ComNavOps has opined that it is long past time for the US to
pull out of Europe, militarily, and that Europe/NATO can more than stand on its
own. The bogeyman specter of the Russian
bear has been shown to be an illusion, thwarted by the tiny state of Ukraine.
Here’s some interesting data on NATO spending for 2023.
Here’s the top 10 countries for defense spending as a
percentage of GDP.[1]
Poland 3.9%
United States 3.5%
Greece 3.0%
Estonia 2.7%
Lithuania 2.5%
Finland 2.4%
Romania 2.4%
Hungary 2.4%
Latvia 2.3%
UK 2.1%
Here’s the top 10 countries for total defense spending
(million USD).[1]
United States $860,000
Germany $68,080
UK $65,763
France $56,649
Italy $31,585
Poland $29,105
Canada $28,950
Spain $19,179
Netherlands $16,741
Turkey $15,842
The US spent
$860B. The rest of NATO spent $400B
combined.
The reason for NATO’s existence has ended. It’s past time to leave NATO and let Europe
take care of itself.
__________________________
United States 3.5%
Greece 3.0%
Estonia 2.7%
Lithuania 2.5%
Finland 2.4%
Romania 2.4%
Hungary 2.4%
Latvia 2.3%
UK 2.1%
Germany $68,080
UK $65,763
France $56,649
Italy $31,585
Poland $29,105
Canada $28,950
Spain $19,179
Netherlands $16,741
Turkey $15,842
NATO is more a tool to control allies than protect them. Without it, European nations have no choice but to mend relations with Russia since they have no ability to confront.
ReplyDelete"since they have no ability to confront."
DeleteNow, that's just nonsense. Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill albeit with Western munitions resupply help. If one tiny country that had no credible military before the invasion could stymie Russia then beyond doubt the European nations have nothing to fear.
Your comment borders heavily on being deleted as factually incorrect. Up your game if you wish to comment again.
"Albeit with Western munitions resupply help" is doing the yeoman's work here. Depending on how the next Administration feels about continuing to support Ukraine, the narrative of the "little country that could" could turn into the "little country that was."
Delete"could turn into the "little country that was."
DeleteThe ultimate fate of Ukraine is irrelevant for the purpose of this post/discussion. You're completely missing the point which was that the terrifying Russian giant has been exposed by Ukraine and proven to be a mere mortal or less and that Europe has nothing to fear from Russia.
The most important "takeaway" from Ukraine is how quickly you use munitions / kit and having a robust supply chain for replacement that can in scaled up quickly. But everyone who has studied defence knew that anyway.
Delete"The ultimate fate of Ukraine is irrelevant for the purpose of this post/discussion." Maybe for this discussion, but not for Ukraine--or is it worth having Russia win to each the EU a lesson?
Delete"But everyone who has studied defence knew that anyway."
DeleteSo why did you bother mentioning it?
"Maybe for this discussion, but not for Ukraine"
DeleteAs you note, Ukraine's fate is irrelevant for this discussion so what purpose does your comment serve?
Your comment is irrelevant. Up your game if you wish to comment.
Ukraine had more tanks, artillery and other armoured vehicles than France, Germany, UK, Italy and Spain combined when they were invaded.
DeleteI'm not sure where you are going that Europe could defend itself most young men would flee or surrender rather than fight.
Europe no longer has any fighting instinct it's been breed and taught out of them since the collapse of the USSR.
Without the US supplying munitions Ukraine would have lost within the first year as the entirety of Europe had and continues to supply or build little.
Ukraine said they needed 400k artillery shells a month while Germany with investment will be able to build 200k a year in 2027!
Just Google web yourself on Ukraine 155th brigade to find out how "stern" Ukrainians on fighting Russia, I mean common people. This bigrade was just disbanded.
DeleteThis brigade was trained in France by French. During training, > 600 disserted. French president Macron visited them last November. Before it entered front line, another ~1,700 disserted.
"Europe no longer has any fighting instinct it's been breed and taught out of them since the collapse of the USSR."
DeleteAnd you think the US supplying the military force is going to improve that situation, if it's true? If we keep doing the job for them, they have no motivation to take care of their own defense. Throw 'em in the deep end. Sink or swim.
"the entirety of Europe had and continues to supply or build little."
Because the US is supplying so much! Do you see the problem, here?
"most young men would flee or surrender rather than fight."
I'm pretty sure that you have no factual basis for that statement. Regardless, that's a societal issue for Europe to address. Or ... they can learn to speak Russian. Simple enough choice.
Different anonymous here…
Delete‘…no factual basis for that statement…’
An opinion poll conducted last year following the German government’s announcement that it intended to boost defense spending by 100 billion Euros to ‘prepare the country for war’ showed that only 17% of young German men would definitely fight for their country if it was attacked, while 40% definitely wouldn’t.
I doubt the numbers would be very different in the rest of Europe outside of Poland and the Baltic states.
So there’s the problem…
Annoying as it is, we can’t afford to walk away and abandon Europe to the Chinese and the Russians, so we need to keep exhorting them to do more in their own defense, even knowing that they won’t.
But in the meantime they’re spending tens of billions of dollars buying our military exports which is something I guess.
"An opinion poll ... showed that only 17% of young German men would definitely fight for their country if it was attacked, while 40% definitely wouldn’t."
DeletePeople say all kinds of things in polls but often don't follow through. For example, thousands of people stated that they would flee the country if Trump won the election but few or none have done so. For example, tens of thousands of young men stated that they would flee to Canada rather than fight in Vietnam but when it came down to it, the vast majority complied with the draft. And so on. People tend to make 'statements' in polls to send a message but they frequently won't actually follow through on the statement.
"Annoying as it is, we can’t afford to walk away and abandon Europe to the Chinese and the Russians"
We wouldn't "abandon Europe". Where do you get that idiotic notion? We would maintain trade, financial, cultural, scientific, and political relationships. How is that "abandoning Europe"? If Europe were actually invaded, we'd come to their aid with or without a NATO treaty.
"But in the meantime they’re spending tens of billions of dollars buying our military exports which is something I guess."
What makes you think we wouldn't continue to sell military products to Europe whether we were in NATO or not? In fact, our withdrawal from Europe would almost certainly spur military sales as the individual countries ramped up their defense spending to fill the gap!
You clearly haven't thought this through logically. Please take some time and give it some deeper thought before you comment again.
We’re not spending all that cash to protect Europe. We spend it to prop up a hugely inefficient and corrupted defense industry that produces wasteful, useless projects that don’t protect anyone from anything.
ReplyDeletePull everything out of Europe if you want, fine. Any monies saved will just flow elsewhere, and probably on nothing good, unless you also change the entire military leadership decision making culture and procurement process.
"We’re not spending all that cash to protect Europe. We spend it to prop up a hugely inefficient and corrupted defense industry that produces wasteful, useless projects that don’t protect anyone from anything."
DeleteCome on, now. That's an utterly sophomoric statement. Our goal isn't to "prop up" industry. There aren't generals sitting in rooms examining Boeings profits for last quarter and deciding to ship more money to them because their profits are down.
We're spending money to provide military support to Europe. We may not be spending it all in the wisest manner possible but we're not simply shoveling money to industry with no thought of obtaining any useful product.
"Any monies saved will just flow elsewhere, and probably on nothing good"
If you believe, as your statement implies, that nothing can ever change for the better than we may as well all give up and go home and wait for the world to end. I, on the other hand, recognize that we face acquisition and financing problems but I refuse to give up. Change (for the better, we hope) rarely comes in the form of an instantaneous, sweeping revelation. Instead, it comes in small, incremental improvements and those improvements are well worth defining and discussing, here.
For the purposes of this discussion...I wonder what the actual, direct costs of our NATO membership are for the US?? Ie; costs for stationed units, administrative and "joint" staffs, etc... How much would we save if we became a "shadow" member- meaning we physically pull out of Europe, and just leave them with the Article 5 promise of "if you really need us, we will come"?? This seems like what should've been done decades ago. I don't mind our membership in NATO, doing joint training, exercises, etc, but our need to physically be there died when the threat of Soviet armor rolling west did...
ReplyDeleteLord Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO, reportedly observed that the purpose of the Alliance was to keep the Americans in Europe, the Russians out, and the Germans down.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of NATO, today, seems to be to allow member countries to redirect monies from military to social spending programs, secure in the knowledge that the US will provide and pay for their defense.
DeleteI've long been in favor of the US withdrawing from NATO and establishing bilateral agreements with the more serious countries in the alliance.
ReplyDeleteBut, for the sake of discussion, I'd like to think of the steps it would take to make NATO a useful alliance.
1. Automatic dismissals for failure to meet spending requirements. If you fail to meet the 2.0% of GDP on defense for three out of five years, you are automatically dismissed from the alliance. There is no vote to be had, no waiver to be given, you are gone and must wait at least ten years to reapply to the alliance. All NATO bases in the country must be closed within a year and all NATO troops sent elsewhere. Alliance members will be barred from forming bilateral agreements with this country to circumvent consequences. Also, paying the US to defend you doesn't count as part of the 2.0%.
2. Actual defense expectations on the Europeans. Russia is the primary invasion threat to Europe (though, as we have seen, it isn't a particularly fearsome one, considering its performance in Ukraine). Europe should be required to maintain the ground forces to defend itself from Russian invasion on its own for at least 12 months. The US can provide air support and navy support, but otherwise you're on your own for 12 months while the US ramps up its war effort.
3. Behave like allies and not undermine the alliance. In particular, I'm looking at you Germany and Turkey. Germany needs to adopt a serious energy policy that doesn't beholden it to the Russians. Turkey needs to decide whether it wants to be western-aligned or not. If it wants to be the hegemon of the Middle East, it can do so without American cover. If either country refuses to do so, they must be expelled.
In addition, all allies must stop cozying up with China ASAP. Any country that refuses to do so will be expelled.
4. Creation of a Pan-European Navy. With exception to the British and the French, the remainder of the European naval forces aren't much more than token assets. There is no reason that the European NATO members can't support at least 5 or 6 carrier groups which would be useful in a conflict with China.
5. Expansion of NATO's coverage area to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. If Guam is attacked, the European allies must be obliged to come to the US's defense.
6. Re-creation of European military-industry. It is not good if one member is responsible for equipping the forces of all of them. If they want to rely on US research, fine. But we need to de-centralize the manufacturing process at the very least.
Sorry, forgot signature.
Delete-Huskers1995
On the whole, some pretty good ideas!
DeleteStop using % GDP as a metric for Defense. Instead use number of combat ready ships, planes, and divisions, The US spends an inordinate amount of defense and most if it is wasted on Little Crappy Ships, a Test Class of 3 destroyers, a carrier class that will bankrupt us and can't meet a decent sortie rate. We also have planes that cost too much, are not combat ready, and have woefully low ammunition stocks. So how is %GDP an effective metric?
Delete"So how is %GDP an effective metric?"
DeleteAs a measure of combat effectiveness, it's useless. As a comparative measure of military spending, it's perfectly valid.
@John Galt Did you read point #2? I didn't merely ask for them to meet their spending requirements.
DeleteYes I did read #2, good point. However the bigger issue here is the entire tone of the posting. If you utilize metrics that do not measure combat effectiveness then do not be dismayed when you have a Navy that cannot fight. Writing about metrics that measure useless data is merely throwing sand into gears to bind them or worse to distract folks from the bigger issues.
Delete@John Galt In legal documents (and treaties are legal documents), it is best to have as many objective measures as you possibly can. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP is an objective measure. Here, I’m using the 2.0% as the bare minimum expectation. It isn’t a perfect substitute for subjective measures of effectiveness, but it’s probably the best we can do for the purposes I have: holding NATO members accountable and expelling them if they fail to meet that bare minimum standard.
Delete“However the bigger issue here is the entire tone of the posting.” I really don’t understand this statement. The defense spending metric was included in one point out of six. It formed a small part of my overall analysis. It seems like you’re merely looking for reasons to disagree.
-Huskers1995
Lets compare Apple's to Apple's here, the US does not spend some 800 billion on NATO, most of that defence spending goes to other areas of security. On the other hand most of the budgets of most of the other NATO members is directed towards alliance activities. The exceptions are countries like Canada where the majority of defence spending is directed towards continental defence - a plus for US security, and more globally involved countries like the UK and France whose Non NATO spending is generally used to help enforce the US global order - another plus for US security. Don't think for a moment that if the US pulls out of NATO that those countries won't feel obliged to redirect more of there spending towards Europe, which could imply less spending that benefits US security.
ReplyDeleteNot that NATO spending by other NATO allies does not help the US. That's 400 billion being spent by non US taxpayers to keep Russia in line. Allowing the US to pay more attention to other matters .(cough, cough, China,cough)
Perhaps the most important reason the US should stay engaged with NATO is all the benefits that accrue from being the leader of the most powerful military alliance in the planet. Yes NATO members should spend more, yes the organisation could run better, but in the end the US gets does far better, both financially and in terms of security, by paying the price to be the boss then they would as just another player at the table.
“On the other hand, most of the budgets of most other NATO members is directed toward alliance activities.”
DeleteI could not help but laugh at that claim. For most of them, their budgets go toward maintaining little more than token forces, wholly incapable of defending their own territory let alone making any meaningful contribution in an actual conflict. How much non-US NATO spending goes to defending the US. That number is near-zero. How much US money goes toward defending non-US NATO countries? Well over a hundred billion, at least.
The question is this: Why should the American taxpayer subsidize rich nations that have decided not to adequately fund and allocate manpower to their militaries, but instead fund massive social programs?
As to your claim about our European allies keeping Russia in line, that game me another laugh. Who is footing much of the bill for the Ukrainian defense effort, even though it is in Europe? Oh, that’s right, the US. We’re spending money to counter Russia anyway, I don’t see much cost mitigation coming from Europe’s paltry efforts.
The fact of the matter is that as the alliance is currently constructed, it is of little use to the US. It either needs to be heavily reformed (as I suggested above) or the US needs to leave and forge separate alliances with the serious countries in the alliance.
-Huskers1995
"in the end the US gets does far better, both financially and in terms of security, by paying the price to be the boss then they would as just another player at the table."
DeleteThat's a flawed argument because the basis for your statement if incorrect. You're assuming that the US benefits (in some nebulous ways) by being the boss rather than just another participant. Setting aside the dubious benefits claim, you're assuming, incorrectly, that the US has to be at the table. There is nothing that mandates the US be part of NATO. If we were not part of NATO then there would be zero European defense costs for us to bear and the paltry benefits would be irrelevant.
Reconsider your cost/benefit analysis in light of the withdrawal from NATO option. I mean that sincerely. Analyze that option and tell us how it compares to your first analysis. That would be enlightening and educational.
"all the benefits that accrue from being the leader "
DeleteFor those of us, such as myself, who don't instantly see the benefits, would you care to enumerate them? Again, I ask this sincerely.
Rather than benefits, I'm seeing a LOT of costs, lack of military support and cooperation (denied overflights, denied basing, withdrawn ships, etc. when the US takes action), lots of poor publicity (to be fair, European opinions are split on US presence), resentment towards the US, etc. I would love to see a list of benefits.
Quick note, according to the Ukrainians, up to October of this year Europe as a whole had provided some 124.7 billion Euros in aid and had pledged a further 115.9 billion. U.S. aid amounted to 88.3 billion with another 30 billion pledged. So who is "footing the bill"?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Numbers vary quite a bit, depending on the source. From USA Today,
Delete"Nearly three years into the war, Washington has committed $175 billion in total assistance for Ukraine."
USA Facts website reports that as of Mar 2024 (so approaching a year ago),
"Since February 2022, the United States has allocated $113.4 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine in wartime."
Newsweek reports that as of Dec 2023 (so just over a year old),
"The total amount of American military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine since the war started on February 24, 2022, is over $79 billion according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy."
When the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the Cold War ended in 1991, the entire reason for NATO ended as well. It should have been stood down and a new security structure for Europe created in its place. Done properly, that process would have taken about 10 years to complete and could have consisted of various carefully thought out steps. Now? Who knows what will happen.
ReplyDeleteIt should also be remembered: President Eisenhower ordered West Germany to enter NATO in 1956 specifically so US troops could be reposted to CONUS. His policy was for the US to only REINFORCE the Europeans in the case of war, at the time of OUR choosing, not wasting our time & money manning the barricades for decades when Europeans were perfectly capable of doing so.
And the old saw about "Keeping the Germans down..." blah, blah, blah. Americans should know: that is NOT a policy which was ever in the US interest. That has always been the centuries-long, exclusive interest of the City of London (and they, incredibly, got us to do it for them).
"As a European I totally agree."
ReplyDeleteI've deleted your comment due to the blatant political and personal comments. I would really like you to repost your comment with those aspects removed and, instead, discuss your view of US reliability as it pertains to military matters (use some examples or data), your view of US involvement in NATO, your perception of US arms sales limitations (with specific examples), and your general view of US military support/presence for/in Europe. I value non-US readers and I think you can offer some fascinating perspectives whether I agree or disagree with them. However, this blog is a cut above and we deal in facts and logic and we don't allow blatant politics and personal attacks against anyone because they're simply unproductive. There are plenty of websites you can go to and vent. This is not one of them.
I encourage you to re-post with helpful, constructive discussion. I look forward to your thoughts. Thank you.
You're right, I was totally out of line, my apologies.
ReplyDeleteNo problem. Now, you clearly have some strong views so support them with examples and logic and please post. We'll all benefit from it.
DeleteAs a European I think it would be best if the USA were leaving Nato. We have a debt to the US with WWI and WWII, and it is clear that most European countries have taken advantage of Nato and the US presence to forego their defense responsibility. And at the same time USA has used its pre-eminence to oblige European countries to buy US (2/3 of armaments purchases in 2023 were from US manufacturers) – which doesn’t help a very fragmented European defense industry. One good example is the F35 which is over priced and which software is locked so the buyer cannot customise it.
ReplyDeleteUSA leaving NATO would force European countries to spend more on defense and beef up their defense industry – and being more integrated. If not, then it’s their problem ! And it would not prevent defense cooperation between Europe and the USA, as it was with Sweden / Finland before they joined.
Another benefit would be that although China is a threat to both Europe and the USA, there would be no creeping of Nato toward Asia – it would be the role of another alliance eg. an extended Ankus.
One cannot reproach the USA to look after what it believes are it’s own interests. And although President Biden was much more polite than President Trump, it’s exactly what he has done eg. IRA, or the Ankus submarine deal, which by the way seems to be another naval fiasco like LCS, Constellation … Same with President Bush, but Gulf War II and the Afghanistan occupation (after the toppling of the Taliban government) were neither necessary nor successes, and the incorporated European countries would have been better off not to participate.
But the latest blusters from President elect Trump about Greenland or a 5% defense expenditure target are unacceptable. The USA have already a lot of leeway in Greenland in terms of defense, so it is clear that this is just a “real estate” grab for natural resources and money to be made. And the 5% target (which is not met by the US) is just about pressuring “allies” to buy more US armaments.
Finally, we all live in imperfect democracies. In Europe we have our share of corrupt / inept politicians and officials, dysfunctional governments, polarized parlements, political judges, Putin’s proxies eg. VOrban in Hungary, FPÖ in Austria. In Nato we have outliers ie. Turkey. We also have our own defense fiascos eg. German frigates, UK Ajax … But countries are more or less on equal terms, there is no overly dominant player.
I appreciate and value your comment ... while disagreeing with much of it. It's interesting to see the different perspective while working from the same set of facts!
Delete"oblige European countries to buy US"
Now, you know that's not true. Europe is not obliged to buy anything. Europe could easily have developed its own robust defense industry over the decades. This would have relieved the US of some of the defense burden and forced the US defense industry to offer better deals on whatever it does sell.
Instead, Europe took the easy/lazy way out and let the US provide for Europe's defense. Is it any wonder then, that most arms sales come from the US? Europe has only itself to blame for this.
You even acknowledge this in your statement, "USA leaving NATO would force European countries to spend more on defense and beef up their defense industry ". So, don't blame the US for defense sales.
"were neither necessary nor successes, and the incorporated European countries would have been better off not to participate."
Yep! The US would have been wise not to engage in some of those activities and Europe would have been wise not to participate. Lots of "unwiseness" to go around!
"blusters from President elect Trump about Greenland or a 5% defense expenditure target are unacceptable."
You need to understand that Trump is, at heart, a businessman not a politician. Those statements are negotiating ploys (start with a high offer and negotiate your way down to what you really want). Trump wants Europe to shoulder more of their own defense so he demands a high spending goal but he'll then negotiate down to the 2-3% that he really wants out of Europe/NATO. You can't take Trump's initial comments about anything as being his actual positions. View them as negotiations.
Hopefully, this gives you a slightly better understanding about the US and how we see Europe's defense. Of course, I don't speak for the entire US!
Well, reading this blog and discussing it with people supposedly knowledgeable, I can hardly believe that the purchase of F35 by European countries has only to do with a rational and objective cost / benefit analysis, and not with political pressures. And I do not believe that politicians are less capable of hardball negotiations than businessmen. Anyway you voted the guy as your president, you have amendment 25 in your constitution, if worse come to worst.
ReplyDelete" I do not believe that politicians are less capable of hardball negotiations than businessmen"
DeleteThe key is that they approach it differently. Politicians approach from a public perception perspective. What will the polls say? Thus, they avoid public statements that might offend anyone. A businessman approaches from a financial end point perspective. Thus, they open large and grand, knowing they'll negotiate down. Hence, Trump's remarks that you seem to have focused on without understanding their context.
"I can hardly believe that the purchase of F35 by European countries has only to do with a rational and objective cost / benefit analysis"
It has to do with the simple fact that there is no European source of advanced stealth fighters. It's a simple choice: a US F-35 or some other significantly less capable non-stealth aircraft. In that respect, the choice was purely logical.
Again, this is the fault of Europe for not building their own robust defense base so as to have viable alternatives to US offerings. Don't blame the US because Europe decided not to build stealth aircraft.
"Anyway you voted the guy as your president, you have amendment 25 in your constitution, if worse come to worst."
Last warning. The sentence was unnecessary. This kind of blatant political and personal comment will not be allowed. Future comments of this nature will be deleted.