4 ms·

If Europe's military were so strong, why does the US need any involvement? There's a reason even Zelensky described the EU militaries as weak, and believes a E

If Europe's military were so strong, why does the US need any involvement? There's a reason even Zelensky described the EU militaries as weak, and believes a European army to be necessary. Don't confuse spending with strength either: The UK, on paper, spends 2.3% of GDP on the military. That sounds good - until you realize they have only 136,000 personnel total. That's not going to defend the UK from anything - it can't even defend Ukraine for a year.

fifilura 2y ago
> If Europe's military were so strong, why does the US need any involvement? Because Putin is all-in, willing to sacrife the lives of big parts of his population for this purpose. And this makes him a formidable enemy. Does it have to be more complicated than that? If that is the first question you ask when someone needs help, I guess you will not have that many friends.
jimnotgym 2y ago
It is not a lot, but I reckon once Russia has got through Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Czechia, Germany, and France they would be pretty softened up.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Okay, best case scenario then if Ukraine falls. Slovakia military: 25,000 people. Polish military: 300,000 people. Czechia military: 30,000 people. German military: 183,000 people. French military: 270,000 people. Basically, don't piss off Poland, you'll need to defeat about 500,000 soldiers, though do you really need to march on to France if you win against Germany? Even if you did, that's about 1/3 the US military, and nowhere near as well armed, or well trained, or well psychologically prepared. If you're Russia, about 1 million soldiers should do the trick; and that's not hard when you don't have moral qualms and 21 million military age men to throw at the problem; and (edit) possibly an additional few million from North Korea for purchase. As for nuclear weapons; Russia can probably bet that using a nuclear weapon from inside France, or inside the UK, as a first strike, would be too controversial to even do. The government would probably be sued by human rights lawyers from inside itself for even trying; convinced that it's better to take the loss while remaining on the moral high ground. What's even the point, when NATO predicts they have less than 5% of the defenses required for the inevitable retaliation? https://www.ft.com/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca328 https://www.ft.com/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca... > (edit to reply): Russia isn't winning against Ukraine. Yet.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Russia isn't winning against Ukraine.
    - neoromantique 2y ago
      To be fair, Ukraine is by far the most combat ready military in the Europe right now.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    "that's not hard when you don't have moral qualms and 21 million military age men to throw at the problem" But do you really have them? Putin seems really hesitant to start a new round of mobilization and refills his army with volunteers. Some of which are voluntolds, but the regime seems to be afraid of the Moscow/St.Petersburg street, so to say. His grip on the Russian nation, especially after 3 years of endless bloody slog with almost nothing gained, does not seem to reach into the "give millions of recruits weapons and they will use them exactly as told and there is no risk that they could rebel" territory.
    - m4rtink 2y ago
      Provided you even have the weapons and donekys to outfit them in the first place.
  - neoromantique 2y ago
    The population of Russia was widely disputed even before the war(With most estimates placing it at below 100M), and now it's basically a guessing game.
  - dubbel 2y ago
    "Don't piss off Poland?!" There won't be a large scale war against the Eastern EU started by Russia that does not involve Poland. The EU has stronger mutual defense clause than NATO article 5+6 (of course, it doesn't have anything close to the military might of the combined NATO countries). Once there is an all out war, Finland would mobilize its army, threatening Russia's northern flank. The Baltic would be closed. The black sea would be closed. All out war would be terrible, but the deterrence is still too strong in my opinion, as the price would be too high. The problem / question is what would the EU (or NATO) do, if Russia starts a small scale hybrid war against Estonia or Latvia. Creating a small "local" insurgency, that takes over a majority Russian speaking town on the border. If the military alliances do not react united in such a case they are done.
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> why does the US need any involvement? You are asking the wrong question (or at least, a wrong question). It's not "why does the US need any involvement", it's "Why has the US insisted on involvement for so long?" (e.g. during the 1980s when widespread sentiment in Europe was for the US to close its military bases, the US insisted on remaining). The UK does not rely 136k people to defend itself from military risk. It relies on its nuclear arsenal, which while not as large as those of the USA or Russia, it quite the deterrent all by itself.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  > The UK does not rely 136k people to defend itself from military risk. It relies on its nuclear arsenal, which while not as large as those of the USA or Russia, it quite the deterrent all by itself. It's a deterrent from invading the British Isles, which would require a navy that only the US has, anyways. It's not a deterrent from challenging the world order. The US nuclear arsenal is the only one in the West that, if it were deployed, would end human society on a global scale. Russia has designed its nuclear forces and defense infrastructure around a war with the United States, a country with a much, much larger nuclear arsenal than the UK or France. There's a possibility that if Russia decided to use its tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine (which it has threatened before), and the UK or France responded in kind with strategic nuclear weapons, that enough of Russian nuclear forces could survive to completely wipe out those two nations while also having weapons in reserve. That's why the US stayed.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    US forces on European land are not a deterrent to the scenario you're describing.
    - lenerdenator 2y ago
      Of course they are. Who do you think would deliver the weapons I'm talking about?
- jamil7 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
worik 2y ago
> That sounds good - until you realize they have only 136,000 personnel total. The UK wound down personnel when they got out of the Afghanistan quagmire In peace time effective militaries equip and train officer corps Large numbers of soldiers is a hinderence to a professional peace time army

fifilura 2y ago

> If Europe's military were so strong, why does the US need any involvement? Because Putin is all-in, willing to sacrife the lives of big parts of his population for this purpose. And this makes him a formidable enemy. Does it have to be more complicated than that? If that is the first question you ask when someone needs help, I guess you will not have that many friends.

jimnotgym 2y ago

It is not a lot, but I reckon once Russia has got through Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Czechia, Germany, and France they would be pretty softened up.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Okay, best case scenario then if Ukraine falls. Slovakia military: 25,000 people. Polish military: 300,000 people. Czechia military: 30,000 people. German military: 183,000 people. French military: 270,000 people. Basically, don't piss off Poland, you'll need to defeat about 500,000 soldiers, though do you really need to march on to France if you win against Germany? Even if you did, that's about 1/3 the US military, and nowhere near as well armed, or well trained, or well psychologically prepared. If you're Russia, about 1 million soldiers should do the trick; and that's not hard when you don't have moral qualms and 21 million military age men to throw at the problem; and (edit) possibly an additional few million from North Korea for purchase. As for nuclear weapons; Russia can probably bet that using a nuclear weapon from inside France, or inside the UK, as a first strike, would be too controversial to even do. The government would probably be sued by human rights lawyers from inside itself for even trying; convinced that it's better to take the loss while remaining on the moral high ground. What's even the point, when NATO predicts they have less than 5% of the defenses required for the inevitable retaliation? https://www.ft.com/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca328 https://www.ft.com/content/5953405f-d91a-4598-8b6b-6345452ca... > (edit to reply): Russia isn't winning against Ukraine. Yet.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Russia isn't winning against Ukraine.
  - neoromantique 2y ago
    To be fair, Ukraine is by far the most combat ready military in the Europe right now.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "that's not hard when you don't have moral qualms and 21 million military age men to throw at the problem" But do you really have them? Putin seems really hesitant to start a new round of mobilization and refills his army with volunteers. Some of which are voluntolds, but the regime seems to be afraid of the Moscow/St.Petersburg street, so to say. His grip on the Russian nation, especially after 3 years of endless bloody slog with almost nothing gained, does not seem to reach into the "give millions of recruits weapons and they will use them exactly as told and there is no risk that they could rebel" territory.
  - m4rtink 2y ago
    Provided you even have the weapons and donekys to outfit them in the first place.
- neoromantique 2y ago
  The population of Russia was widely disputed even before the war(With most estimates placing it at below 100M), and now it's basically a guessing game.
- dubbel 2y ago
  "Don't piss off Poland?!" There won't be a large scale war against the Eastern EU started by Russia that does not involve Poland. The EU has stronger mutual defense clause than NATO article 5+6 (of course, it doesn't have anything close to the military might of the combined NATO countries). Once there is an all out war, Finland would mobilize its army, threatening Russia's northern flank. The Baltic would be closed. The black sea would be closed. All out war would be terrible, but the deterrence is still too strong in my opinion, as the price would be too high. The problem / question is what would the EU (or NATO) do, if Russia starts a small scale hybrid war against Estonia or Latvia. Creating a small "local" insurgency, that takes over a majority Russian speaking town on the border. If the military alliances do not react united in such a case they are done.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> why does the US need any involvement? You are asking the wrong question (or at least, a wrong question). It's not "why does the US need any involvement", it's "Why has the US insisted on involvement for so long?" (e.g. during the 1980s when widespread sentiment in Europe was for the US to close its military bases, the US insisted on remaining). The UK does not rely 136k people to defend itself from military risk. It relies on its nuclear arsenal, which while not as large as those of the USA or Russia, it quite the deterrent all by itself.

lenerdenator 2y ago
> The UK does not rely 136k people to defend itself from military risk. It relies on its nuclear arsenal, which while not as large as those of the USA or Russia, it quite the deterrent all by itself. It's a deterrent from invading the British Isles, which would require a navy that only the US has, anyways. It's not a deterrent from challenging the world order. The US nuclear arsenal is the only one in the West that, if it were deployed, would end human society on a global scale. Russia has designed its nuclear forces and defense infrastructure around a war with the United States, a country with a much, much larger nuclear arsenal than the UK or France. There's a possibility that if Russia decided to use its tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine (which it has threatened before), and the UK or France responded in kind with strategic nuclear weapons, that enough of Russian nuclear forces could survive to completely wipe out those two nations while also having weapons in reserve. That's why the US stayed.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  US forces on European land are not a deterrent to the scenario you're describing.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Of course they are. Who do you think would deliver the weapons I'm talking about?
jamil7 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

worik 2y ago

> That sounds good - until you realize they have only 136,000 personnel total. The UK wound down personnel when they got out of the Afghanistan quagmire In peace time effective militaries equip and train officer corps Large numbers of soldiers is a hinderence to a professional peace time army