ELI5 Why Trump Bad For Europe

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Had every NATO member got spending above 3%, something they had over a decade to do, it's possible that either:

1. Putin wouldn't invade Ukraine.

2. Ukraine would be in a far, far better position, possibly even ending the war by now.

The 3 hardest limits to aid to Ukraine are:

1. Europe having no equipment to donate to Ukraine. At best some old stuff that's hardly relevant.

2. US and Europe not ramping up production to continue the aid.

3. US and European restrictions on weapons usage.

It's shameful that 2 years in, Ukraine still doesn't have over 2,000 European MBTs, 5,000 European IFVs, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of long range cruise missiles.

 

Unpopular opinion, Ukraine did this to itself. The Ukrainians inherited the second largest army in Europe, with full spectrum capabilities up to nuclear weapons, and then proceeded to scrap it with abandon amid a flood of corruption.

Some items, like nuclear weapons or strategic bombers, they would have been unable to use anyway, but the generals and politicians used it a piggy bank to fund their lifestyles and the defence of Ukraine was not taken seriously at all until the Russians started taking chunks of the country - and they could have taken all of it in 2014, and no one would have done anything other than a writing a strongly worded letter.

Nowadays, in Europe, there's no taste for defense spending. There's zero trust on Zelensky and that's why no Lend lease was launched to produce those thousands of tanks, because it's likely to be written off as a loss and no politician wants to explain it to the electorate, assuming the are not in Putin's bed already. Instead, credits and financial underwriting allow the Ukrainians to go on but they have to build their own stuff.

That doesn't mean Ukraine will roll over and be conquered. Iran was able to fend off Iraq for 8 years with far less, and wars only end when both sides agree to stop fighting.

[Rick]

11 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

"on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

So, which NATO members have NOT responded to attacks in this area?

Also:  "US defence spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area."

Are you absolutely sure that the US is spending 2% of its GDP to the defence of the NATO area? or are you counting war like Iraq, Afghanistan, operations in the Gulf or the Pacific tilt within that 2%? because that's not to the benefit of NATO.

It's not just Europeans the ones that cut back on spending in NATO, check the US forces actually deployed in Europe when these agreements were made and you will find that the US was very much a junior partner in the actual contribution to NATO defence.

Your last paragraph. Your correct and that is as it should be and should have been since the late 1970's. N.A.T.O., including France, was capable of holding back the Warsaw Pact from this time forward. Just my opinion, but  U.S. nuclear capabilities were a large if not the largest part of keeping the Red Army out of Europe. 

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Disagree completely on the "old stuff hardly relevant" part.

Some of the most effective weapon systems donated to Ukraine was old stuff with specific roles that suddenly became relevant again over there, for example, Gepard. Systems like Roland could have been even more useful if Germany kept them on hand instead of scrapping them.

Yep, Roland Rad should have been kept and later modernized to use MiCA or IRIS-T. But air defence was not important during the adventures in the Middle East.

[RETAC21]

5 minutes ago, Rick said:

Your last paragraph. Your correct and that is as it should be and should have been since the late 1970's. N.A.T.O., including France, was capable of holding back the Warsaw Pact from this time forward. Just my opinion, but  U.S. nuclear capabilities were a large if not the largest part of keeping the Red Army out of Europe. 

And that's incorrect. From the moment the UK and France developed a independent nuclear capability, the WP was never going to invade Europe for the same reason that US wasn't going to nuke the USSR on a whim, because the price of "wining" would still be unbearable

However that doesn't excuse the need for a conventional defense, in which the Europeans bore the brunt of the first line of defense, but depended on the US Army to push the WP back to the border and the USAF to win air superiority. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

A Soviet union that convinced itself that NATO could be conquerored would not be unduly worried about the American nuclear deterrent (or more accurately, the Strategic Nuclear deterrent), because it could make the calculation that the US President wouldnt trade Washington for Hamburg. And looking at the atittiude on this grate site today, they were probably right.

OTOH, the European nuclear stockpiles, which the US derided largely because it didnt control, probably would. Because after all, if they are nuking Hamburg, its going to be Paris and London next anyway.

Im not sure why the Soviets didnt let rip in October 1983, but it wasnt exclusively because the Americans had nuclear weapons. Indeed if that had been the only reason, there would never have been a Cuban crisis.

Edited November 9, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[RETAC21]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

A Soviet union that convinced itself that NATO could be conquerored would not be unduly worried about the American nuclear deterrent (or more accurately, the Strategic Nuclear deterrent), because it could make the calculation that the US President wouldnt trade Washington for Hamburg. And looking at the atittiude on this grate site today, they were probably right.

OTOH, the European nuclear stockpiles, which the US derided largely because it didnt control, probably would. Because after all, if they are nuking Hamburg, its going to be Paris and London next anyway.

Im not sure why the Soviets didnt let rip in October 1983, but it wasnt exclusively because the Americans had nuclear weapons. Indeed if that had been the only reason, there would never have been a Cuban crisis.

The Soviet Union didn't need to be convince itself, a US President (Kennedy) explicitly said that the USSR would still exist because he wasn't going to exchange Hamburg for a US city.

Kennedy and McNamara at the time probably didn't realize it with their ideas of "messaging through military action" but this put NATO at risk more than anything in the 80s. What happens if the USSR nukes only Milan, Madrid, Lisbon and Oslo, for example, making it clear that no one else will be hit? - the likely result is that NATO falls apart right there as the locals blame the US for making targets of them while doing nothing when they got attacked.

Sir John Hackett World War 3 was pervasive in focusing only on the major powers, but the weak links were the non-nuclear countries who didn't have the means to deter the USSR outside of a collective defense in which the US had already been shown to be willing to throw allies under the bus (Vietnam in 1975)

[Ol Paint]

17 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

"on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

So, which NATO members have NOT responded to attacks in this area?

Also:  "US defence spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area."

Are you absolutely sure that the US is spending 2% of its GDP to the defence of the NATO area? or are you counting war like Iraq, Afghanistan, operations in the Gulf or the Pacific tilt within that 2%? because that's not to the benefit of NATO.

It's not just Europeans the ones that cut back on spending in NATO, check the US forces actually deployed in Europe when these agreements were made and you will find that the US was very much a junior partner in the actual contribution to NATO defence.

Stop moving goalpoasts.  You asked:

Quote

In the process, you can also point to which obligation does Europe have to support the US outside of the geographic boundaries of NATO as it has been doing for the last 20 years.

Article 5 & 6 don't place a geographical limit on the response, only on what territory is protected. 

As for your attempt to weasel out of the accounting of contributions, go argue with NATO.

It is their accounting showing Europe hasn't met the 2% until this year. And that the US has.  NATO doesn't draw the distinction about the location of military forces in the GDP target that you do, because they recognize forces can be deployed when needed.  Stuart has a right to take some umbrage to being lumped in with criticism of Europe, as the UK has met the targets, along with some other European nations.  Spain is STILL below 1.3%.

See Page 9 for tabulated data from 2014-2024:  https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

And your specious argument about Afghanistan operations is why the equipment spending target also exists. Which the US has met or exceeded every year.  See Page 14 of the above reference report.  Europe also met, on average, the equipment percentage target, but don't celebrate, because the underspending as % of GDP means 20% doesn't meet your equipment expenditure obligation, whereas our 25.05-29.88% of 3.23-3.17% GDP far exceeds.

Doug

[Ol Paint]

Ukraine agreed to give up the third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, US, and UK based on the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.  China and France also concurred in separate documents.

Instead of full support of the agreement, the US administration in 2014 attempted to "manage" the conflict.  We repeated this mistake after the 2022 invasion, playing dial-a-war. 

Doug 

[Stuart Galbraith]

37 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

The Soviet Union didn't need to be convince itself, a US President (Kennedy) explicitly said that the USSR would still exist because he wasn't going to exchange Hamburg for a US city.

Kennedy and McNamara at the time probably didn't realize it with their ideas of "messaging through military action" but this put NATO at risk more than anything in the 80s. What happens if the USSR nukes only Milan, Madrid, Lisbon and Oslo, for example, making it clear that no one else will be hit? - the likely result is that NATO falls apart right there as the locals blame the US for making targets of them while doing nothing when they got attacked.

Sir John Hackett World War 3 was pervasive in focusing only on the major powers, but the weak links were the non-nuclear countries who didn't have the means to deter the USSR outside of a collective defense in which the US had already been shown to be willing to throw allies under the bus (Vietnam in 1975)

There is a scenario in a British drama where this actually happens. The American President and the Soviets agree that if nuclear weapons are to be used, they will only be used In Europe. Then Britain raises a finger and says 'er, no, actually'. And so undoubtedly would the french.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Unpopular opinion, Ukraine did this to itself. The Ukrainians inherited the second largest army in Europe, with full spectrum capabilities up to nuclear weapons, and then proceeded to scrap it with abandon amid a flood of corruption.

Some items, like nuclear weapons or strategic bombers, they would have been unable to use anyway, but the generals and politicians used it a piggy bank to fund their lifestyles and the defence of Ukraine was not taken seriously at all until the Russians started taking chunks of the country - and they could have taken all of it in 2014, and no one would have done anything other than a writing a strongly worded letter

Yes. Every nation is ultimately responsible for itself. However, by 2022, Ukraine was independent for only 8 years. That's not nearly enough time to properly purge corruption and bad culture out of large organizations. In those 8 years Ukraine went from being unable to resist Russian forces, to putting up a defense that denied Russia the ability to occupy Ukraine's largest cities - is a huge achievement.

And the invasion into Ukraine isn't just a security matter for Ukraine. It's also a major concern for Europe as a whole. Therefore if the Europeans have an interest in curbing Russian expansion, they must have sent far more weapons, more modern ones, provide more training, and more munitions. 

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Nowadays, in Europe, there's no taste for defense spending.

That's perfectly fine. But then, every nation that makes that decision, should be booted out of NATO.

NATO is a military alliance. It's expected that regardless of security threat levels, all members have militaries. If the UK, France, and Germany couldn't each equip at least a few Ukrainian divisions per year, all with brand new equipment - then they don't qualify as having militaries.

 

[futon]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

No, because you are assuming that the additional cash would have been invested in capabilities relevant to conventional war. The European militaries between 1995 and 2014 were focused on expeditionary capabilities, so spending more would have meant more airlifters, more amphibious ships and more wheeled dead traps.

True, I was assuming that.

[seahawk]

Again your knowledge of facts is amazing. Could you explain from whom the Ukraine gained independence in 2014?

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Ol Paint said:

Stop moving goalpoasts.  You asked:

Article 5 & 6 don't place a geographical limit on the response, only on what territory is protected. 

As for your attempt to weasel out of the accounting of contributions, go argue with NATO.

It is their accounting showing Europe hasn't met the 2% until this year. And that the US has.  NATO doesn't draw the distinction about the location of military forces in the GDP target that you do, because they recognize forces can be deployed when needed.  Stuart has a right to take some umbrage to being lumped in with criticism of Europe, as the UK has met the targets, along with some other European nations.  Spain is STILL below 1.3%.

See Page 9 for tabulated data from 2014-2024:  https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

And your specious argument about Afghanistan operations is why the equipment spending target also exists. Which the US has met or exceeded every year.  See Page 14 of the above reference report.  Europe also met, on average, the equipment percentage target, but don't celebrate, because the underspending as % of GDP means 20% doesn't meet your equipment expenditure obligation, whereas our 25.05-29.88% of 3.23-3.17% GDP far exceeds.

Doug

I am not weaseling out of anything, you set the posts, but now are willfully ignoring that the North Atlantic Treaty only applies within a geographic zone and that the US spending hasn't benefitted European defense.

You have yet to show which NATO ally hasn't met an obligation set out by the North Atlantic Treaty (your initial claim) and how the US is defending these Europeans that don't want to defend themselves.

So far, all you have shown is that countries are underspending (which is true), but neither of your claims have been supported, and it should be pretty easy, the first one would be all over the news and the second one would be to show which forces the US has committed to the defense of a NATO ally that this NATO ally has failed to match.

[RETAC21]

23 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yes. Every nation is ultimately responsible for itself. However, by 2022, Ukraine was independent for only 8 years. That's not nearly enough time to properly purge corruption and bad culture out of large organizations. In those 8 years Ukraine went from being unable to resist Russian forces, to putting up a defense that denied Russia the ability to occupy Ukraine's largest cities - is a huge achievement.

And the invasion into Ukraine isn't just a security matter for Ukraine. It's also a major concern for Europe as a whole. Therefore if the Europeans have an interest in curbing Russian expansion, they must have sent far more weapons, more modern ones, provide more training, and more munitions. 

That's perfectly fine. But then, every nation that makes that decision, should be booted out of NATO.

NATO is a military alliance. It's expected that regardless of security threat levels, all members have militaries. If the UK, France, and Germany couldn't each equip at least a few Ukrainian divisions per year, all with brand new equipment - then they don't qualify as having militaries.

 

I don't think you meant what the underlined says, but to get to the point, yes, the Ukrainians awakened in 2014 to the possibility of becoming Russians again, but they had been voting corruption since 1991, and yes, it's quite an achievement to build up a military to stand up to Russia in 2022 - which at the time I pointed out to those who were saying that Ukraine should roll over - but they can't win a war of attrition.

I fully agree that most of Europe is playing dumb here and that may spell the end of NATO, but what awaits at the other side of that tunnel is not going to be to the liking of anyone.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Unpopular opinion, Ukraine did this to itself. The Ukrainians inherited the second largest army in Europe, with full spectrum capabilities up to nuclear weapons, and then proceeded to scrap it with abandon amid a flood of corruption.

I seem to recall at the time that the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal represented a strategic danger to NATO because it was unsecured and the worry was that unscrupulous actors in Ukraine would supply nuclear materials and technology to bad actors.

[Stuart Galbraith]

That and Clinton had a bee in his bonnet about nuclear proliferation. If you could denuclear Ukraine and South Africa, it was a compelling argument to others to follow suit, or so it was thought. In fact the exact opposite occurred.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Again your knowledge of facts is amazing. Could you explain from whom the Ukraine gained independence in 2014?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?  Hell, no!

Germans?

Forget it, he's rolling.

[glenn239]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That and Clinton had a bee in his bonnet about nuclear proliferation. If you could denuclear Ukraine and South Africa, it was a compelling argument to others to follow suit, or so it was thought. In fact the exact opposite occurred.

Provided MZ and Israel were OK with Ukrainian officers selling Iraq and Iran, etc, nuclear weapons for huge profits, then yes, Ukraine should have kept its nuclear arsenal after 1991.

[Stuart Galbraith]

My view, if the world had decided in 1986 to divest itself of Nuclear weapons, then we would be in a much stronger place all around. But the American president believed SDI worked, and the Soviet President believed the USSR would survive, and here we are.

[Ol Paint]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

I am not weaseling out of anything, you set the posts, but now are willfully ignoring that the North Atlantic Treaty only applies within a geographic zone and that the US spending hasn't benefitted European defense.

You have yet to show which NATO ally hasn't met an obligation set out by the North Atlantic Treaty (your initial claim) and how the US is defending these Europeans that don't want to defend themselves.

So far, all you have shown is that countries are underspending (which is true), but neither of your claims have been supported, and it should be pretty easy, the first one would be all over the news and the second one would be to show which forces the US has committed to the defense of a NATO ally that this NATO ally has failed to match.

The 9/11 attacks that caused the US to invoke Article 5 occurred in New York City, just outside Cooperstown, PA, and Washington, DC.  Last I checked, all three locations are in North America. 

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America..."

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America..."

Show me where Article 5/6 doesn't apply.

The spending is an agreement between all of the NATO nations--which is each nation's commitment to the requirements of Article 3.  NATO isn't a pact for the US to carry the burden of a bunch of freeloaders, it's supposed to be a mutual aid alliance.

If you want a list of countries that did not meet the 2% GDP level, the following nations fell below that in every year from 2014 to 2024:  Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain.  If we exclude 2024, then Albania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Slovak Republic, Sweden, and Turkey all get added to the list of delinquents.*

I've cited NATO and even provided you the links.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Doug

*On the flip side, Estonia met or exceeded 2% every year except 2014, where it missed by 0.07%.  Latvia has met the goal since 2018, Lithuania since 2019, Poland only missed 2014 (1.88%), 2017 (1.89%), and 2019 (1.99%).  And credit to the UK  and Greece for meeting it every year over that period.

[urbanoid]

28 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Provided MZ and Israel were OK with Ukrainian officers selling Iraq and Iran, etc, nuclear weapons for huge profits, then yes, Ukraine should have kept its nuclear arsenal after 1991.

You won't believe who else made a case for Ukraine to keep their nukes at the time.

Edited November 9, 2024 by urbanoid

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Ol Paint said:

The 9/11 attacks that caused the US to invoke Article 5 occurred in New York City, just outside Cooperstown, PA, and Washington, DC.  Last I checked, all three locations are in North America. 

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America..."

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America..."

Show me where Article 5/6 doesn't apply.

The spending is an agreement between all of the NATO nations--which is each nation's commitment to the requirements of Article 3.  NATO isn't a pact for the US to carry the burden of a bunch of freeloaders, it's supposed to be a mutual aid alliance.

If you want a list of countries that did not meet the 2% GDP level, the following nations fell below that in every year from 2014 to 2024:  Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain.  If we exclude 2024, then Albania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Slovak Republic, Sweden, and Turkey all get added to the list of delinquents.*

I've cited NATO and even provided you the links.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Doug

*On the flip side, Estonia met or exceeded 2% every year except 2014, where it missed by 0.07%.  Latvia has met the goal since 2018, Lithuania since 2019, Poland only missed 2014 (1.88%), 2017 (1.89%), and 2019 (1.99%).  And credit to the UK  and Greece for meeting it every year over that period.

Stop trying to move the goalpost, you specified that NATO members do not meet their obligations, and now quote 9/11 in which NATO members went out of their way to meet their obligations and supported the US in a war outside of NATO treaty limits, so much for not meeting obligations...

An you keep on harping about the 2%, which is not an obligation at all, but an agreement.

What I want is the list of countries that the US is defending while they are not spending on their defense, and to help you out, I will point out those for which the US doesn't provide forces to defend: Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain. Yet, these freeboters still provide forces to defend other NATO countries.

So this crap you keep on repeating about the US defending other is just BS, because, by your metric, US forces are deployed in countries that meet the 2% and therefore would be complying with the treaty requirements that afford them this protection.

 

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I seem to recall at the time that the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal represented a strategic danger to NATO because it was unsecured and the worry was that unscrupulous actors in Ukraine would supply nuclear materials and technology to bad actors.

There were plenty of reasons, all good, to convince the Ukrainians and other CIS republics to give up "their" nuclear weapons and weapon grade materials, many of which weren't secured at all (IIRC, in a factory in Khazajistan there was a significant quantity of weapon grade Uranium lying around with no security at all, for example) and the republics were unable to use the weapons because the codes were controlled by Moscow.

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

My view, if the world had decided in 1986 to divest itself of Nuclear weapons, then we would be in a much stronger place all around. But the American president believed SDI worked, and the Soviet President believed the USSR would survive, and here we are.

No, once the knowledge is out in the wild, someone, somewhere is going to build a nuclear weapon, and only the idea that using one will mean instant destruction deters from countries using it on their enemies.

If that threshold is crossed again (and Truman had second thoughts on using a third weapon on Japan...) it's impossible to know where it will end or how.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Japan is actually a good example of a society aware a weapon class exists, but successfully banning it so a particular  social order survived. We also have been fairly successful in not procuring chemical weapons, even though the knowleg3 of them have existed for over 100 years.

Personally, I don't think we tried very hard.