way for them to imagine the world.
ReplyDeletePreventing Ukraine from ever joining at least NATO (if not the EU as well) was accomplished already by the occupation of Crimea and maintaining the low-level conflict in Donetsk.
Since NATO does not admit new members having border disputes, Ukraine would have never joined while being engaged in its counter-insurgency operation in the East. All Russia had to do was to keep supporting the insurgents, a very easy task. The full-blown invasion is the proof Russia wants more than just blocking Ukraine's path to the West: tsarist Russia called and it wants its empire back.
As weird as it sounds for westerners, being proud of belonging to a menacing empire is a thing in Russia. If their neighbours are not trembling with fear, something went very wrong, they feel "disrespected" so it's an indication something needs to be done about it.
Why now? Ukraine was continuously developing their military so the longer the Russians were waiting, the harder the task. There was no scenario where time would have been on the Russian side. Plus the perceived US weakness after Afghanistan and especially Syria, Russians saw themselves on a roll. Who could stop them occupying the whole of Ukraine? So the better question would really be, why not now?
As for the challenging logistics of "pacifying" the whole Ukraine, after a successful invasion, keep in mind this is not Russia's first rodeo. Again, their big empire is an indication they are doing it right.
Where the West sees an impossible task - occupying a country of 45 million with 150k troops - Putin sees an extraordinary opportunity. After all we've seen so far in the last year, if we still think they are not capable of using any means necessary, including genocide, to stabilise their occupation, then perhaps we are at fault of wishful thinking, a refuse to see a disturbing reality.
"The benefit of occupying Ukraine is just that, a land grab."
DeleteA really well written explanation of Putin/Russia's rationale. I disagree with it but it's nicely presented and logical within the context you've described. I love this kind of comment that presents an alternative view and supports it with logic and historical examples and readers can decide for themselves whether they find it persuasive. Excellent contribution to the discussion. Thank you !
Another 'Anonymous' offered a similarly excellent comment. Perhaps you'd be willing to include a username at the end of your comments to distinguish yourself from other 'Anon's' - and to take credit for a nice piece of writing?
Cool, I'm glad sharing this point of view was useful. And I can definitely see the confusion between various Anon's so I'll be sure to include a username at the end of the comment.
DeleteTintin
Yes, the Poles and the Baltic countries tell us this sort of thing all the time, and it’s no basis upon which to construct the foreign policy of the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the foreign policy of the US supposed to factor in the behaviours and motivations of other big players, like Russia?
DeleteIf so, why is this particular understanding of Russia's motivations unsuitable to be taken into account; is it because it's plainly wrong and there are better versions out there, is it because it comes from the Poles and the Baltics or because Russia is no longer of interest to the US?
"the Poles and the Baltic countries tell us this sort of thing all the time"
DeleteTell us what? I'm missing whatever you're referring to. Try again?
"this particular understanding of Russia's motivations"
DeleteWhat specific motivation are you referring to? There have been several different motivations put forth in the comments and post.
That would be the motivation put forward in my comment, I assumed based on the time of his reply it was directed to me - I could be wrong.
DeleteTintin
"Tell us what? I'm missing whatever you're referring to. Try again?"
DeleteSure; I spend a good deal of time in Estonia, and travel widely around both the other Baltic states and Poland.
It used to surprise me (but no longer does) to find just how deep and widespread is the ancestral hatred that ordinary citizens of these countries feel for Russia and its people. Even young people born after the collapse of the Soviet Union will have stories (no doubt true ones) to tell you about an uncle or grandparent who was shot or deported by the Russian military or security services, and families will often hang a black and white photograph on the wall just to keep the old memories alive.
I don’t think this is much to do with Putin, and if he were overthrown and replaced as president by some Russian equivalent of Nelson Mandela, the Poles would still hate and fear Russia, and would do all they could to prevent any sort of reasonable settlement of this conflict, or a rapprochement between the two sides.
Given the respective histories this is perhaps understandable, but what it means in practical terms is that Poland and its Baltic allies see the conflict in Ukraine as an historical opportunity to destroy forever Russia’s pretensions to great power status, and if possible break up the country into its constituent republics.
Since they appear to see this as a vital national interest, it’s to be expected that they will do what they can to advance their views, and work towards such an outcome. But the United States is also fully entitled to act in its own national interests, and in my view our interests are very different, and we shouldn't be guided by our Polish friends on these matters.
It’s both deeply unfortunate and a massive failure of US statecraft that we should have allowed ourselves to become so emotionally involved in a conflict in which our national interest are affected only in a peripheral way, and dragged so far into the mire and the weeds that we can’t now even endorse a compromise peace settlement without it looking to the world like we’ve suffered yet another defeat.
Separately, I'll be interested to see what the Chinese proposals look like, and whether perhaps they'll offer to contribute Chinese troops to a UN Peacekeeping force.
PZ
"failure of US statecraft that we should have allowed ourselves to become so emotionally involved "
DeleteWell, bear in mind that while American's may not have the level of hatred for Russia that you describe, there is a lot of historical animosity as a result of continuous clashes with the Soviets/Russia: threatened nuclear extinction, Cuban missile crisis, Berlin airlift, Vietnam, Cold War, nuclear torpedoes aimed at our coastal cities, etc. The older generation remembers practicing hiding under school desks due to Russian nuclear weapons! So, if you're looking to understand why the US may have an emotional reaction, there's your reasons.
There is a faction in the US that sees fighting a proxy war with Russia as a win - we weaken/defeat Russia without shedding our own blood. All we have to do is provide arms to Ukraine. This is what Russia/Soviet did to us in Vietnam. Some see a certain poetic justice in this.
So, for some, this is not a failure of statecraft but an opportunity to defeat true evil that is a long time threat to our national survival.
"There is no longer any reason for the US to maintain a significant military presence in Europe. The US should withdraw from Europe, immediately."
ReplyDeleteIs there some room to negotiate what a less-than-significant US military presence in Europe might look like or you advocate for a 100%, complete, retreat of US forces, including from bases such as Rota and Aviano?
Most of the expenses come from maintaining a large presence in Germany, a high-cost country, and also the wrong location in a future conflict with Russia, no longer on the likely frontline as it was back in the days of the USSR.
Deploying a brigade-size force to the Baltics, participating to some sort of a multinational brigade and opening the Aegis site in Poland, keeping both the MK base and the AEGIS site running in Romania while pulling back everything else from Germany should give you a similar, if not greater level of deterrence, for a small fraction of the current cost.
Why hasn't this been done already? Beats me.
A complete retreat from Europe, including the closure of all bases, it's a much more challenging proposition.
First, it's important to understand that while Europe as a whole might be stronger than Russia there is no unity of purpose. This is not the same as unity of command, which could be fixed by establishing an EU army - a long process in itself but one that could be at least tried. Even with an EU army established, EU countries have very different levels of commitment to European defence.
As Son of a Sailor already pointed out, Germany will simply not honour their commitment to their Eastern neighbours and this has been their long-standing policy of appeasement towards Russia. Even if this policy will change, and we don't have any proof they are serious about that, they won't be able to help as their army is hollowed-out, again by policy, but this time stemming from the way they're trying to atone for their past transgressions. This is the base of their new post-WWII society and is unlikely to change.
The other major player in EU is France, another outstanding piece of work. You only need to recall the insane amount of political pressure it took from their NATO allies for France to yield and cancel the Mistral transaction with Russia during the invasion of Crimea. Essentially this was a NATO ally absolutely determined to sell Russia a pair of landing crafts while Russia was literally landing in Crimea. They are more likely to sell the Russians the night vision equipment for their tanks rather than fight them.
Then you have a couple of countries, Italy and Greece, that will probably even show some understanding for the Russian position, as an invasion will not affect them and business with Russia is good for the former and historical links are important for the latter. Hungary will do exactly what is doing now, which is rooting for Russia, hoping something will fall through the cracks and they will get rewarded with a bit of land. You have Spain, too far away and with no interest in this matter. Lastly, a bunch of smaller nations that think Eastern Europe is somewhere between Germany and Austria, plus the Scandinavian archipelago, too afraid to commit any meaningful resources as they might be next on the menu. And then there's the Brits who are always willing to help but have no land Army to speak of - will probably contribute some airpower and maybe even patrol the Baltic. That's pretty much it.
To sum up, Eastern states do not expect much help from the Western ones, and it is understood their security depends on the US, not because the rest of the EU couldn't help, but because it won't and this is not likely to change in the near future.
Tintin
As for the US, while it might not be politically correct to say it, the willingness to use the nuclear arsenal drops as you move away from the Atlantic shore deeper into Europe. The American nuclear umbrella extended to Britain (not that it needs it anyway) will not realistically cover the Baltics and that's ok. Yet, everyone that faces Russia needs some sort of nuclear deterrent, otherwise they will end up like Ukraine (spoiler alert). It's been a long standing US policy to deter nuclear proliferation, including among the NATO allies so the deal has been the European countries stay nuclear-free and the US extends their nuclear umbrella. When this guarantee seems less certain, and here the questioning of NATO usefulness by the previous POTUS did not help, then the Eastern countries are forced to ask for a more tangible commitment, in the form of US units deployed on their territory. That way the US might be more inclined to use its full might if nothing else to protect its own forces. Again, if the original commitment would be seen as ironclad, this wouldn't be necessary but we are where we are. The US is of course free to claim NATO formal commitments are enough and pull back completely from Europe but that would likely prompt countries like Poland to seeks domestic deterrence capabilities. They simply cannot bet their security on the moody political landscape of the US.
DeleteAs a side note, this is likely to happen in Ukraine's case as well: if the war reaches a stalemate and Ukraine does not get any security guarantees from the West, when faced with an enemy that denies their right to exist, the only logical solution would be to get their own nuclear arsenal. They have the means and the best possible incentive to do it. So, ironically, if US decides it's in its interest to prevent that, it will need to extend some sort of guarantees to Ukraine as well. Considering US is one of the signatories of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum that saw Ukraine giving up on their inherited nuclear arsenal and becoming vulnerable to Russia, there is a wee bit of moral responsibility. Sure, it is not translated into any legal obligations to help in this instance but you can make a case for it. The US motivation for preventing Ukraine going nuclear is to stop further proliferation. Turkey will probably check their regional power status and jump in Ukraine's bandwagon which will in turn lead to some very motivated Greeks.
I will therefore submit the first equation of US retreat from Europe: US military presence vs "Everyone gets a nuke" program
The other aspect is purely financial, even if the Europeans manage to fight off the Russians by themselves, the limited amount of involvement from US might actually cost more than the cost of deterrence done right from the beginning. This is more of a case for a cost-optimised US presence, the less-than-significant one.
The second equation would be: some small, predictable cost now vs some very large, potential expense later on
US could resolve these equations on the side of complete retreat, but the implications should be clearly recognised.
Tintin
Again, a very worthwhile contribution regardless of my agreement or disagreement. As such, I'll leave it to readers to evaluate for themselves.
DeleteI'll offer one thought to you ... To torture an old proverb, if you give a man a fish every day, he'll have no reason to learn to fish. Similarly, if the US provides the eternal security blanket for Europe, they'll never have any reason to provide for their own defense or learn to overcome the various challenges/problems you list for them. On the other hand, if the US leaves, as I advocate, they'll have no choice but to learn to defend themselves and to rise above whatever issues you feel weigh them down, currently. It's long past time for Europe to stand on their own and learn to function peacefully and cooperatively with each other. As long as the US remains, this will never happen because they'll never be forced to do it. Our 'benevolent' help is actually harming their development militarily and geopolitically. Just a different perspective for you to consider.
Excellent presentation. I thank you for sharing it with us and I thank you for the effort such a writing requires.
Also, thanks for the identifying username. It'll be helpful in trying to keep track of the various 'Anon's'.