(Note to the mods: I made an effort to try and tie this back to Trump and the election to avoid us getting put in our own sperg containment thread).
I am not arguing that US contributions to NATO aren't massively beneficial to European defense; I am cautioning against the view that defense is all that's at stake here.
Okay then, what is at stake? What has Trump done besides make inflammatory public statements and leaned on the EU to increase their defense capacity? Which, by the way, they are doing. He understands the overwhelming strength of the US in defense negotiations and for once is willing to use that. As a result Europe's defense capabilities have
increased, to both their benefit and the United States'.
Are you suggesting that this could have a negative impact on US trade? Trump has been active in securing partnerships with other markets. Cultural and diplomatic ties? Last I checked the US is a sovereign nation and if the EU has issues with how the American head of state conducts himself personally, then not only do they need to look in the goddamn mirror, but it sounds like it's more their problem then the President's.
If you focus on defense alone, it's obvious that the United States contributes far more to Europe than Europe does to the United States. I have never tried to argue otherwise. I do, however, think that there are several other factors which people need to take into consideration before concluding that this is some kind of winning argument:
You keep forgetting that defense is an
absolutely critical component to the stability of the European experiment. Culture, politics and trade are all dependent on it. I don't see any substantive indication that Trump is has endangered that alliance.
Unlike any European country, the United States is a superpower, and since World War 2, has strategically placed itself as the defender of the free world. It's huge defense budget relative to the other NATO member states, in this context, should therefore be uncontroversial.
Duh.
The United States enjoys a huge amount of economic and political influence that it can leverage for it's own interests, thanks in no small part to the strategic position it's spent decades setting up for itself.
Again, duh.
The European Union is the United States' largest trading partner, and the US economy benefits heavily from Europe enjoying peace and prosperity.
Well yes, that's why we've spent the past century committing our strategic military reach to unfucking Europe's military situation.
You have failed to demonstrate significant evidence that Trump would be unwilling to honor NATO's commitment to protect Europe. If anything his rhetoric is for a
stronger defensive capability, with the US still at the helm but, Europe doing a little more than letting their equipment fall into disrepair and their corps of trained specialists atrophy.
If the United States signals (diplomatically or otherwise) that it cannot be counted on like it has been historically, then it's allies will have to look elsewhere for the defense of their interests, whether it be from themselves, or from some other power.
What on this gay fucking earth is making you think that this is the case? A division being moved from Germany to Poland? Trump strong arming NATO members to increase their readiness? Trump's line from day one has been "we're taking this fucking seriously, it's time you do to, because your existence depends on it".
If Trump wants to put the fear of God in Merkel by shuffling around garrisons, that in no way signals that the US is ready to leave the rest of it's defense partners out to dry. Hell, it's a better use for those assets than just sitting around.
Is it better for America's allies in Europe that they let their capabilities suffer because no one is calling them out on their NATO obligations? We had 8 years of that under Obama. Explain to me how it's somehow better for America's relevance on the world stage that it's closest ally can't effectively be relied on. I think you have this whole issue backwards.
If the United States chooses to cede it's political obligations in this manner, then it will lose it's relevance on the world stage.
You have failed to demonstrate how this is even remotely the case.
It isn't difficult to deduce the ways that this loss of relevance will harm the United States: you only have to look at the decline of historical empires to see it. There was a time not too long ago when the United Kingdom was the empire which kept the international shipping lanes open and enjoyed global geopolitical dominance, and just look at the United Kingdom today. I am imploring the United States not to follow down the same path, especially when it doesn't have to.
Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that the Trump administration has made a policy of
reducing America's ability or willingness to intervene on the world stage? He blew up a fucking general in January. He reversed the downward spending trend seen in the second term of the Obama administration. He made very clear on the international stage that the force of the US military would be extending it's reach to
fucking Space. Is this all somehow cancelled out because some wine-sipping European socialists have decided to throw a fit about his shit talking?
It's a tiny fraction of the US defense budget, which is the only figure worth considering here. The US is a superpower in a way that no European country is, and it enjoys enormous geopolitical benefits as a result. When framed like this, the contributions the US makes to NATO look like a worthwhile investment, even accounting for the fact that European countries could be contributing more.
US contributions to NATO are, in totality, it's massive fucking military. That investment doesn't magically vanish when Trump decides to cut back direct administrative costs. When he cut direct funding it was a symbolic gesture; not that the US wasn't willing to back up it's allies, but that joint defense cannot solely be reliant on the US.
And no, goddammit, it's relative size to the US' total budget is not the only thing worth considering. My point is that Europe is not strategically self sufficient, as shown by the fact that it draws such a large proportion of it's own direct funding from it's strongest ally, who also happens to the it's furthest away geographically.
Trump understands, as should you, that a European military so reliant on outside funding is not a fundamentally healthy one.
Personally, I have no objection to the suggestion that European countries should be paying for their own defense, but it's easy to see how the United States could do a lot of damage if it attempts to manage this transition clumsily, as I fear it is doing.
I agree that Europe should be more active in their own defense., but how exactly is this being done clumsily? Or rather, how is this any more clumsy then letting every major military in Europe wither away for a decade because Obama wanted to play nice?
Also, you do know that the UK is still going to be a member of NATO once it leaves the European Union, right?
I'll admit I could have been more clear in differentiating between the EU, Europe and NATO in my post. That said, there's an interesting point to be made. Namely that Brexit represented and rift in culture and trade that had nothing to do with Trump's policy and is solely the blame of the EU's own clumsy diplomacy. If Europe's alliances are suffering, what fucking sense does it make to blame the one participant that says "hey maybe we should all be contributing more."?
The number of tanks a country has is a very specific example to focus on, and perhaps even more tenuous a barometer of a country's military strength than it's overheads, especially in the 21st century. Russia has considerably more tanks than the United States does, and I'm sure you wouldn't argue that Russia could beat the US in a war.
More to the point, Germany is just one European country, and I wasn't comparing any single European country to Russia, I was comparing Russia to the collective European NATO member states, which are obligated to defend each other when one is attacked. From this standpoint, there is no way Russia could win, for the reasons I've already given.
This is an argument so stupid that I still did a double-take when I saw your response, even if deep down I
knew you were going to go down this route.
I chose tanks as an example to show that military overheads do not tell the full story without considering operational material.
Germany is not just "one European country". They are the European country with the largest defense budget, and yet they only have a double-digit count of combat ready tanks in their armored force. Summing up the armored force of all European militaries you end up with a fighting strength that is outnumbered almost
ten to one by the Russian Federation. This is a fucking problem, even in a modern war. Especially when you factor in the fact that by and large European tank crews have never seen combat and are often not getting enough training in the first place. Let's not forget that equipment in inventory means
more in a modern war because you can't churn out these complex weapons platforms at the same rate you could the comparatively simple equipment of WWII.
You even the odds on the ground considerably with the addition of American armor, and, like you stated, in a modern war with the contribution of US air power and force multiplication, the disparity becomes immaterial. Without it, I'm skeptical that a
ten to one numbers disadvantage is so easily overcome.
I brought up the tank issue because the lack of training and combat experience applies equally to their navies, air force, leadership and logisitical corps.
Even in terms of hard equipment totals, the issue is not limited to tanks. In terms of nuclear submarines, military aircraft, and surface vessels European forces are outnumbered by Russian assets at a similar ratio.
You have not given any reasons justifying the victory of an isolated Europe against Russia other than
annual military spending, and you've failed to address current assets, readiness, training, institutional knowledge, and strategic reach.
To clarify, I do actually believe Europe alone would come out on top, if they manage to maintain their internal and external alliances, but you still haven't addressed my argument that they alone would not be able to guarantee the sovereignty of their member states if Russia got aggressive.
And keep in mind that's operating under the assumption that the Europe in general and the EU specifically would manage to stay united once their cohesion is rocked by outside aggression. The alliance may look strong on paper, but the cultural divisions run deep, and you'd likely have a harder time convincing an Italian to intervene on behalf of a Lithuanian than you think. With the US involved then the whole ordeal is more likely to be resolved with overwhelming force and NATO's largest contributor footing the majority of the bill, in terms of money and human lives. Without the US, when it's guaranteed to be a much longer and bloodier conflict, you're a moron if you don't realize how that would cause European cohesion to waver.
You seem to be forgetting where a good bulk of European energy comes from, or which country's economy is primarily tied to it's provision: Russia's:
Russia's economy would be crippled if it were hit with an embargo from the EU, and the EU would be significantly better placed to build up it's military capabilities in response to Russian aggression, especially when Europe's economy is so much stronger, and by no means solely dependent upon Russia for it's energy provision:
In short, Russia still wouldn't stand a chance.
Wait, so your argument that Europe could resist Russian aggression is that they rely on Russia for energy? I get where you're going in terms of Russia's reliance on European markets as a
deterrent to war, but that doesn't address Europe's vulnerability in the extreme conditions that would lead to a war in the first place. A truly major global recession or other cataclysm would make trade matter far less than strategic resources within a nation's own territory.
In those conditions a Europe without the alliance of the US is impotent to oppose incremental Russian expansion and well and truly fucked in a total war, even if they eventually win. A strong industrial base and economy matters less in total war if they don't have accessible raw material in their territory (which they largely don't) or can't secure their shipping (which they would not be able to do without the US).
Without US intervention, a desperate Russia is a serious threat to the stability and survival of the EU. At the risk of sounding like a broken record:
they would immediately lose the ability to maintain the sovereignty of their continental allies. That kind of thing tends to shake up alliances in the first place.
Europe's economic strength is dependent on US protection. The scenarios we're describing are unlikely but their potential damage is more than enough to give pause.
I don't think the US is poised to abandon Europe. I don't think that would ever happen, if only for the cynical reason that the US
does profit so much from trade. Even if NATO were abolished tomorrow and the EU poked the bear and ended up in a ground war, a US still friendly enough to only
trade with Europe would be inclined to protect it's own outgoing shipping from all those nuclear submarines we talked about. And that's if they're not immediately willing to mend bridges and step in right away. We do have a habit doing that.
The truth remains that without US intervention, protection and trade, it's Europe who wouldn't stand a chance in a major war.
I don't see how you've demonstrated how that alliance is in serious jeopardy. I haven't seen any diplomatic evidence that America's relevance on the world stage is fading other than the downstream impact of it's own internal social and economic struggles. Struggles which, by the way, I think a second term of Trump is vastly better positioned to alleviate than a senile Biden who internally wants to turn the US's resources towards a spiraling self-destructive welfare state and internationally would be barely able to hold a coherent conversation with a foreign head of state.
