Get the US Out of NATO

NATO once served a valid purpose and did so admirably.  That purpose, however, is long gone and with it NATO’s reason for existence or, at least, the US’ reason for remaining a member of NATO.  Unfortunately, the mere mention of the faintest possibility of the US exiting NATO seems to trigger angst and panic among so many observers in Europe and the US.
 
Panic among European observers is especially ironic given that so many in Europe despise the US to begin with and work to actively undermine and obstruct any US action or desire.
 
Let’s examine some of the arguments against the US pulling out of NATO.
 
Isolation.  Many seem to feel that pulling out of NATO would automatically lead to the US being isolationists on the world stage.  This is ridiculous.  Aside from erasing our name from a piece of paper, we’re just talking about removing our military presence from Europe.  We would still have extensive and intimate financial, trade, cultural, and scientific interactions.
 
Russian Threat.  This argument has been forever laid to rest by the Ukraine war.  If a single, small country with almost no military to begin the war and a population a quarter the size of Russia can fight Russia to a standstill, albeit with significant munitions resupply help from the West, then the Russian threat is overblown to the point of irrelevance.
 
Political Balance.  Some suggest that the US presence balances political and territorial ambitions among the European countries as if our absence from NATO would trigger all out wars between European countries.  This seems patently absurd if for no other reason than the European countries don’t have much in the way of extensive or effective militaries, as evidenced by their very low defense expenditure levels and nearly non-existent munitions inventories (remember Libya?)!
 
Mutual Military Support.  The contention is that the US would lose the military cooperation and support of European countries and access to bases.  Well, any country can assist the US at any time and in any way they choose without the US needing to be part of NATO.  The reality, however, is that all too often European countries already refuse to assist the US militarily.  Overflight permissions have been refused during US actions and foreign ships have pulled out of US naval task forces when the possibility of US action has arisen.  Sometimes foreign countries assist us and sometimes they don’t.  They have their political objectives and we have ours.  Short of invoking Article 5 of the NATO agreement, nothing would change the degree of cooperation with the US.
 
Defense of Europe.  Some seem to think that if the US is not a member of NATO, that precludes the US from helping to defend Europe.  This is absurd.   If Europe is threatened, the US will most certainly step in to help, treaty or no treaty.  It’s in our best interest.
 
 
Options
 
An option, for those too queasy about the US formally pulling out of NATO, is that the US could simply pull out of Europe while remaining a member of NATO.  Nothing that I’m aware of obligates us to be physically present on the continent.  This would allow all the resources currently devoted to Europe to be redirected at the real threat which is China.
 
Another option would be to use US withdrawal from NATO as a major bargaining chip in a Ukraine-Russia peace settlement.  For example, the US might agree to withdraw from NATO if Russia returns Crimea and returns to pre-war borders and Ukraine is granted NATO membership.
 
 
Conclusion
 
In summary, there is no valid argument for the US remaining in NATO and every reason for the US to leave NATO.  The world faces an extreme threat from China and US resources need to be focused on that threat not babysitting a Europe that faces no realistic threat.  It is past time for Europe to stand on its own.

Europe Redux

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.

Depend On Yourself, Not On Others

This blog avoids politics and for good reason but this is just too good to pass up and, besides, it directly impacts military matters.  The United Kingdom (UK) has withdrawn from the European Union (EU) – Brexit – and the EU is now grappling with the resulting impact.  One of the major issues facing the EU is defense.  A Breitbart article touches on this and the discussion offers some insights and belated recognition of the philosophies espoused on this blog.

Britain’s vote to leave the EU in 2016 was followed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s arrival on the world stage. Since then, the feeling has only grown in the EU that its foreign policy has to change to meet the bruising, confrontational challenges of a new age. (1)

This is not a new age.  The world has not changed.  It’s the same brutal, ruthless, often evil world it’s always been.  The only change is that the West has grown soft and complacent.  Worse – far worse – is that the West has come to believe that the rest of the world is as civilized as the West believes itself to be.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Most of the world is a violent, hateful place ruled by warlords (regardless of what title they choose to bestow upon themselves) and governed by the ancient and still totally relevant principle that ‘might makes right’.  The strong survive and thrive and the weak die in subjugation.  Evolution does not reward meekness or pacifism as a survival strategy.

As the article succinctly states,

For decades now, the EU has tried to be the counterpoint of alpha male superpower politics, spreading its “soft power” brand across the globe based on economic and developmental aid, cultural clout and the promotion of human rights, among other non-coercive strategies. (1)

While it is laudable to strive for a world based on warm, fuzzy feelings and mutual respect it is also foolish to ignore the reality that the world is a brutal place and most of the world doesn’t respect or care about the niceties of polite society.  I’m not going to bother citing the litany of soft power failings - you know it as well as I do.

Now, the EU is being forced to confront reality.

“We Europeans must adjust our mental maps to deal with the world as it is, not as we hoped it would be,” Borrell [EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell] wrote in an article last week. “To avoid being the losers in today’s U.S.-China competition, we must relearn the language of power.” [emphasis added] (1)

Wow!  ‘The world as it is, not as we hoped it would be’.  That’s basic, eternal truth being relearned the hard way by the EU.  Hopefully, the US will also learn the lesson of reality from this.

How does one avoid being a loser in today’s world?  The answer is the same as it’s been throughout history – have a powerful military.  Unfortunately, that immediately leads to yet another painful lesson for the EU.

That will be something made even more difficult without the military clout of Britain. French leader Macron says “Europeans must take more responsibility for European defense.”

“The European Union needs to shoulder greater responsibility for its own security and also step up its geopolitical presence,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said at the EU parliament this week. (1)

How long has ComNavOps called for the US to pull out of Europe and let Europe defend themselves?  Finally, at long last, the EU is beginning to recognize the faintest glimmer of this reality and the wisdom that motivates it.  If the EU wants security and safety, they have to fight for it.  No one is going to hand it to them out of the goodness of their hearts.  As the saying goes, ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’.

A US pullout from Europe is not only in the best interest of the US but it’s also in the best interest of the EU.  It will force them to end their welfare-like dependence on the US for security.  That dependence may have been necessary immediately after WWII but it hasn’t been necessary for many decades now.  That dependence not only is a source of weakness for the EU but it breeds resentment towards the US as all dependence ultimately does toward those bestowing the welfare.

Not only should the US pull out of Europe, the EU should kick the US out and take their proud and independent place among the nations of the world !

The road ahead for the EU will be difficult and painful as noted here,

Firas Modad, a senior analyst with IHS Markit, issued a downbeat assessment of the EU’s stature as it struggled unsuccessfully to keep the Iran nuclear agreement intact.

“Europe is regulated from Washington,” he said. “The European banking system depends on the dollar, the European economy depends on the European banking system. The Europeans don’t spend on their own defence. The weak don’t have a say. (1)

Again, this illustrates the vulnerability of dependence by the EU.  It will be challenging but the EU must accept responsibility for its own well-being and security and rise up and stand on its own.

Now, how does all this tie into military matters beyond the obvious call for the US to disengage from Europe?

The answer should be obvious.  Just as noted in the article, the US geopolitical strategy must recognize that the world is a brutal place that does not recognize our desire for gentle approaches.  The world respects power and only power.  That power can take many forms but its ultimate foundation is military might.

We need to stop bending over backwards, to our own detriment, trying to persuade barbaric countries/rulers to miraculously become civilized.  By all means, let’s try the soft approach the first time but when that fails, as it almost always does, we need to switch to the application of power.  That does not mean we should instantly bomb every country that doesn’t agree with us on the first attempt.  What it means is that we should defend our interests (and our boats, drones, ships, aircraft, and personnel) with all necessary force. 

I’ve posted on the moral and legal aspects of this so I won’t bother repeating myself.  Suffice it to say that the US needs to begin reasserting itself and its interests.

• When Iran can seize two US boats and crews with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When Iran can shoot down US drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When China can seize US underwater drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When Russia can conduct unsafe harassment of US ships and aircraft with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When China can order us out of international waters - and we comply - with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• And so on …

Just as the EU needs to relearn the brutal lessons of the world, so does the United States.  Our security is being threatened daily, in many different ways, and we need to begin defending ourselves aggressively.  While that defense should take many different forms, one of the obvious forms is the military.  Deploying around the world while being unwilling to act is pointless, wasteful, and provocative.  It’s past time for the military to take aggressive action, when threatened.

__________________________________

Note:  While it should not be necessary to say this, I’ll say it anyway for those who are incapable of grasping the obvious.  Calling for the US to pull out, militarily, from Europe does not mean cutting off all diplomatic, financial, trade, cultural, and scientific interactions.  All of that would continue.  It also does not mean zero interaction with European militaries.  There is nothing wrong with cooperative training, personnel exchanges, technology exchanges, etc.  In fact, there’s nothing wrong with the US maintaining basing rights or a military presence where it suits American interests. 

__________________________________

Breitbart website, “EU Mired In Squabble Over Who Should Pay to Cover Lost British Money”, 15-Feb-2020,

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/15/eu-mired-squabble-over-who-should-pay-cover-lost-british-money/

More Ships For Europe? Why?

Has any naval commander, anywhere, ever, said he needed less ships?  Of course not!  Commanders always want more ships whether they need them or not.  If nothing else, command of more ships enhances their personal prestige.  So, in a stunning utterly predictable development, the commander of US naval forces in Europe, Admiral James Foggo (Commander, Allied Joint Force Command Naples/Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Africa – how’s that for a title?) has announced that he wants more ships.

The head of Naval Forces Europe is making a pitch for more ships to provide presence, training and crisis response capability in his area of the world, even as tensions are rising globally.

Adm. James Foggo told USNI News that he’s seeing more Russian ships, submarines and aircraft in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans and the Baltic, Black and Mediterranean seas, as well as words and actions from Russians that can ratchet up tensions in the region.

U.S. 6th Fleet, which falls under Naval Forces Europe, has four destroyers, two expeditionary fast transports and a command ship at its disposal on a routine basis. Foggo said he needs more. (1)

So, the good Admiral needs more ships?  Why?  What will more ships do that we can’t do now? 

From what I’ve observed, our ships are doing nothing productive now.  We’re not physically confronting Russia.  We’re not drawing any lines and then enforcing them.  We’re not preventing their presence anywhere.  We’re not harassing their submarines.  We’re not harassing their aircraft.  We’re not employing any countermeasures, whatever form that might take.  Thus, more ships would just mean more ships being unproductive and racking up maintenance wear and tear.

Instead, we just sail around, raising tensions by our very presence. 

Foggo cites 125 days of 6^th Fleet naval presence in the Black Sea as something positive.  How, specifically, is that of benefit?  Have we modified Russian behavior, in a positive direction, by being there?  I know we’ve angered them so we’ve modified their behavior in a negative direction.  I’m not against angering or confronting the Russians but only if we gain something from it and I can’t see anything we gain from mere presence with no force backing it up.  Our default policy is appeasement, as we’ve discussed many times.  Well, appeasement combined with presence merely produces resentment by the target with absolutely no benefit.

Would more ships in the area have prevented the Russian annexation of Crimea?  Would more ships in the are have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine?  Would more ships in the area have persuaded the Russians not to violate the INF treaty?  Would more ships in the stop the ongoing unsafe harassments of US ships and aircraft by Russian aircraft?

… Foggo said, the threats in the region are serious and growing … (1)

So, Foggo acknowledges that the threats are growing.  Wait a minute …  We have a permanent naval presence there that was supposed to prevent threats from growing and yet they obviously did not.  So, having proven, by Foggo’s own statement, that the presence of naval assets doesn’t diminish threats and, instead, actually increases them, why would more ships produce a better result?

“They have militarized Kaliningrad, there is a lot of hardware in the form of anti-access/area-denial capability, anti-ship cruise missiles and [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] systems that allow targeting of NATO forces while they’re in the Baltic,” he [Foggo] said.

The Russians have done the same thing in Crimea after annexing it from Ukraine. (1)

Again, we had a naval presence and it clearly accomplished nothing as far as reducing threats and may well have provided the motivation for the Russians to increase the number, type, and prevalence of threats.  So why would we want to send more ships to accomplish nothing?  Can’t we accomplish nothing with the ships we already have there? 

He [Foggo] came back to the need for more ships as a remedy, saying, “our strong presence in the theater is a deterrent in and of itself.” (1)

Clearly, Admiral, our presence is deterring nothing.  More ships are not the answer – a better geopolitical strategy is the answer.  We need specific, achievable objectives.  If ships can contribute to the accomplishment of those objectives then, sure, we’ll give you more ships.  However, absent any coherent strategy or objectives, more ships are pointless and a good argument can be made that they are counterproductive.

Having thoroughly debunked the Admiral’s desire for more prestige ships, let’s now turn our attention to another major reason why more ships is a bad idea: Europe should defend Europe.  While we needed to support Europe as they recovered from the carnage of WWII, that time is now gone.  It’s long past time for Europe to defend itself.  If Admiral Foggo is genuinely concerned about Russian threats to Europe, he should be calling for Europe to step up and defend itself.  I won’t belabor this because we’ve covered this in previous posts (see, “Europe – Why?”).

In short, absent a viable strategy and specific, achievable objectives, there is no good reason to ask for or grant more ships for Europe. 

________________________________________

(1)USNI News website, “Admiral: U.S. Needs More Ships in Europe to Counter Growing Russian Threats”, Megan Eckstein, 1-Oct-2019,

https://news.usni.org/2019/10/01/admiral-u-s-needs-more-ships-in-europe-to-counter-growing-russian-threats

Europe - Why?

Europe …

• Europe is around 3.9 million sq. miles which is a bit larger than the US size of 3.5 million sq. miles.
• Europe has a population of around 740 million which is over twice the US population of 326 million.
  
• European GDP = $22 trillion
• US GDP = $19 trillion
• European GDP per capita = $29,000
• US GDP per capita = $59,000

So, raw statistics tell us that Europe is somewhat larger than the US, has more than twice the population, and has a larger GDP (though smaller per capita).  Does this sound like an area that the US needs to be defending?  

Let’s turn it around - a great way to test the logic of any situation!   What if the US decided to drastically reduce its defense forces and called on Europe to station significant and permanent protective forces in the US?  What would Europe’s response be?  It would be outrage, of course!  Europe would rightly point out that the US, while being tiny in comparison (area, population, and GDP), is certainly large enough and prosperous enough to defend itself without having to rely on its bigger brother, Europe.

The reality, however, is that the larger, more populous, and wealthier (total GDP) Europe is demanding US military protection.  Does that seem logical?  If anything, the US should be asking for a small European defense presence protecting US interests.

So, why is the US still in Europe?

The main military threat to Europe is Russia.  Is Russia so big a threat that it requires the combined might of both the US and Europe to counter it?  Let’s take a cursory look at the Russian and European military might.

                      Russia(1)      Europe(2)

Personnel            800,000      1,500,000

Navy, ships              175(a)         268(c)

Airforce, aircraft      1380(b)        2043

Army, tanks             2500           7700

Army, IFVs              3200         19,000

Army, artillery         5800         10,000

(a)   Note:  Figure includes 111 surface combatants and 64 submarines;  the actual number of operational ships is likely significantly less

(b)   Note:  Combat aircraft only;  includes 180 naval aircraft;  Russia has hundreds of additional patrol, surveillance, and transport aircraft

(c)   Note:  Figure includes 208 surface combatants and 60 submarines

This comparison is cursory, simplistic, and makes no attempt to compare quality, training, maintenance, etc.   Further, the numbers are highly variable depending on exactly what type of equipment one wishes to include or exclude.  Regardless, the figures clearly indicate that Europe overmatches Russia in every category of military might.

Europe is clearly capable of defending itself from Russia.  In fact, the situation is further skewed in favor of Europe given the fact that many European countries are spending less than the “standard” of 2% of GDP on defense.  If every European country would spend at least that amount, the situation would be even more lopsided in Europe’s favor.

So, why is the US still in Europe?  I have no good answer but here are a few thoughts that may be relevant.

Tradition/Inertia – The US has been in Europe since WWII and any attempt to reduce the US presence is upsetting to Europe.  This is idiotic on the face of it.  Europe needs to grow up and accept responsibility for its own defense.

Irresponsible Priorities – Too many European countries are taking advantage of US military presence to redirect spending into social programs.  Europe needs to make its own decisions and live with the consequences.  If social programs are more important than defense then Europe has no one to blame but itself if it suffers military defeats.  Europe needs to establish its priorities without the US presence.

Middle East Terrorism – The US sees Middle East-fed terrorism as an existential threat and does not trust Europe to deal with it as witnessed by the many European open borders, massive redistribution of European demographics, unwillingness to stand up to radical Islam, and the creeping, passive acceptance of radical Islamic influence and control of many countries which is undermining the national identities of European countries.

Unity – European countries are, unsurprisingly, multi-directional when it comes to their geopolitical objectives.  Thus, there is no unity of military purpose.  From the US perspective, it can’t count on unified action and support from Europe therefore it maintains a presence for its own benefit.  Even so, many countries refuse to cooperate with the US and deny overflights, staging, etc. depending on whether they agree or disagree with the US in the moment.

Just as Europe needs to grow up and accept responsibility, so too the US needs to allow Europe to go its own way – the baby bird needs to be shoved out of the nest to fend for itself.  Ballistic missile defense in Spain, ASW in Scandinavia, control of the Black Sea, protection of the Mediterranean, reining in of Russian expansionism, and defeat of terrorism are all issues that the US needs to walk away from and Europe needs to take control of.

The US is eventually going to have to defend the entire world by facing China in a massive war and we can’t afford to be distracted by Europe when Europe is more than capable of defending itself.

__________________________________

Here are some related topics for comment consideration: 

• Should NATO reform itself by dropping the US and making membership a strictly European requirement?
• Is the European Union a military failure?  Can it succeed?
• Who/how should European military might be controlled to ensure a common purpose and goal?
• Is there any role for the US in Europe?
• Is there any benefit for the US in maintaining a presence in Europe?
• If Europe wants a continued US military presence should the US demand that Europe pay the entire cost of such presence?
• If the US pulls out of Europe, what military capabilities does Europe then lack?
• Which country is the next Russian target after Ukraine falls?

 _________________________________

(1)Data assembled from various sources;  individual sources vary widely 

(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy