Ukraine vs Russia III

You have the causal argument precisely backward. European armies won't rearm in any real sense unless the US exits Europe.

 

Their unwillingness to rearm is more likely to lead someone like Trump to conclude the US is being taken advantage of by our European allies. It’s an argument that resonates with many Americans.

It’s in no way unfair to ask the Europeans to be able to defend themselves. They can certainly afford it.

 

I think you mistake me for someone who doesn't understand your argument.

It being compelling domestic politics does not change the geopolitics of the collapse of the postwar order. Yes, lots of Americans are isolationist. No, that doesn't change the reality of what happens when Europe is left to its own devices.

Please try to understand what I am saying, instead of what you want me to be saying.

 

While I agree with most you have said, this line seems very condescending.

What should Europe do, if they can't rearm for self defense and america is not "policing" the area?

 

The incentives are strongest for the Baltics, followed very closely by the Poles. The Scandinavians are unlikely to be directly attacked but they know that if the Balts and (especially) Poland go, it will only be because Moscow won't need to attack: "active measures" and indtimidatory naval displays will suffice to cow them. Romania will have strong incentives of its own to join in. The Czechs are 50-50, but will surely offer over-the-horizon assistance.

Their combined populations and economies are smaller than Russia's, but not by that much - PPP GDPs of $7 trillion vs $5 trillion without the Czechs or $4.2 trillion minus Romania - but most of these countries have sophisticated armaments industries, making far superior weapons and their armies are infinitely better trained and led. An extra 1% of GDP per annum gives them the investment capital to develop/reverse engineer or copy the full suite of US weaponry. All they need is nukes.

With Natodissolved or, more likely, hollowed to the core, it's not that hard to see a Nato-style regional defense alliance emerging with an "if you owe us nothing, then we owe you nothing now piss off" attitude to the US. The Warsaw Pact 2.0 you could say. The Scandinavians have already set up a joint air defence command. There'll be more to follow.

Accepting a responsibility to protect others gives America veto power over them and plenty of influence. Renouncing it later gives DC zero authority and "what have you done for me lately?" influence.

Shirking it altogether to suck up to a mutual foe who's bought you like a street corner hooker gets you a middle finger.

 

Don't get me wrong, Europe would have tons of incentives to rearm if the US withdrew. I'm not saying it isn't in their self interest to do so. But myopic self interest isn't optimal!

In other words, incentives aren't always beneficial.

 

They absolutely can rearm for self-defence. As I mentioned, at $7 trillion Russia's GDP, is not much larger than that of the Scandinavians, Balts, Poles and Romanians combined $5 billion. France adds a further $4.5 billion and Italy adds #3.5 billion on top. The only thing that's missing is the coordination.

Since the EU has always seen itself as a trade, economic and, latterly, non-kinetic security power, all that's been missing is the coordinator. When Trump was first elected, the former French diplomat Gerard Araud tweeted "wake up Europe, the nanny has resigned." Necessity being the mother of invention, swap nanny for sheriff and you've got the European dilemma in one. They just have to get used to providing their own sheriff. It won't be smooth sailing but it will happen

Since the the knock-on effects for EU stability and cohesion - which is an absolutely vital interest for France - are pretty predictable and entirely negative, this scenario should see Paris joining in and bringing their nuclear umbrella with them. If a le Pen or Melenchon could get into the Elysee, they'll provide the technology. They did it with Israel in the 50s when the stakes were far lower.

 

Please work on your communication skills if you want people to understand your argument.

Anyway, you're the one who loves flogging strawmen, rather than addressing the actual argument. At no time did I say the US should abandon NATO or Europe.

 

Well, great. Then what's the problem? A well armed Europe is a positive thing. We're entering a dangerous period in geopolitics, and democracies need to be able to defend themselves.

 

You're setting up or accepting an either-or when it's pretty largely a "both". America going MAGA doesn't necessarily mean American abandoning Nato but it absolutely does mean the US cannot be relied upon.

The only possible choice for some or all Europeans is acquiescence to Russian domination or setting up a collective resistance structure independent of the USA on a just-in-case-because-we-just-don't-know basis.

Once that starts it won't be America abandoning Nato. It'll be the Europeans or even the entire EU preparing for striking out on their own first and abandoning Nato later on. If the latter happens, the Europeans will treat Nato pretty similarly to the Council of Europe: a talking shop for the diplomatically-inclined. The money men and the armories will be separately manged

 

Yup, Russia is no longer Godzilla-level threat. They are more like a den of rabid dogs. The US no longer feels the urgency to be permanently present and is leaving things in the hands of Europe. At a macro level this is correct. At a local level this feels like a betrayal of Ukraine.

 

I don't think the scenario you've laid out is intrinsically bad. Hopefully, the US will remain dedicated to NATO, but hoping isn't a viable defense policy.

I don't see any real downsides to a more assertive and better-defended Europe. The idea that European rearmament will lead to another war over Alsace-Lorraine or that the old Danish-Swedish enmity will flare up is pure fantasy.

(Though, after seeing the long history of Danish-Swedish wars in the Danish Military Museum this summer, I could be wrong)

 

FYP

They are much more scared than angry at the moment, but the anger will come.

If China wants to try to use them to split the EU from the USA in trade and, of course, security issues, let's just say they won't be turned down flat.

The sine qua non for the Europeans doing that to the Chinese is a reliable America staying reliable, and that ship has already sailed

 

The problem with that is that the US is hypocritical about it. They want Europe to rearm, sure... by buying American weapons.
Whenever the Europeans wanted to develop their defense industries and re-arm this way, the US grumbled.
Morons like Trump and his fans do not understand that America draws substantial benefits from this relationship, even without that 2%. Pretty much all NATO members, bar France, are equipped right now with US weapons to a more or less degree (some overwhelmingly). The US also benefits from intelligence sharing and can exert significant influence on the military and foreign policy of their allies. Moreso, the US can use the logistical infrastructure of NATO at will. All that will be gone if US goes isolationist.
Nobody wants an ally who behaves like a mercenary.

For ********'s sake. When exactly did the US need to actually defend Germany in a war? Because, last I recall, it was the US who called on their allies to go to war with them in the last decades, in Desert Storm, in Afghanistan and then Iraq.
As for US keeping a strong military presence in many European countries... Russia or China would kill for that kind of opportunity.

 

What is the meaning of your support for the US abandoning NATO, then? Why are you trying to qualify your previous statements with this nonsensical "Europe should rearm, US is pivoting to China so Europe can handle Russia" and then backtracking?

 

When did I ever say that I support the US abandoning NATO?

The US is pivoting to the Pacific, despite the delay resulting from the war in Ukraine. I'm sure everyone in Europe who matters is aware of that, and is hopefully planning accordingly. In the (hopefully unlikely) event of a new conflict with Russia, the Europeans should plan to provide the bulk of the actual troops.

 

From a self defence perspective, the US needs Europe more than Europe needs the US.

The only time article 5 of NATO was invoked was after 9/11 leading to the Afghanistan War - the USA would never have been able to withstand the might of the Taliban for as long as it did without the military help of Canada, New Zealand and Europe.

 

You may be fecetious, but people from all of Europe died in support of their allies after 9/11 and article 5

 

It's not just about military power itself. US operations in the ME would be more difficult without the European logistical hubs.

 

But Trump does not really want a well armed Europe. Well he wants that but he wants a well armed Europe with US weapons

And acting like the distracted boyfriend meme to get is how European arms companies get more orders not the US MIC. No one says NO to the US MIC, Trump included so this pivot you think it is happening it won't happen.

I think that chances of China invading Taiwan have dropped significantly due to Russia but you can never say never with the authoritarians. They have their own effed up way of thinkin.

The problem wit the Pacific is that USA does not really have allies there. Maybe Australia but neither Japan and S Korea plus even the countries directly affected by the 9 dash line are not really allies.

And in case Russia attacks a NATO country USA will be among the first to respond even with Trump as president.

 

The problem is that part of that rabid pack are the pets within the houses of the neighborhood. Some European nations already have Russia-friendly leaderships, some are getting close. Russia helped Britain to leave the EU.

Russia doesn't need to fight all of Europe to make them weak and compliant. They have other means. Every split from the team makes things worse.

 

I think Russia - Ukraine is actually an example of proving the opposite to your argument. Both Ukraine and Russia had been outside of the political Europe cooperative. Furthermore, I believe, had either one of them been a part of it in 2014, the war doesn't start.

 

Including Ukrainians (not through NATO, but it shows where Ukraine wants to belong), by the way. What most people seem to forget, Ukraine fought and bled by the US side in Afghanistan and Iraq II.