Current Events > Is Europe becoming irrelevant to the USA?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean the USA is pulling out so many troops from Europe and seems more focused on Asia

wtf is a europe? you mean that thing from hundreds of years ago?

I wouldn't say irrelevant, but I think the past couple of years have kind of woken up Europe to the fact that they can't 100% depend on America to die on their behalf and they actually need to have their own armies.

I'd say part of it is because Russia has kind of proven their army isn't really much to be feared

s0nicfan posted...

I wouldn't say irrelevant, but I think the past couple of years have kind of woken up Europe to the fact that they can't 100% depend on America to die on their behalf and they actually need to have their own armies.

That's one way of redefining "Republicans have demonstrated they will not honor NATO commitments"

But yeah I don't blame Poland 1 bit for militarization

Mephistron posted...

I mean the USA is pulling out so many troops from Europe and seems more focused on Asia

I think so, US attention has begun to focus much more on Pacific concerns of late.

Understandable, Russia is a corrupt mess, and China is the real threat to US hegemony.

Certainly a reality that Europe will be facing to a greater or lesser extent regardless of who wins the election (naturally more urgent if the Russian asset wins).

Potentially tough times, the rise of the far right worldwide points to a period of international instability unfortunately, and whilst US leadership has certainly not been flawless, the end of US led rules based international diplomacy likely heralds a period of increased conflict.

'Becoming'?

Europe hasn't been relevant for a good while now.

Always has been

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's one way of redefining "Republicans have demonstrated they will not honor NATO commitments"

But yeah I don't blame Poland 1 bit for militarization

I'm not even talking Trump and nato. I'm talking about france being unable to give more howitzers to Ukraine because they gave them like four or five and it was a full quarter of their entire country's inventory.

Even in instances where the US is fully ready to support, I don't think people really appreciate the amount of time it would take to get the full US military over to somewhere like Eastern Europe and how much ground a hostile Nation could take before that point against countries that basically don't have a way to defend themselves.

Europe? Never heard of it. Is it a small island?

I think it's the opposite. The fact that Trump still has a shake at the White House after all the damage he has done shows that America cannot be relied upon anymore, especially when he is signalling that he wishes to pull out of NATO and ignore international law.

s0nicfan posted...

I'm not even talking Trump and nato. I'm talking about france being unable to give more howitzers to Ukraine because they gave them like four or five and it was a full quarter of their entire country's inventory.

Even an instances where the US is fully ready to support, I don't think people really appreciate the amount of time it would take to get the full US military over to somewhere like Eastern Europe and how much ground a hostile Nation could take before that point against countries that basically don't have a way to defend themselves.

You do make a couple of interesting points here.

You are correct in questioning European ammunition/spare parts reserves. It's definitely an issue, there's some nice kit in European defence but often in limited numbers, because there's always something more attractive to spend the money on when you don't think that day will come.

You might be surprised as to just how fast a US formation can arrive in force on friendly territory however.

The US holds vast ammunition and equipment stores throughout their allies territory (think Israel, they didn't need to export this gear, it was already there, they just gave the IDF access).

In many cases they don't need to ship anything but the troops, the gear is already on site. (The US takes Empire more seriously than you might think )

I mean even if Kamala wins, she also seems more focused in Asia and Europe seems to be an afterthought

Mephistron posted...

I mean even if Kamala wins, she also seems more focused in Asia and Europe seems to be an afterthought

I don't disagree.

The balance of influence is shifting. Russia certainly still has potential to make trouble, but endemic corruption throughout its political, commercial, and military spheres neuters a nation of its size and population.

China seems serious about regaining the political and military influence it held in the Pacific prior to the events of the 19th Century, and will likely be the primary challenger to US dominance for the foreseeable future.

Mussurana posted...

You do make a couple of interesting points here.

You are correct in questioning European ammunition/spare parts reserves. It's definitely an issue, there's some nice kit in European defence but often in limited numbers, because there's always something more attractive to spend the money on when you don't think that day will come.

You might be surprised as to just how fast a US formation can arrive in force on friendly territory however.

The US holds vast ammunition and equipment stores throughout their allies territory (think Israel, they didn't need to export this gear, it was already there, they just gave the IDF access).

In many cases they don't need to ship anything but the troops, the gear is already on site. (The US takes Empire more seriously than you might think )

That's all true for NATO countries, but as Ukraine is showing us, equipment doesn't just work out of the box and needs significant training for folks to use. Even if we sent the folks, that equipment needs to be interoperable with domestic equipment for planning and execution purposes, and even having a US soldier in a US tank ready to go doesn't solve the C2 issue of planning and execution, especially if certain details are so classified that we can't share those limitations even with our allies. 2 vehicles might take the same gas, but there are real language barrier issues with not only relaying information and command over radio, but with software and datamodel interoperability. You can't plan if every platform in your arsenal talks a different digital AND physical language.

Then you get into the logistics problem - you need spare parts, trained mechanics, and means of getting both to and from the front. If it can't fit on an old eastern european cold war era rail line, it can't necessarily just be airdropped into the combat zone. Again, with Ukraine as an example, heavy russian tanks were getting stuck in the mud simply because the terrain wasn't a good match.

There's also a strategic risk, since every cutting edge technology, when fielded, is a real world opportunity for the enemy to identify weaknesses. The reason why the US cancelled its delivery of F35s to Turkey is because they bought a Russian air defense system and there's no way in hell the US would let those 2 things sit next to each other even in an allied country.

And all this is within the picture of "nobody else can even step up" because they simply aren't actually prepared to defend themselves. While I think Trump shitting on NATO is a tremendous disservice to the world, it's a bit hypocritical for countries that have historically ignored their own alliance obligation to invest in their military to complain about the US threatening to not meet its own obligations. Half the reason why Russia keeps pushing propaganda to get the US out of NATO is because they know that it's not even really a military alliance when 1 country represents 99% of the combat capability. In an ideal world NATO is a partnership of countries who are all equally capable of defending each other, not one where everyone ignores their own defense obligations because they know that other guy can handle everything for you.

s0nicfan posted...

While I think Trump shitting on NATO is a tremendous disservice to the world, it's a bit hypocritical for countries that have historically ignored their own alliance obligation to invest in their military to complain about the US threatening to not meet its own obligations.

Oddly enough, that's one of those situations where Trump had a point, Obama said many of the same things but since he had charm and the ability to speak in coherent sentences it didn't cause offence.

You do rather over estimate US military dominance mind you (although it is certainly the mightiest individual force in NATO, indeed the world).

South Korea has a bigger artillery park than you do.
Poland has, and is continuing to build an armoured force that would make Putin shit himself (they're not taking chances, and good for them).
British attack subs rival US ones in sophistication and ability.
The Meteor BVR (beyond visual range) missile, fitted to European F35s and Typhoons is the best in service anywhere.

Meanwhile, the majority of our tanks (all shortly, finally giving up the HESH addiction), rifles, artillery pieces etc etc all use the same ammunition.

I was hoping to find the relevant graph (I can't sadly, looking), but the US does have maybe 45% of the world's military power (and that's a lot). With all its allies and their kit, it's more like 75-80%. And that's why Putin etc are desperate to get a US president who will drive a wedge into NATO and maybe more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_lcDl6qnh4

Since you seem interested I'm attaching a relevant video.

Warning, this is over a hour of nerding from a former defence analyst.

https://youtu.be/eUL8EvZkfEY?si=7zOvrHoy8F-Q0S8H

Perun makes great PP presentations.

Dunno if I've seen that one yet but I've seen Perun videos before so I can concur on it being a good resource for folks.

It's an older video, but relevant to the thread I think.

s0nicfan posted...

it's not even really a military alliance when 1 country represents 99% of the combat capability.

Apologies for the necro, but I wanted to highlight this.

On checking the references, the US provides less than 50% of NATOs military strength (don't feel bad, that's still really a lot). That isn't of course counting Asian allies, South Korea alone has nearly as many tanks, and double the number of artillery tubes that the US can boast.

Trust me, your rivals are praying for a president dumb enough to ruin these numbers.