5 ms·

What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide

What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection.

rayiner 7y ago
We had 200,000 US soldiers in Germany until reunification, and still have 40,0000. Germany saves money maintaining a significantly smaller military force. The benefit to Germany is such that US presidents use the idea of moving US troops to, say, Poland as a prod to encourage the German government to spend more on defense: https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/washington-needles-germany-with-threat-of-us-troops-relocation-to-poland/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/w... In response to Trump’s threats to pull out of NATO, Germany’s reaction was not “oh, good, those useless Americans will leave.” It was: https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-target-by-early-2030s/a-51432189 https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-tar... > Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday underscored her commitment to NATO, pledging to raise Germany's defense spending to the alliance's 2% target "by the early 2030s." > "The preservation of NATO is in our own interest, more than during the Cold War," Merkel said while addressing lawmakers in German parliament. > "At the moment, Europe is unable to defend itself," she added, urging the bloc to stay together.
- lispm 7y ago
  40000 and not 40,0000. Much is for the US and their military adventures, not for NATO or NATO-related things. It supports the US war machine. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, North Africa, ... Much of that has nothing to do with defending Germany, defending the US or defending NATO... The US and its allies/friendly countries currently outspend Russia approximitely fifteen times. If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy. What we really need is LESS military spending and less military adventures of the US (Iraq, Syrian, Libya, ...). The US has destabilized the whole middle east and north africa. The refugees are going to Europe, not the US... The US will stay in south germany for the near future, because it provides excellent logistics for US wars in middle east, asia and africa.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Obviously since Germany isn’t currently under attack, German bases are used for other operations. But the German government doesn’t seem eager to get the US military out of the country, and has reacted negatively to Trump’s signaling in that direction. Recent events have convinced me that I was at least partly wrong about my previous view of the United States having bases all around the world. Europeans love to complain about America, but when Trump threatened to pull out of NATO, in the face of an ascendant Russia, the European reaction certainly wasn’t “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Likewise in Asia, while the Taiwanese and Japanese have always been warm to American military support, the growing power of China has definitely sparked discussions about America’s continued commitment to obligations in that region.
    - lispm 7y ago
      I don't think you have much insight into thoughts of European countries. What you claim was a response to Trump, is actually much more complex. There are different views in different countries and within them. Germany is also no longer the front to the communist block - which no longer exists and only Russia is left as direct opponent. So it may make sense to have NATO defense moving east. Many Germans think that the US politics against Russia leads to nothing good. What Trump does/says is fully inconsistent. NATo is obsolete. Then it is great. He wants to reduce military. Then record money flows into the military. He wants to get out of Iraq, then he blackmails Iraq to let the US stay. He uses kurds to fight against ISIS and then he hands them over to Assad... The main political reaction in Germany to him is to have not too much changed and hope for a more rational US government.
  - bloodm 7y ago
    "If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy." It is her contractual obligation. Currently Germany does not have an Army anymore but a museum. How many tanks are operational? 100? Russia has 10.000...
    - lispm 7y ago
SllX 7y ago
For one thing it keeps European countries within NATO from invading each other. NATO isn’t just there to defend against Russia, it is effectively an unbroken continuous occupation of Europe by the US.
jariel 7y ago
"What is this protection that the US provides" The US has bases all over Europe, they spend a fortune on their own defensive tech, capabilities and leadership which Germany et. al. depend on, which acts as a massive deterrent, but also provides security partners with 'almost free R&D'. Also, the US specialises and practices so many things that are just far beyond the reach of pretty much all European forces. The ability to put bases, air support of all kinds, intelligence, drones, etc. pretty much anywhere is basically beyond most of Europe. When a war broke out on their border (Libya), for better or worse there was an intervention. Obama reluctantly agreed and didn't want to play a lead role, but without US drones, AWACS, and electronic warfare, special forces on the ground, the UK and French fighters wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. This is actually quite a good demonstration of how specific capabilities are huge enablers of others. Trump's NATO talking point about partners not spending enough is very fair, and most European nations are in violation of the treaty, which is doubly problematic because while NATO is strategically beneficial to the US, it's basically vital to European integrity -> they need it more than the US and spend only 1/2 of what was agreed upon. If the US simply 'did not exist' - Russian Imperialism would reach just about as far as in the Soviet era. Basically, Poland would be back to being the 'buffer' between Germany and Russia. Everyone in the 1990's thought all of that would melt with the cold war, unfortunately, neither China nor Russia moved along the expected path, so here we are. American sanctions of Iran are not remotely big enough to make a dent in currency issues. I do however think that as finance spreads into different areas, Americans will have more difficulty with said sanctions. Dubai exists as a financial centre basically because it's outside the direct influence or insight of American or European agencies. It's basically an entire micro-economy of dirty money.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
  ? Dirty money is welcome anywhere. The whole overpriced apartment ghost towns that spread in most popular american cities are basically storage for dirty money.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Yes, I would like to see a more specific breakdown of what crimes Dubai will protect specifically and what crimes the US will and what crimes the EU does. I would not be surprised to hear there is some qualitative difference, but I think it should be explained before we accept either “Dubai is dirtier” or “everywhere is equally dirty” premise.
DeonPenny 7y ago
Why would the US be drawn into that war? Why are we helping EU in the first place especially when they are russia main trading partners.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  Because that's what being the leader of the free world means. The U.S. has the economic and military resources to give freedom a fighting chance of survival. If we choose not to counterbalance the influence of autocracies, that freedom won't last long.
  - labawi 7y ago
    You left out the asterisk on free. EDIT: I don't prefer autocracies, live in EU, and I do appreciate the need for counterbalance. Yes, in many important ways you are (more) free. Yet, while USA has 2 parties instead of 1, both are beholden to capital interests, including their healthcare, monopolized internet, schools, and even their military has vast ties with capital interests. Citizens are significantly dependent on their "credit scores" while banks easily give loans in their names to other people (so called identity theft). People start saving for their children's education even before they are born and still end up with college debt. 0.7% of the population is in prison, and cops can legally rob you (asset forfeiture). Let's not forget overthrowing the first democratically elected government when they nationalize their oil sector, instating a dictator, and then invading the country. That's what sharing free¹dom means.
  - DeonPenny 7y ago
    But isn't the premise that no one wants the US to be the leader anymore.
- m0llusk 7y ago
  Baltic states are great trading partners offering a range of highly valued products and services from white birch plywood that is ideal for laser cutting to security software development. If Russia moved on the Baltics the US would meet them at the border, NATO or not.
- 7y ago
adventured 7y ago
If MAD were all that you actually needed, NATO wouldn't exist. It's entirely reasonable to believe that France is not going to commit national nuclear suicide merely to defend Czech or Poland from a Russian invasion. MAD - mutual assured suicide - would only be utilized in a case where their own existence were threatened. That's where a very powerful traditional military comes into play. That's why NATO exists instead of merely relying on having a stockpile of nukes to point at Russia. You might actually have to stand off Russia in a real military confrontation or at a minimium give the strong impression that you can if necessary. Russia can gamble that France isn't going to commit suicide via nuclear weapons to save Lithuania, and it would be a correct bet, at which point it's down to traditional military vs military.
jariel 7y ago
"France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection." It's never so simple. First, does France have the ability to deliver them? Under what conditions? With what warning, etc. etc. Second, is the fact that nukes are the biggest hammer in retaliation, and most things need to be proportional. Would France use nukes on Russia if Poland was invaded? What if Russia tried to 'pull a Crimea' in E. Germany i.e. small forces without uniforms, supporting insurgencies, disrupting communications. Tons of money pouring in changing elections, disrupting governance. Would that be a case for nukes? It's far more complicated, and Europe cannot defend itself - this is the tacit admission of their own leaders. So America still provides baseline defence capabilities. The unfortunate reality is that Europe actually could defend itself, but it's not willing to either spend what's necessary, or to coordinate along those lines, which might be even harder as the EU doesn't provide for that and it's a really big existential deal. The reason there isn't material progress on it is because it's really, really expensive and nobody wants to pay bills if America will continue to pay it form them. Trump is a loathsome figure, but he's exactly right on this issue. European leaders will make some happy talk, public statements, but really they're just waiting for Trump to be gone so they can go back to what they hope will be the status quo.
bluecalm 7y ago
France won't fire nukes over Russia annexing a Baltic country. US might actually do something about it as they showed many times they are willing to go to war to defend their interest.

What is this protection that the US provides other than ensuring the US would be drawn into a war between the EU and Russia? France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection.

rayiner 7y ago

We had 200,000 US soldiers in Germany until reunification, and still have 40,0000. Germany saves money maintaining a significantly smaller military force. The benefit to Germany is such that US presidents use the idea of moving US troops to, say, Poland as a prod to encourage the German government to spend more on defense: https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/washington-needles-germany-with-threat-of-us-troops-relocation-to-poland/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/w... In response to Trump’s threats to pull out of NATO, Germany’s reaction was not “oh, good, those useless Americans will leave.” It was: https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-target-by-early-2030s/a-51432189 https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-vows-to-hit-2-nato-spending-tar... > Chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday underscored her commitment to NATO, pledging to raise Germany's defense spending to the alliance's 2% target "by the early 2030s." > "The preservation of NATO is in our own interest, more than during the Cold War," Merkel said while addressing lawmakers in German parliament. > "At the moment, Europe is unable to defend itself," she added, urging the bloc to stay together.

lispm 7y ago
40000 and not 40,0000. Much is for the US and their military adventures, not for NATO or NATO-related things. It supports the US war machine. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, North Africa, ... Much of that has nothing to do with defending Germany, defending the US or defending NATO... The US and its allies/friendly countries currently outspend Russia approximitely fifteen times. If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy. What we really need is LESS military spending and less military adventures of the US (Iraq, Syrian, Libya, ...). The US has destabilized the whole middle east and north africa. The refugees are going to Europe, not the US... The US will stay in south germany for the near future, because it provides excellent logistics for US wars in middle east, asia and africa.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Obviously since Germany isn’t currently under attack, German bases are used for other operations. But the German government doesn’t seem eager to get the US military out of the country, and has reacted negatively to Trump’s signaling in that direction. Recent events have convinced me that I was at least partly wrong about my previous view of the United States having bases all around the world. Europeans love to complain about America, but when Trump threatened to pull out of NATO, in the face of an ascendant Russia, the European reaction certainly wasn’t “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” Likewise in Asia, while the Taiwanese and Japanese have always been warm to American military support, the growing power of China has definitely sparked discussions about America’s continued commitment to obligations in that region.
  - lispm 7y ago
    I don't think you have much insight into thoughts of European countries. What you claim was a response to Trump, is actually much more complex. There are different views in different countries and within them. Germany is also no longer the front to the communist block - which no longer exists and only Russia is left as direct opponent. So it may make sense to have NATO defense moving east. Many Germans think that the US politics against Russia leads to nothing good. What Trump does/says is fully inconsistent. NATo is obsolete. Then it is great. He wants to reduce military. Then record money flows into the military. He wants to get out of Iraq, then he blackmails Iraq to let the US stay. He uses kurds to fight against ISIS and then he hands them over to Assad... The main political reaction in Germany to him is to have not too much changed and hope for a more rational US government.
- bloodm 7y ago
  "If Germany would spend 2% of its GPP on military, then it would approach Russia in absolute numbers, That would be crazy." It is her contractual obligation. Currently Germany does not have an Army anymore but a museum. How many tanks are operational? 100? Russia has 10.000...
  - lispm 7y ago

SllX 7y ago

For one thing it keeps European countries within NATO from invading each other. NATO isn’t just there to defend against Russia, it is effectively an unbroken continuous occupation of Europe by the US.

jariel 7y ago

"What is this protection that the US provides" The US has bases all over Europe, they spend a fortune on their own defensive tech, capabilities and leadership which Germany et. al. depend on, which acts as a massive deterrent, but also provides security partners with 'almost free R&D'. Also, the US specialises and practices so many things that are just far beyond the reach of pretty much all European forces. The ability to put bases, air support of all kinds, intelligence, drones, etc. pretty much anywhere is basically beyond most of Europe. When a war broke out on their border (Libya), for better or worse there was an intervention. Obama reluctantly agreed and didn't want to play a lead role, but without US drones, AWACS, and electronic warfare, special forces on the ground, the UK and French fighters wouldn't have been able to do anything at all. This is actually quite a good demonstration of how specific capabilities are huge enablers of others. Trump's NATO talking point about partners not spending enough is very fair, and most European nations are in violation of the treaty, which is doubly problematic because while NATO is strategically beneficial to the US, it's basically vital to European integrity -> they need it more than the US and spend only 1/2 of what was agreed upon. If the US simply 'did not exist' - Russian Imperialism would reach just about as far as in the Soviet era. Basically, Poland would be back to being the 'buffer' between Germany and Russia. Everyone in the 1990's thought all of that would melt with the cold war, unfortunately, neither China nor Russia moved along the expected path, so here we are. American sanctions of Iran are not remotely big enough to make a dent in currency issues. I do however think that as finance spreads into different areas, Americans will have more difficulty with said sanctions. Dubai exists as a financial centre basically because it's outside the direct influence or insight of American or European agencies. It's basically an entire micro-economy of dirty money.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
? Dirty money is welcome anywhere. The whole overpriced apartment ghost towns that spread in most popular american cities are basically storage for dirty money.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Yes, I would like to see a more specific breakdown of what crimes Dubai will protect specifically and what crimes the US will and what crimes the EU does. I would not be surprised to hear there is some qualitative difference, but I think it should be explained before we accept either “Dubai is dirtier” or “everywhere is equally dirty” premise.

DeonPenny 7y ago

Why would the US be drawn into that war? Why are we helping EU in the first place especially when they are russia main trading partners.

torstenvl 7y ago
Because that's what being the leader of the free world means. The U.S. has the economic and military resources to give freedom a fighting chance of survival. If we choose not to counterbalance the influence of autocracies, that freedom won't last long.
- labawi 7y ago
  You left out the asterisk on free. EDIT: I don't prefer autocracies, live in EU, and I do appreciate the need for counterbalance. Yes, in many important ways you are (more) free. Yet, while USA has 2 parties instead of 1, both are beholden to capital interests, including their healthcare, monopolized internet, schools, and even their military has vast ties with capital interests. Citizens are significantly dependent on their "credit scores" while banks easily give loans in their names to other people (so called identity theft). People start saving for their children's education even before they are born and still end up with college debt. 0.7% of the population is in prison, and cops can legally rob you (asset forfeiture). Let's not forget overthrowing the first democratically elected government when they nationalize their oil sector, instating a dictator, and then invading the country. That's what sharing free¹dom means.
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  But isn't the premise that no one wants the US to be the leader anymore.
m0llusk 7y ago
Baltic states are great trading partners offering a range of highly valued products and services from white birch plywood that is ideal for laser cutting to security software development. If Russia moved on the Baltics the US would meet them at the border, NATO or not.
7y ago

adventured 7y ago

If MAD were all that you actually needed, NATO wouldn't exist. It's entirely reasonable to believe that France is not going to commit national nuclear suicide merely to defend Czech or Poland from a Russian invasion. MAD - mutual assured suicide - would only be utilized in a case where their own existence were threatened. That's where a very powerful traditional military comes into play. That's why NATO exists instead of merely relying on having a stockpile of nukes to point at Russia. You might actually have to stand off Russia in a real military confrontation or at a minimium give the strong impression that you can if necessary. Russia can gamble that France isn't going to commit suicide via nuclear weapons to save Lithuania, and it would be a correct bet, at which point it's down to traditional military vs military.

jariel 7y ago

"France has enough nukes to provide MAD protection." It's never so simple. First, does France have the ability to deliver them? Under what conditions? With what warning, etc. etc. Second, is the fact that nukes are the biggest hammer in retaliation, and most things need to be proportional. Would France use nukes on Russia if Poland was invaded? What if Russia tried to 'pull a Crimea' in E. Germany i.e. small forces without uniforms, supporting insurgencies, disrupting communications. Tons of money pouring in changing elections, disrupting governance. Would that be a case for nukes? It's far more complicated, and Europe cannot defend itself - this is the tacit admission of their own leaders. So America still provides baseline defence capabilities. The unfortunate reality is that Europe actually could defend itself, but it's not willing to either spend what's necessary, or to coordinate along those lines, which might be even harder as the EU doesn't provide for that and it's a really big existential deal. The reason there isn't material progress on it is because it's really, really expensive and nobody wants to pay bills if America will continue to pay it form them. Trump is a loathsome figure, but he's exactly right on this issue. European leaders will make some happy talk, public statements, but really they're just waiting for Trump to be gone so they can go back to what they hope will be the status quo.

bluecalm 7y ago

France won't fire nukes over Russia annexing a Baltic country. US might actually do something about it as they showed many times they are willing to go to war to defend their interest.