More weapons sales for the blood-soaked oligarchy. More austerity for us civilians. Is it worth trying to stop climate change to save the human race? ‘This attitude of the dehumanised human - of the person who does not care, of the person who not only is not his brother’s keeper but is not even his own keeper - this attitude characterises modern man.’ (Fromm, ‘On Being Human’, Continuum, 1997, p.29)”
4
The biggest obstacle to an EU army is the fact you would need a common foreign policy. It would require a vast transfer of sovereignity. The idea that language or cultural differences are an issue requires one to simply be ignorant of history. Even recent history. All major European wars had different nationalities fighting together. Brits will often bring this up but then you should tell them to look up the number of different nationalities onboard Nelsons flag ship HMS Victory at Trafalgar . or how something like a third of RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain were Polish and many other nationalities.
3
I seriously doubt a European army will grow from this. If anything it's a remider for Germans that decades of pacification has left them weak.
2
The US doesn't support bases all over the world to protect foreign interests. They are there to secure the US militarily and to uphold access to resources like rare metals, open seaways, etc.
If this Trump chap started shutting down US military presence worldwide on a large scale, a military take-over may be the result. He may not have the brains to understand the stratetic importance of allies and MIL presence, but others have.
3
http://archive.economonitor.com/blog/2009/10/an-important-letter-sent-to-the-president-about-the-danger-of-climate-change/
And anyhow, if I want to talk to Europe, who do I call?
It appears that the EU is moving beyond an economic union to a political union. That requires a joint military. I say, good for them. Given the rise of nationalism and other threats, they may well need such a military.
2
A European Army? GREAT news! Long overdue. And, once accomplished, the ouster and dissolution of NATO, the U.S. foothold in in Europe, should be next on the European agenda.
Thank you, Donald, for making this a viable possibility!
4
During the Cold War, the US Army's VII Corps (Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart) commanded not only US forces, but the German 12th Panzer Division and the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade. If we had gone to war, those German and Canadian units would have been under the command of a US Army 3 star General.
Up north, a Brigade of the 2nd Armored Division would have operated under the command of our NATO allies in a War. During World War II the 9th US Army operated and fought under the command of General Montgomery's 21st Army Group. The Second French Army coordinated with NATO and we (VII Corps) held command exercises with them during my time there. In more modern times, US Marines have been stationed from Gotland Island in the Baltic all the way to the Black Sea. Rotational US Army units also operate forward in both the Baltic & Black Sea (Novo Selo) areas.
American Soldiers have been in continuous service in Germany since we crossed the Rhine during the Second World War. For much of the Cold War, US and NATO forces were significantly outnumbered by those of the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact.
Go to Grafenwöhr & Vilseck - large training areas in Germany operated by the US Army- and you will see far more than our Soldiers preparing for war.
The commonly Battalion sized rotational units in eastern Europe serve alongside our NATO allies.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm
Our troops have been there and done that.
3
“The border we’re defending is not between the Netherlands and Germany. It’s NATO’s eastern border.” The enormity of what happened between Germans and Russians on the Eastern front may have been forgotten. Or perhaps this gentleman tilts at windmills so that Berlin can keep Washington happy?
1
Europe is far more divided than it ever has been. The writer of this article doesn’t near stress this enough.
The EU should be looking at serious reform and economic development before attempting any further unification and empire building projects such as this. It’s ignoring its constituents, hence the politics is changing and they keep running into crisis with terrible and unproductive resolutions to problems, all in the name of their Stockholm syndromic head in the clouds neoliberal ideology. It’s writing it’s own death warrant.
I also don’t understand why NATO can’t just be rebalanced as per modern US requests as opposed to alternatives. Although European coffers are quite limited due to stagnant growth for decades. It favours a economic mode that favours ideology over pragmatism (think Germany and its economic surplus and Greece in eternal debt prison; both sharing the same currency). It’s internal power structure is also totally archaic. It’s a democracy only for those who stick to its strict ideological guidelines.
You’d think the rise of populist the governments Italy, Hungary, Poland, the AFD in Germany, the main opposition in France and Brexit would give them a wake up call for reform but no. The thinking seems to be ‘it’ll all come out in the wash eventually so let’s just crack on and make an army!’
2
One of the reasons for the US security guarantee has always been that we did not want a massive buildup of European arms as that had already led us into two catastrophic world wars.
2
good lord, no. May heaven help Europe if the Dutch Army acts like the way it acted in Bosnia where thousands of Muslims were murdered due to the inaction of the Dutch soldiers.
2
@lou andrews
Oh please, that was over 30 years ago ! Barely any soldier serving today was alive ! Everyone there thought of their own national interests first. French and British did not act because the Serbs had taken their soldiers hostage.
They left us as the fall guys the entire thing was indefensible and poorly planned.
It is why ever since no Dutch soldiers go anywhere without their own independent means of escalation.
And dutchbat was 400 lightly armed soldiers not 'the Dutch army'.
5
Oh please, everyone there thought of their own national interests first. French and British did not act because the Serbs had taken their soldiers hostage. They left us as the fall guys the entire thing was indefensible and poorly planned. It is why ever since no Dutch soldiers go anywhere without their own independent means of escalation.
And dutchbat was 400 lightly armed guys not 'the Dutch army'.
A re-armed Germany. What’s the worst that could happen?
3
As a European i am fully supportive of this effort and think things will accelerate & develop faster than people can currently envisage. I would like to make one specific comment, this article (like many others incl in Europe) references the rise of populism in Europe and the dangers that rises poses. Whilst it is undeniably true that the share of the vote of the populists has risen across the continent they still only represent a maximum of 25/30% of the vote and for the most part they can barely agree about anything that matters. What is more, when populists come to power - and that will still be a rarity - they run head-on into reality. It is very easy to shout from the sidelines, actually governing is a whole different thing. In conclusion, yes populists are more visible - proportional representation also makes that passible - but I feel the threat the represent is more often than not exaggerated. That is not to say you should ignore these ersatz brown-shirts.
1
To this day, many Dutch detest Germans because Nazi Germany starved Holland in the winter of 1944 and 1945.
This was a conscious punishment meted out by the Nazis for Dutch railroad workers not transporting German tanks toward the west to resist the US+UK liberation.
2
I am sorry but that your statement that “many Dutch detest the Germans” is simply no longer true. There may be some but interestingly these folks are hardly ever the folks who actually lived through the war and suffered its consequences. Further, whilst the Germans certainly did nothing to alleviate the horrible circumstances and often made them much worse in the west of the Netherlands during the ‘44/‘45 winter (some 40,000 died of starvation) it was in large part a result of the failed allied strategy to take the Arnhem-route and their failure to force a decisive breakthrough.
5
Tell that to the Canadian soldiers who died liberating Holland.
2
As an former mustang I feel that our allies are absolutely correct that they can no longer depend upon the United States for defense nor the economic norms established after WW2. As for military strength, yes the Europeans are under strength and under equipped. As for the USA, it appears 7th fleet can't sail straight (Fitz and McCain), our equipment is falling apart, and our F-22s are less than 50% combat ready while our CONUS housed troops live in substandard housing with black mold.
And does anybody believe the wealthy will defend the our alliances in this day of "I want mine" and screw the USA.........and I thought Vietnam was bad. At least back then the young had strong feelings.
Europe is smart to cut ties with us. We can't be trusted.
1
Since WW2 the US has kept Europe as a staging ground for WW3.
Time for the Europeans to take over and the US to get out of Europe.
1
It is definitely time for Europeans to invest in their own defense. This is for several reasons; 1. They have been on a free ride for too long. 2.They are not investing enough to generate credible armed forces readied for a threat from the east. 3. They can no longer fully trust their main NATO partner; the US, because it is apparently possible for the United States to be run by enemies of Democracy. 4. And perhaps the best reason, is reading seven out of ten Germans are not seeing Russia as a threat. With Putin in charge, really? Even the neutral Swedes and Finns seem to know better than that! ” A spokesperson from Swedish defense ministry put the rationale a little more bluntly in an interview with the BBC: “The Russian illegal annexation of Crimea [in 2014], the conflict in Ukraine, and the increased military activity in our neighborhood are some of the reasons.” Beyond the need for bigger military budgets, cooperation, effectiveness of multi-national armies are not really a problem. The Franco-German brigade and German-Dutch battalion are just symbolic, but not practical. Nevertheless, language barriers can be overcome. The French Foreign legion international recruits make up an effective corps. That European army, the multinational Waffen SS was notorious for its effectiveness. The divisions consisted of individuals with common cultural backgrounds, and where possible, common languages. Bottom line, the key to success is money, political will and common values.
3
If "Europe" had any respect for itself and its own raison d'etre, it would unify its military response to Russia. "Europe" needs to defend itself. 70 years of parental protection from the US needs to end. "Europe" needs to quit regulating dairy products and face the Russians....If that ever happens, then the USA can re-direct its revenues to where they belong: right here. Status quo thinking is impoverishing this country. Elites in Washington don't care about it--the great stretches of fly over America. That's why Trump is president. Face it, you liberal elites. The country you don't know doesn't like you and won't vote for your proxies ever again.
5
The cost of NATO is the cost of running the American Empire. For the last 70 years, the US has paid a majority of the costs to ensure that our economic and political empire withstood various challenges.
We now have a president and a growing share of our population who either don't understand the value of the American Empire for the US citizenry (and the residual benefits to the world), or who are not seeing the return on investment that is being made since the value is increasingly going to fewer and fewer people.
5
Does this joint training also condition them to surrender together, in the name of Europe, at the first sign of trouble?
2
Is it possible for the Americans to be more out of touch with what is really going on in Europe? Nope, I don't think so.
Americans interested in what is going on can subscribe (free of charge) to the english version of Der Spiegel.
5
Actually, the first unit incorporating soldiers from two different EU nations is the Franco-German Brigade created on January 12, 1989.
1
The gif proves what a great language German is for yelling. Dutch too.
2
Napoleon maintained that his least feared enemy was a coalition. They were easily split apart and defeated in detail, and the absence of a common language was a lethal defect.
An effective coalition army made up of Europeans from all over the continent defies the illogic of cultural history. We Americans are fond of saying "Just get over it!", but the scars of the "Bloody 20th Century" remain on that continent of long memories, particularly with respect to Germany.
Young soldiers can be molded by the inherent brainwashing of basic training (please be honest with yourself about that), but the day when a Dutchman can truthfully say that he would die for Germany would be a subject for science fiction or alternative history, and to "die for Europe" is an extreme abstraction.
I doubt there will ever be a European army except on paper, and for so long as the Russian Federation shows signs of revanchism, the U.S. will - or should - remain "the essential nation". Militarily, Western Europe cannot go it alone against Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe has a very powerful unifying force. Western Europe does not.
Trump's notion that it all comes down to money goes beyond ignorance into incredible stupidity.
3
For 70 years the Europeans were comfortable with the American pledge to defend and shield them. Free is good, right? Who wants to change that system?
In the years when NATO was newer, and Europe was pulling itself out of war carnage, America had 50% of the world’s gross product.
Today America’s share of the worlds gross product has fallen to about 22%. Today, Americans are working two or more jobs and still falling behind, facing difficulty paying for better healthcare, a greener America and more affordable college tuition. Helping to prevent that is an aged, decrepit, unequal 70 year old agreement.
Obama and others before him ever so nicely requested Europe to increase its support of NATO. It never happend. Now they have Trump’s ugly orange mug in their face forcing the issue.
Below are quotes from the article that demonstrate why NATO requires a more equitable division of costs.
“The life we have had for the last 70 years is possible because of the American security guarantees we have had, largely for free,” Mr. Techau said..."
Ultimately, he said, the question President Trump has asked the Europeans is a fair one. “We want to live in freedom,” Mr. Techau said. “But are we prepared to pay for it?”
Despite signing a commitment to fellow NATO members to work toward spending 2 percent of G.D.P. by 2024, Germany has watered down the target to 1.5 percent.
…Germans simply don’t feel at risk. Seven out of 10 Germans do not see Russia as a threat.
4
We must have Sweden in any European alliance. The North Atlantic/Arctic Oceans east of Sweden where Russian submarines prowl can only be countered with Sweden. And do not forget to have the Finns in our fold too! Who can forget what the snow-skier troops did to Russia in the 40's!
1
sorry, but I would rather rely on the Norwegians. One, Sweden has mostly a Baltic coast, and the Russian submarines can't get out of the Baltic Sea without passing the Sund, easily spotted by Sweden and Denmark and every car on the Sund bridge. I am not sure Russia even has submarines in the Baltic Sea, it looks a bit like an aquarium.
Two, the Russian bases are located on the Arctic coast and must pass northern Norway to reach the Atlantic.
Three, Norway is a NATO member and fought like a lion during WWII, whereas Sweden is neutral, even if there are joint military exercises.
3
Of course, a European army will become more and more important, as the U.S. renegues on it's commitment to mutual defense from 'evil' forces...unless Europeans start contributing more financially. My question is, couldn't we just re-inforce NATO, instead of developing two forces duplicating the expense...without adding to their power and resolve? This, independent of Trumpian stupidity muddying the issue by pressuring Alliances to despair.
@manfred marcus... Manfred....I wouldn't call it reneguing on a promise...I would call it sick and tired of Europeans not pulling thier weight in the cost of defense.
I am sure you know that Freedom is not Free.
6
Which geniuses think a German army is a good idea? Anyone? Beuller?
4
This is not your grandfather’s Bundeswehr. As one example, the German army is now unionized (the Bundeswehrverband). And I suspect that if the Dutch aren’t worried about resurgent militarism in Germany, not many are.
6
@Bradley - I think its wonderfull....from the marshall plan to the berlin airlift to stationing troops ...it has to end...time for Europe to pay thier FAIR share of the cost of defending...It will give Americans the much needed tax breaks THEY deserve....Europeans will have to raise taxes to pay for thier armies....
4
@Bradley
Presidents Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton.
Every continental European military in history has failed. The US is supposed to act as the parent figure holding continental interests together. We pay a premium to keep Europe united. If Europeans want to explore joint military ventures between nations, great. However, the greater unity is placed at risk if Germany or anyone else believes they can accomplish this task as a single continental entity.
Physics hates a vacuum. If not the US, someone else is going to consume the space US leadership left behind. Sounds like the person interviewing for the job right now is Vladimir Putin. Does anyone in the US believe greater European economic and military integration with Russia is a good thing? You are out of your mind.
2
@Andy "Every continental European military in history has failed"
what?
1
@Andy Andy...I agree....the Europeans will cozy up to Putin and Communist China for their eventual demise....Neville Chamberlain was such a fool to believe the Nazi's meant no harm...The English sold technologies to the Russians post war, which resulted in the Mig jet...
Europeans will eventually fight each other and that makes it ripe for U.S enemies to fill the vacuum.
1
Add the Vikings to the north and Europeans are invincible!
As trump instigates Civil War II in America, it makes sense that Europeans build a cohesive military of their own. Yes, European soldiers are willing to die for Germany just as American soldiers are willing to die for New York.
The other benefit is it makes a military confrontation between European states less likely - unless Hungary and a few others like trump incite a civil war.
2
The Russian bear got a twofer for its investment in Donald Trump. A decoupling of America and Europe and the expansion of toxic hostilities within the American body-politic. Asymmetric warfare at its finest.
5
The Franco-German Brigade is six years older than the German-Dutch Corps. So I'm not sure how this "first European binational battalion" thing works in regard to the German-Dutch Corps...
4
I was about to say that.
1
Emotionally speaking, I am German as much as I am European - these two identities co-exist, there is no need to choose one over the other.
Rationally speaking, I always found the idea of a European army - or more broadly speaking of a Europe-wide defense concept - a logical and also desirable next step. European countries are small, and we need a Europe-wide effort to pool our ressources to not only be reduced to reacting on the world stage, but rather actively be able to contribute. This goes for economic impact as well as for defense/military impact.
However, any European cooperation is based on trust, and trust is based on the perception of being guided by the same values. And while I am willing to pay and sacrifice and pool ressources with European countries that share these values, I am less willing to do so for countries that are questioning these values and might one day even become illiberal or undemocratic. What happens then? Do we have a plan for that? For a long time we believed that democratic backsliding is impossible, at least in Europe - we were wrong, and so we need to account for that when we speak of further integration. I don't see that reflected in any of the debates or arguments that I'm reading.
11
@Melanie ...So....my thinking is that TURKEY absolutely has no value/right in joing NATO...thier values are really not in line with European values....So when you ask soldiers in the European Army..."would they fight for Europe which includes Turkey"...I wonder what thier answer would be ?
3
An interesting article. I served in a Mechanized Infantry unit in Germany in the mid-1960's. At the time, NATO had a significant German and British presence as well. (As a side bar, a brother officer's father had served in a WWII German Army tank unit. Because he was bi-lingual, during field exercises this officer was our unit's designated liaison officer to the German unit that would be on our flank.) I read this article and thought: "24 tanks in the Battalion" it wouldn't last very long in combat. This sounds like a "nice to have", but the countries of NATO need to step up the support of their military. That includes modern weaponry, much better maintenance, and clothing for the troops!
8
I think I speak for many Americans when I say that one of our greatest fears about the Trump administration is that his abandoning our global responsibilities leaves our western alliance vulnerable. We've been hoping that Europe would step up to fill that leadership vacuum. Stories like this make me hopeful, but I still fear it may be moving too slowly. I don't know if it will be two years or six until Trump is gone. Hopefully two. Until then, we're counting on Europe to hold this thing together.
2
@revelwoodie I am counting on them to take over NOT hold it together ....
Afghanistan: Total casualties 3,458
U.S 2,313
NATO & Coalition 1,145 (a little over a third)
During the Obama administration NATO agreed to increase their
financial share by 2%.
I think that the rest of the West are pretty much pulling their share. In blood and money. And into whose pockets is the money going?
3
@James F Traynor...WHAT WHAT...WHAT....look at all the conflicts since the inception of NATO and you will see that Americans pay a much greater share by ALL measures...so for Europeans....Freedom is no longer going to be free for free loaders...
3
It's about time. Anerican taxpayers are sick and tired of paying for the defense of European nations while they sit back and spend their wealth on social welfare programs. Let Europe defend itself against Russia and terrorists from the Middle East. We paid their dues many times over.
9
@paul
Right. Lets bring the fight to American shores instead as Europeans watch and sit back and invest in the welfare of their countries and citizens. We'll fight in Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere under trump's command, alone without NATO partners who have died in the thousands for us already in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3
@PAN What? I am simply saying that Europeans need to pay for their own defense, with their own taxes and their own lives. And when have our NATO partners "died by the thousands for us in Iraq and Afghanistan"? The only ones dying there are Americans, and they are doing so to protect Europe from more terrorists.
1
@paul
I should have clarified as casualties. But the deaths on behalf of America is not a rounding error to be dismissed:
179 UK soldiers dead in Iraq, 7 Danes, 11 Spaniards, 33 Italians, 30 Poles, ...
Coalition nations and NATO nation deaths in Iraq = 318 in combat
456 UK soldiers in Afghanistan, 43 Danes, 35 Spaniards, 53 Italian, 44 Poland, 88 French, 157 Canadian, ...
ISAF nations including NATO nation deaths in Afghanistan = 1,145 in combat.
By the way, several NATO nations is helping America in Syria too.
Don't worry, Europeans will make the ultimate payment of blood in their defense. Why they would continue to die for America is now in question.
2
The Atlantic coast of France is our strategic frontier in terms of conventional war. An enemy holding that coast can project significant power into the Atlantic. The Rhine is our main lin elf defense for the French coast line.
The Elbe is our outpost line.
We were/are in Europe because it is in our interest. During the Cold War the Germans were probably the most effective NATO army. It was not just us.
2
@Lefthalfbach
Correction: This is the "Pre 1989" version of Geopolitics.
From 1999 on your "outpost line" is the Western Bug between Poland (NATO state) and Belarus. This is the reason why many of former Bundeswehr "Leo II" tanks and support vehicles stationed in Lohheide and beyond before are now stationed there, manned by Polish soldiers.
In 2019 Russia doesn´t accept the Dienpr between Ukraine and Russia to become your next new "outpost line" with some M 1 stationed there. (Leos will not be supplied for this.)
This is the source of all problems in future.
2
@ws
ehhh I hear your pov. However, as I recall, Bush The First promised Gorby that NATO would not move into Poland. Clinton reneged on that in 1999.
The Russians have a point on that issue.
I had a Polish Grandmother and I feel for the Poles but the Western Bug is a River Too Far.
1
This is just absolutely awesome news!!!...European Citizens will have to raise taxes to properly fund thier ARMIES. That might even mean giving up or reducing thier cushy/expensive welfare structures.
AMERICANS can finally close down or severely reduce thier military forces/bases/expenses in EUROPE and go home !
Remember Europeans...FREEDOM Isn't Free.
Next comes integrating thier AIR FORCES and NAVIES. to include maybe some AirCraft Carriers, Missiles and whatever it takes to defeat the Russians...Oh wait...they are so blindly trusting of Russians...why even bother with defense forces. Remember gullible Neville Chamberlain to appease the Nazis and also the English selling out onto/through the Mig Aircraft technology.
Higher taxes means higher prices for thier products sold in the U.S. This will hopefully lower American Taxes finally and make our products sold overseas more competitive..giving us an unintended benefit.
4
Criticism of Europe's defense spending i think is a ruse. If they increased their spending, he would create another excuse. There's endless ways he can play his game. I think he's doing Russia's work, weakening western structures.
This is a good ruse from him cause Europe can't suddenly increase its spending. So, he gets time to break it apart!
The US benefits from guaranteeing Europe's defense. So Europe is not getting its security for free!
For example, that guarantee has, i think, (i am not an expert, but the little i know tells me) strategically meant that the threat to the US is met and contained in Europe, well before it reaches the US. For example, had the US sat back and let Hitler take the content, the US might have been the next target, by which time Hitler might have been too strong to stop!
So, this guarantee is also in the US's own interest! All the US presidents since WW 1 or 2 can't be stupid!
Also, another way the US benefits is through European support for American leadership of the world system. Financially, politically, culturally etc etc, this military support has bought the US its global position, which has benefited the US economically and otherwise.
This is the price the US pays to be the global leader with Europe's support. Without Europe's support, the beneficiaries are the Russians and the Chinese, and the US loses, I think.
Trump has done nothing but promote Russian interests everywhere he can whenever he can, I think.
7
In all this discussion on politics, ideology, culture, language, I just have to say...
Let them keep the the underwear! Come on, CO! Who else is going to wear it after that?!
21
This article reminds me of a couple of weird elements of World War II history that the article leaves out: that during WWII, that “cultural closeness” between the Dutch and Germans led to several SS divisions being formed with Dutch troops and officers led my German cadres. The “regular SS” native to the Netherlands was also largest of all European countries at 50,000.
Thus, is it really accurate to say that this is Europe’s “first binational” unit? It strikes me that the legacy of the Nazis’ attempts to reframe their war of racial conquest into a “pan-European crusade against Communism”, resulting in countless divisions composed of non-Germans from all over the continent is the very first thing I’m reminded of reading about a “European army” in the 21st century. Especially one largely led by Germany, in an era where the Russians are now being seen as a threat again.
On the other hand, motivated as this is by the pressure now being felt due to the American retreat into isolationism, it’s very possible that military cooperation of this type could relieve the nationalist pressures that are causing the Nazis to return. But obviously, the legacy of the European army idea is more complicated than a Dutch resistance descendent fighting alongside a German descendent of an SS. The SS descendent, the article fails to mention, could easily be Dutch too.
5
Anerican ISOLATIONISM is a myth...think about what has happened since the end of WWII. Satellites, Radio, Internet, more Trade, Intermarriages, Facebooks, social media, more land lines, faster travel, intergoverment cooperative ventures such as the space stations..and on and on and on.
There is a little mistake in the article. It states that the German-Dutch bataillon is the first of its kind. This is incorrect as there is also the Franco-German Brigade, founded in 1989, jointly consisting of units from both the French Army and the German Army. Further, there is the Multinational Corps Northeast founded in 1999, a Danish-German-Polish Corps. There is also the European Corps (Eurocorps) an intergovernmental military corps activated in October 1993. The Eurocorps consists of the German, French, Spanish, Belgian, and Luxembourg forces.
5
Whenever I see these deliberations over military inadequacy in various parts of the world, I can’t help but think that the global military-industrial complex is behind it. Fear is a key element of their marketing.
6
The United States of Europe is a bad idea. European countries need to retain their individual cultural identity, languages, currency, and pride of accomplishment.
The European Union should be abolished and returned to its previous entity based on trade agreements and mutual benefits.
It’s entirely possible to retain freedom of travel between countries.
7
@Michael Kittle
Think big :
It is not possible to hide behind "borders" any more and pretend to be Hobbits hiding in the Shire.
The world is small.
Its new border is space.
Failing to be part of a large group will be the death of small countries. What is slovakia against Russia or China ?
Failing to grasp the new scale of the ( shrinking ) world will lead to the total submission of small countries to larger unfriendly groups.
Stop looking at the world through 19th century lenses. This era is over and the chinese dragon is on the move.
"Retain cultural identity" blah blah blah, look at the Uigurs or the Tibetans in China, or the baltic states under Russia's control after WW2 and see what you are facing.
It is Europe or face anihilation.
7
@Michael Kittle Nothing about a strong, unified Europe threatens your "cultural identity." We've been doing this in America for over 200 years. And if anything, we should be at even greater risk for losing state identities, because we share a common language. But we didn't. Go spend two weeks in New Jersey and then another two in Texas, and tell me again about how union threatens identity.
2
@Komrad
Good points across the board.
1
“The life we have had for the last 70 years is possible because of the American security guarantees we have had, largely for free,” Mr. Techau said. “That is the reason we are not Ukraine and live in a Russian sphere of influence.”
Highly misleading. We protected Europe to protect ourselves. We only gave these guarantees to countries which agreed to reform as consumerist Western democracies. In doing so, we created export markets for our goods and services. The post-war boom was created by this structure. This has been a win/win relationship; unfortunately, our current President will never see this because he only believes in win/lose.
132
@BeeRock Well spoken and absolutely correct. Talking about German and Dutch, where is the Franco-German Brigade founded October 1989? You see them on parade at Bastille day, even Donald must have noticed. The other misleading figures is the NATO contribution. True if we throw the whole US defense spending in one pot is doesn't look good. Take the part which goes towards the NATO and we are not far apart. Remember NATO is not the engagement in Asia or the Indian Ocean, nor the defense of Israel
22
@BeeRock It is never a good idea to discuss current events based on 70 year old history. In the intervening 70 years since your good deal was put in place, the EU has risen. The EU has an economy and population bigger than the ours. We no longer are the exporter of consumer and construction goods to Europe, China is. Today, we not only carry NATO's militarily readiness we also maintain the Naval and military forces in the Middle East and the Pacific that allows Europe access to needed oil and free trade around the globe. The Post war boom ended nearly 40 years ago. We have paid our dues for Europe's horrible 20th century history, Europe has moved on - so should we.
17
@mkm, Your comment is disingenuous, based on the notion that the EU actually "needs" our military backing for its economic health. In fact, I would argue that if the U.S. picked-up its military presence and left (as you suggest), the EU would do just fine. Also, consider how many Americans would loose jobs because of a decline in military spending.
6
A European coalition going to war with anyone, United States, China, Russia would fall apart almost immediately splintering all of the separate countries.
I just came back from a month over there, European countries identify as their own country, not Europeans and when war breaks out that will become even more so.
They can't even get there economy together how on earth what they combine several countries for a coalition ready for war
4
@There...No...no..no...dont break the promise down before it begins...let the Europeans actually believe that they can fund thier own defenses...so we can get the hell out and reduce our military expenditures there....maybe we can fund better schools in the US....I am sure we can find a good use of the savings..!!!
2
@There
Any different than how we see one state vs another in the USA?
The threads that bind us aren't all that different.
We have always been in a cooperative military situational stance with Canada for decades. Is it insane to think we might be able to save some tax dollars by combining "forces" with our friends to the North. We could scrap redundancy and direct those savings to needy social programs here or there. Oh, that's right, we couldn't possibly share any of our "global leadership" thing with anyone. What was I thinking?
Jeopardizing alliance with Europe is a shortsighted policy for the US. US economic and military power are connected and weakening alliances threatens US dominance. However, I would argue that current erratic leadership is the symptom, not a cause of the declining US power. Europeans need to see clearly that this is a new reality, not a bad chapter. They have to look realistically at creating their own defense or perhaps a military alliance would be more realistic. They have to also tap into military and human resources of new members and neighborhood countries, like Ukraine, who have valuable combat experience and have been fighting a war with Russia for several years. Maybe not a joint army, but a very close alliance. The intelligence, language, knowledge of Russian tactics and technology may be decisive factors for successful defense, not necessarily cutting edge technology, which may require a lot of training to incorporate and a lot of maintenance. Training and developing essential command and supply structures will matter more. Right now Russia has amassed tens of thousands of troops at Europe’s borders. They are conducting combat operations in Ukraine (plus gaining other different experience around the world), developing logistics, supply chains etc. the sooner Europe starts to develop this capacity the better.
There are other values to a European Army than simply improved defense. The problem with nationalism is that it separates people, societies and cultures. It's all about "us", which eventually becomes "us versus them."
A European Army would be one more factor in a mindset of unification, which in the end is a mind set of "all of us".
Open boarders, shared currency, and a shared markets all contribute to this. Easy access to jobs and housing in other countries contributes to this.
The war again nationalism, which is actually a war against wars, involves creating a broader, more inclusive society.
One of many advantages of the United States over the past two centuries is in fact this very effect. Yes, we have had the luxury of a vast continent with virtually every meaningful resource in plenty. Yes, that space and an open mind towards immigration have given us a huge population, which is the piston which drives both a mighty economic engine and an expansive military force. Yes, we are also protected on all sides by relatively weak and friendly neighbors to the north and south, and the world's largest oceans to the east and west.
But the single greatest source of American power is that (imperfect) integration of a large population.
The wonder of the European experiment is that for the second time in history, that integration might happen through peace, rather than war, and one step toward that end, paradoxically, would come through the formation of a European Army.
3
@Bob Lacatena You obviously have never lived in Europe. If some of Putin's hoodlums suddenly show up around strategic points in Estonia or other places in the Baltics and Russia tries to work the same scam they worked in Crimea...NATO will spend days debating the issue, Germany will simply refuse to sacrifice any of its soldiers to anything, and these sham armies in central Europe will only hunker down and wait for US air power to save their skins. Look no further than the pathetic "war" in Bosnia against the Serbs. Raw, disgusting fascism was me with nothing but blabber, hand-wringing, and vague promises. Remember Dutch "peacekeepers" having to give up their weapons--and Bosnian men later slaughtered--because NATO command couldn't organize any air support. And in 2015, Europeans saw their external borders just trampled over by herds of illegal migrants--few worthy of asylum, fewer still war refugees--and saw their governments do little or nothing about it. Euro citizens already know how weak and facile their armed forces are. "wonder of the European experiment"? What are you talking about?
4
Two key points:
1. The true and applicable question should not be whether you would die for Europe, but would you kill for Europe? You win wars by making the enemy die for his/her cause; not you dying for your cause.
2. A European Treaty Organization — in the style of NATO — could be a better European defense organization than a European Army. Subsequently, Europe could develop a European Army structure.
Regardless of the defense organization selected, Germany, France, Italy and Spain must be the leading countries in any plan to protect European security interests.
2
Europeans have historically fought as one for centuries. It was called the crusades!
1
@Al
Not relevant as it is :
1) Far too old
2) Directed against an obsolete foe.
Our direct enemies are Russia, India and China, not any weak eastern country.
Yeah, and that was the last time they did it.ha
1
America under Donald Trump is about as secure as any other Trump investment. Trump's demands for protection money from our allies has them all asking what do they need us for?
It's like discovering your guard dog has come down with rabies, or is now hanging out with a pack of wolves.
3
Hey NYT, the "informal tests of deeper cooperation" have been going on for decades, I'm German and I spent my military service in 1989 with the Franco-German Brigade. And the cliché you mention about these troops based in Alsace are exaggerated. It's a matter of recruitment and training to allow people of different language and "cultural" backgrounds to cooperate. This brigade is a success story (as well as the Dutch-German batallion).
11
Good. Better than good. The whole time I was stationed in Europe, we had sister units in the 13. Panzeruflkarung, a Dutch Recon unit, and a Recon outfit from the Royal Army. We occasionally trained together, but never at an integrated level. we all spoke a common language, though our Welsh compatriots were often hard to understand. If we had faced off against the Soviet Juggernaut in the Fulda or on the Northern plains, the first thing we would have needed to do was to integrate into effective combat units below the Division level. An orphaned American Armored Cavalry troop from a decimated unit could NOT integrate with Panzers. Rainbow Units are exactly what the North Atlantic Treaty, and the European Union need to move forward. We generally believe in the same classical western ideals, and in their defense, cannot let petty matters be an obstacle. My old unit has been working heavily with the Eastern Europeans ever since I left. I can only hope that the Alliance takes this concept to heart.
10
This suddenly remind me about George Orwell's "1984." About how the Soviets took control over Europe, and declared war against the superstates of Oceania and East Asia.
The way the German soldiers do not see Russia as a threat is not a good sign. Military warfare is one threat, but the growing usage of artificial intelligence and misinformation is another. The war against Russia and other states that have used this emerging technology would not cease until that technology is safeguarded from anyone else.
3
@J.
"The way the German soldiers do not see Russia as a threat is not a good sign."
Like many Americans and some local Pundits you have perfectly missed the point.
German soldiers don´t want to be a threat for Russia anymore - as the most Russian soldiers do not want to be either - because of their mutual loss rates 100 and 70 years ago. They have an interest not to get harnessed in such violent conflicts that can be avoided.
In the Cold War this conflict was just not to avoid like the own involvement wasn´t either. Because of an overwhelming self-preservation interest of Western nations - West Germany definitely included - in regard to more than concrete Russian threat the full military potential of West Germany contributed to a robust defence structure despite the obvious huge risk at the most exposed frontline including the highest possible death risk for the entire population.
In a merely abstract power conflict of foreign powers for the benefit of others only there is no interest here to raise the risk of a possible third big war on European territory. So nobody from the far right to the extreme left is willing to offer undeniably threatening strongest ground force of the respective time to anybody as an instrument for the opportunity to conduct such wars on European ground again.
This means: 1,5 % instead of 2 % - appropriate to the extent of the actually increased threat for NATO-Europe.
3
I completely support the formation of a European army.
With Trump on the precipice of quitting NATO, a reliable post-WWII pact to protect Europe and North America from all invaders, someone must protect Europe.
It was surprising to read that 70% of Germans trust Russia and China more than the U.S. under Trump.
Russia presents a very real threat of European invasion, particularly to regain former Soviet countries, and they make no secret of it. They are involved in the Syrian government, and volunteer to step in where Trump withdraws troops in the Middle East They seek power.
Germans perhaps trust Russia and China more because Europe has good trade relations with them, at a time when Trump is issuing worldwide tariffs and sanctions.
Europeans are in daily contact, about trade, with Russia, China, the Middle East and Africa, while the U.S. threatens, insults and stonewalls. The idea of war with your trading partners becomes less conceivable with daily conversations.
Nevertheless, Russia is eager to regain territory. Trump's trade war with China has pushed them to be friendlier toward Russia, although trade is their concern.
Without NATO, Europe would be grossly outmanned and outgunned in a Russian attack.
An army is an expensive proposition for Europeans. They, happily, lack the aggressive U.S. spirit. They also face domestic economic problems.
But a strong army must be formed to protect the E.U. against any aggressors. We are too vulnerable now.
5
For two generations, Canadians have fought and died in what were, and still are, essentially American wars, largely because of our UN, NATO, and “shared values” affiliation with our closest neighbour. How is that any different than the situation in Europe?
24
@Norman McDougall - the difference it seems is we don't share the same attitude of mutual cooperation producing economic savings such as eliminating redundancy.
2
Having invaded my country (Belgium) twice, the rise of a powerful German army is frightening. After Merkel, a much more right-leaning individual might one day become Germany s chancellor
3
@Kris: In Germany every activity of the armed forces need commitment of the parliament's majority. The chancellor is not commander in chief but the parliament in Berlin. The government is just legitimated to make a proposal.
2
Germany is so far behind they would be immediately crushed by China, Russia or the United States before they could get off the ground, they are too far behind to be a player on the world stage anymore
2
@Kris This is gibberish. Powerful German Army? They can't keep more than 20% of the equipment operational. How about the rise of a competent, Belgium army. Maybe your country should try that.
1
Europe’s relationship to the US on defense has long been like that of a teenager. Wanting to Make choices and demands like a free and equal adult while the parents pay all the bills.
After decades of being pushed to take a fair share of respinsibility, they have become the indolent sponging 26 year old who will neither move out nor pay rent. It is high time for the Europeans to become anxious about our willingness to allow ourselves to be abused.
The German public’s attitude towards Putin and Xi is likewise classic adolescent psychology. Disappointed with parents discovered to be imperfect, they rebel and “show them” by flirting with the wolves their parents have been keeping at bay.
If Europe is going to self destruct by refusing to value freedom enough to defend it, ultimately we can’t stop them and this time there should be no American rescue. Not enough thermal underwear? Have they no memory of December 1941 outside Moscow? Sadly, it is likely that the closest thing the Europeans have had to an European Army in modern times was the SS, with service from many nationalities.
8
@KBronson
Imperial hubris. At best, immaturity, and weak American propaganda.
The US actively sabotaged European defence for decades, pushing NATO, keeping Europe divided and dependent on the US in order to push US leadership in Europe. Military industrial complex would have it no other way.
Reality is the US spends what it likes on "defence" and Europeans don't owe you squat. France kicked you out in the 60s, Germany should have done the same.
14
@KBronson I think the Marshall Plan had this all figured out. You don't think the US was looking for dependency from our allies after WWII? I'll bet it was part of the planning for what came next.
2
Wow! You need to revisit History of WWII. Also, you need to “squat” and think through just what role France took in defending itself against the Germans. The Yanks had to go “Over There, Over There” twice. Be a little more respectful even though DeGaulle showed no respect after Eisenhower gave him the honor to march under the Arc de Triomphe after a lot of American blood had flowed for France.
1
Part of this is that Germany has just recently come to realize that Putin is not the passive technocrat Europe was once hoping for. Putin’s actions in Ukraine and in his cyber offense aimed at destabilizing democracies across the world have opened the eyes of its sleepy populace. As this article rightly points out, whether or not the European,s get out of their beds and into a uniform remains to be seen. With Britain France and Germany under discord of its own making, now would be an excellent opportunity for Putin to exploit. This is also not a time for America to start withdrawing into an isolationist stance.
6
It's odd that they would put in the effort and money to create an EU army when all the US was asking for was more money. Europe is too polite, soft, inexperienced, diverse, and cliquish to conjure an elite fighting force. Even the article itself notes Germans and the Dutch are closer than other members of the EU. Fraught with miscommunication. Smarten up and pay us your fair share.
5
@Chad
This comment is factually incorrect and I don't see why it was allowed to be posted. The US isn't asking for any money, and it won't get any AT ALL. Europeans have no say in US defence spending. If you don't like it, then ask your representative to send US troops home from Europe.
2
The article should focus more on the current issues at stake.
Estonia for instance. With on third of the population being russian, it would be very easy for Russia to re-re-re-annex Estonia and let the Russian minority re-re-re-become the master's quislings and re-re-re-crush the Estonians
Will Tallinn be the next Gdansk ?
I doubt it but I also hope that enough volunteers will join the europeans legions to fight for europe as the Estonians did in 1944-1950.
7
@Komrad: You're absolutely right but these kind of issues are not only to fight with armed forces. The baltic issues need some political and social effort. The russian populiation should feel as part of baltic and especially EU citizenship.
2
Western Europe has built a liberal democracy full of social programs without paying to protect its freedoms. Past US administrations have allow this. If the Europeans want to build a true robust military, they will find it more expensive than 2% of GDP (i.e., Nato membership expectations). They may try and buy Russian friendship, but will find out Putin's version of friendships comes with many more strings attached including being passive to the Russian version of a World Order.
7
@Rod
The US actively sabotaged European defence for decades, pushing NATO, keeping Europe divided on the issue with the a lot of help from the British, and therefore dependent on the US in order to push US leadership in Europe. The US military industrial complex would have it no other way.
Reality is the US spends what it likes on "defence" and Europeans don't owe you squat. France kicked you out in the 60s, had Germany done the same we'd be much further along in the process by now.
Maybe now we'll get that job done, thanks to Trump's (lack of) "leadership"?
#BuhBye!
5
@Andy
The US did push for the creation of NATO after two disastrous world wars left Europe in ruins and on the verge of being overrun by the Soviets. Although imperfect the alliance has prevented a fighting war on European soil for decades. The need for a combined defense treaty is still necessary, however, it may be time to have Europeans take on the responsibility and cost of such an endeavour.
2
@Jim
Europe would have its own defence today were it not for US interference, aided and abetted by their lap dog the UK.
But you appear to have missed that point entirely, preferring to put your hands on your ears and eyes and repeat "there's no place like home". From all appearances in this comments thread, that does appear to be the highest form of rhetorical argument a US education provides today. Except we aren't in Kansas and don't drink that KoolAid over here.
Best regards.
4
The hundreds of thousands US TROOPS who have served and continue to this day to serve, many paying the ultimate price, over two world wars and a long Cold War have had to ask themselves the same question.
2
Dual citizenship is a questionable proposition in any context and perspective. But in the armed forces of any nation state it goes to the essence of citizenship aka brave honorable loyal patriotism.
Why does America allow dual citizenship?
Why can persons who are not citizens serve in the American armed forces?
3
If you are going to compare flyable planes let’s look at the number of F35’s that evacuated from Tyndall AFB during Hurricane MIchael and the number of unflyables destroyed on the ground. Now we are going to spend multi billions to rebuild the base and get new equipment in time for the next storm. I will bet our non operational rate is not much different than Europe’s.
6
@Rich
Someone should be court martial Ed for failing to protect those aircraft.
1
It is deeply troubling that Europeans see America as a larger threat than Russia or China. It is troubling on the European side for not recognizing the value and duration of the Transatlantic partnership and American willingness to expend our blood and treasure to defend European freedom. It is troubling from the American side, given that we elect inconsistent leadership that has given Europeans reason to fear our commitment to our closest allies in this new century.
Europe and America share a commitment to our deepest held values. History will view our partnership as one of the most important contributors to human progress in any age.
America must remain devoted to our liberal democratic allies across the globe, full stop. But by the same token, Europe needs to face their geopolitical reality with a sober mind and get real on defense. A continent consisting of some of the richest, most prosperous, most influential countries on Earth (who also happen to share a commitment to the values of liberty and human dignity) can no longer afford to neglect defense in hopes that the nefarious actors of the world ignore Europe and/or "play nice". Russia and China would like nothing more than having a Europe that cannot assert itself in global affairs. Ukraine/Crimea was a perfect example of European military ineffectiveness. The EU is unable to project its influence beyond its borders. That is a problem.
27
@Jffff
The US actively sabotaged European defence for decades, pushing NATO, keeping Europe divided on the issue with the a lot of help from the British, and therefore dependent on the US in order to push US leadership in Europe. The US military industrial complex would have it no other way.
Reality is the US spends what it likes on "defence" and Europeans don't owe you squat. France kicked you out in the 60s, had Germany done the same we'd be much further along in the process by now.
Maybe now we'll get that job done, thanks to Trump's (lack of) "leadership"?
#BuhBye!
5
@Jffff
Trump is actually showing Europe that sharing a common set of values is not enough in the face of economic prowesses.
There is no point in waving this flag any more, or the antisemitism flag, or the anti komintern flag or whatever...
It just shows that Trump will let europe down in favor of chinese or arab deals...Fair enough but do call a spade a spade...Stop buying F35's ( they are even more rigged than a huawei 5G network) and support STM against Intel..
3
@Jffff
I could easily agree to your picture and, indeed, I would welcome any improved relation between you and us.
fact is the US have a big military complex, which needs "business", something we Europeans and especially Germans heartfully don't need. I read in respect of this article about war, what we are heading for is defence - not more. And the weEuropeans have to improve.
The attac to Uckraine touched Europe, as this state was heading towards to closer ties to Europe and Nato. Europe had no commitment to engage there with forces,but as far as neutral governments could act did happen.
In case of an attac to Estonia soil it would be e complete different issue.
Maybe we can enjoy one or more beers together, after USA finds the exit to the civilised world. You would be more than welcome.
5
Some EU countries have excellent standing Armies with modern equipment. Germany however under spends knowing the US will gallop to the rescue -ever expecting a free ride while they support their car industries and precision exports at the expense of their EU partners.
6
@LK Mott
"Germany however under spends knowing the US will gallop to the rescue -ever expecting a free ride"--Are you stating a fact or an opinion?
"...they support their car industries and precision exports at the expense of their EU partners." --Again, bashing Germany without basis, aren't we?
5
@LK Mott
It's posters like this that make me think Putin had nothing to do with Trump's election. It seems Americans will always choose opinion over fact, they shot themselves in the foot!
4
@Someone Without basis? I am not bashing Germany, just stating the obvious and remind you the Marshall Plan rebuilt Western Germany, gratis. France gratefully paid back the US to rebuild. West Germany has had a free ride for decades. They can thank us American for buying their cars en mass even though they lied and cheated on the emissions testing. Germany should up their contribution so that at the very least to pay what they had originally agreed to do so under NATO.
1
Trump is actually right about this one. Why is the US expected to defend Europe when Europe should be quite capable to defend itself?
9
Trump threatens to leave NATO because "we can't afford to" while vastly increasing the already crippling US military budget.
At some point the US must truly put its people before this insane charade.
3
Ms. Bennhold seems to dismiss somewhat off-handedly the experience of the Franco-German Brigade, alluded to by some of fellow commentators. It might be interesting to note that the Brigade was on peace keeping mission on the Balkans, in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. Also, they were on duty in Afghanistan. However, it suffered from political dissent on the political level when Germany refused to be involved more actively in the Mali peace keeping mission.
The integration is in no way as close as in the German-Dutch case since on the second tier regimental and batallion level there is almost no integration, although some units are stationed in the sister country. Only the logistic batallion is integrated down to the company level. Easing the integration in the Dutch German case is the fact that the Dutch normally speak German (actually, you'll find a lot of Dutch who speak English and French, too). That linguistic mingling seems to be lacking in the Franco-German Brigade.
4
Not many Dutch speak German. Nearly all of them speak English quite well, except for those >70 years old. Many of the younger Germans speak English very well. The Dutch and Germans typically converse in English. French folk seem to stick with French. This is my experience as being married to a Dutch for 5 years and traveling over there several times.
5
@Vítor Luís Antunes Coutinho
It´s not only a matter of national culture.
In the Cold War Dutch brigades were integrated in the former NATO ("Zebra-Zones") structure in North German Plain. All units had to ensure exactly the same operational procedures and principles there. German, Dutch, Belgian and British military units used to do this kind of job since the seventies. The new aspect about this binational battalion is simply to do this job within a joint military unit. This is certainly a far reaching conversion but what they do in this unit is very close to what they did before. It could also work with Belgians, Danish and to some extent with British because of different equipment.
In history French army never was integrated in this NATO framework due to the special position of France in NATO. In presence general duties of French army are still - more and more - different to the duty of the modern Dutch army because of French interests in Africa and overseas.
2
The Eurocorps HQ multinational Battalion, 400 members from Germany, Spain, France and Belgium is more than 15 years old, it was deployed in Kabul in 2004 to provide support to ISAf HQ, is the oldest multinational unit in Europe. The moto of Eurocorps is “a Force for Europe and NATO”.
8
It would be great if they actually defended themselves instead of relying entirely on us.
Even Obama called Europe “free riders” and was so aggravated at them that he instituted an “anti free rider campaign”. Too bad, like his red line, it was toothless, the Europeans kept on ripping us off.
Glad Trump is actually doing something about it. He should actually set a hard deadline - all NATO countries have exactly one year to hit the 2% minimum, or else the US is out and you can defend yourselves.
11
Just watch the reaction of the Republican hawks and the US military, if the Europeans tell the US to leave all the bases we have there.
Look at the hand wringing going on about getting troops out of Syria and Iraq. The US military-industrial complex resists any effort at reducing US military presence anywhere in the world.
8
@Ron...Ron you have a point about the military industrial complex exerting influence over military decisions.
1
The premise in the second sub-headline: "The US threat to withdraw the security blanket, if Europe does not pay more", is wrong. The threat is withdrawing the security blanket regardless how much Europe pays.
3
The German military already has too few soldiers, too little equipment and faces shortages of just about everything, even thermal underwear, which in some cases is being reclassified as “functional” so that it can be reused by others.
The word "functional" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. It's unclear that what you are (probably) talking about is *used* thermal underwear, that normally would be disposed of, but, because it is being classified a different way (what was its classification before?) it can be reused.
2
Conventional war in Europe? In the words of the Pres "probably unlikely". A few tanks are just for the show. Nuclear, likewise. Cyber warfare? Ongoing, with a tendency to intensify rapidly. And let's not forget drones! Very versatile.
1
Somehow the narrative persists with American journalists but also some European experts that America is propping up European defense and paying for it.
That was true in the 50s through 70s, but that earned America undisputed worldwide political and economic leadership and made the dollar the US currency.
But has anyone looked at the current numbers before repeating the tale about American tax dollars?
These days, the US has 1.36 million professional troops, out of which less than 200,000 are stationed outside of the US. Who needs 1.1 million troops at home to defend a country with no land borders to enemy countries?
About 50,000 are stationed in Europe, out of these 30,000 in Germany and about 10,000 each in the UK and Italy. They are manning bases that serve as important hubs for the theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq (ever hear of Rammstein air base and Landstuhl hospital). One could argue that they serve US interests more than German, even if the German government pays for upgrades to the infrastructure, such as building a new hospital.
On the other hand, the Russians have 1 million troops, but many of these are poorly equipped and treated draftees, and only 200,000 in all are in Western command. Germany alone has 200,000 active professional troops, as do all the big countries in Europe plus considerable number in the smaller countries. There is more than adequate conventional troops in Europe to discourage any Russian adventures.
42
@Eric....OH good news....how soon can U.S. troops leave then...tomorrow maybe ?
2
@DP asks "how soon can U.S. troops leave then."
As soon as the US no longer want to secure its world wide interests, like access to resources, domination, etc.
The US does NOT have military bases world wide because we are nice and protective.
4
The European nations that do not wish to become Russian vassals are on a short time table to create and support a unified and very convincing defense force, one that counterbalances every weapons system facing them to the east. The old system of depending on the US, dating back 70+ years, has outlived its time. Trump, in his crude and undignified way, is only stating what we all must realize as true.
It can be done. Those nations, collectively, outweigh Russia in military aged populations, industrial capacity and technical know-how. The way is there. What is needed is the will.
A parallel situation exists on the other side of the Eurasian land mass -- for South Korea and Japan in facing up to a militant North Korea.
11
Well. Where to start?
Maybe I limit myself to two comments.
US protection of Germany did not come for free. Germany was an occupied country until 1990 with a large US military footprint that was also used for US strategic interests that had nothing to do with Germany. Even today Germany pays the entire infrastructure for the US military presence and I remember very well the recklessness of the US troops during their exercises. Fields were flattened and the US just pointed to the German state for compensation. Even criminal offences of American soldiers could not be prosecuted.
Maybe it would be helpful to charge rent to the US military for their 39 facilities in Germany, a concept that Trump will certainly understand.
Secondly, once more a US publication shows zero knowledge of German history. In the first world war German soldiers from different states did not mix. Saxons, Prussians and Bavarians formed separate units under separate commands. I doubt that with their strong local dialects they would have communicated with each other easily but there were also different military traditions and approaches. So nothing new here.
And we should not forget that the Americans and their favourite military partner, the British, are deeply divided by a common language - to the point where more British soldiers were killed by the US military than by the Iraqis in the Iraq war.
44
@Ronald Grünebaum Excellent and 100% correct. I remember an article about the NATO contribution: Take the US NATO share and compare it with the rest - well, not far apart. There is a Franco-German Brigade, not only the Dutch and a common European Defense Force was blocked by the British - why?
9
@Ronald Grünebaum
We did not occupy Germnay after the establishment of the Federal Republic. The US Constabulary was to be withdrawn until it became apparent that Stalin was not going to set up free elections & leave eastern Europe.
After the German government re-established their armed force they were integrated into the common defense. We trained together for the defense of Germany & Europe under the joint agreements of NATO allies.
Relative to crimial offenses, you are simply wrong. I was a Soldier in Germany and we were explicity told that outside the gate we were subject to German laws- period. On post it was different. There was a status of forces agreement made between Germany & the US that defined the relationship down to the employment of spouses.
Relative to the bases, the US spent far more in the operation & upkeep of the bases than the rents agreed upon. The US hired German civilians to do all manner of work at the expense of the US Taxpayer. German companies were contracted to do construction paid for by the US. Soldiers, Airmen & their families living off base in private sector housing "on the economy" paid rent and used utilities that went directly into the German economy. We also paid taxes on many items. If your intent is to imply that the US was living upon the largesse of the German taxpayer you are quite wrong.
This is after literally feeding Germany after the war. CARE Packages and all.
You are welcome. The Soviets went home and we did as well.
6
@Wolf The British view is that a European Army is unnessessary political idea and distracts from NATO. Why have a seperate Army and command structure?
2
Uh, technically, the Russians would die for Europe too, since a part of Russia is in Europe.
3
It is a good initiative ! Obviously it is easier for a Dutch to speak German. But for an European army, I have some difficulties to believe it, when we talk different languages
However, why not at least to create a European council of Defence, independently of Europe Union and in which even Great Britain could integrate, able to determine who and how intervene in case of conflict.
No illusion about USA which is losing interest about Europe.
3
@Jean-Michel Micheal.....just to be sure we all understand. We are losing interest ONLY in the unfair load Americans pull in European defenses....The other stuff...like traveling, spending, buying, marriages and so forth....still interested.
1
Its very unlikely we'll have full blown war in Europe, however there are a number of countries, from Latvia and Estonia in the north down to the Balkans that are vulnerable to a rolling threat from Russia. There is only really one European country with a decent military - the UK - and we don't have a large land army. Germany, in particular, has let its armed forces run right down, as, to a lesser extent, have France and Italy. This has less to do with the US and more to do with a downtrodden Russia, which is no longer the case - by some distance
16
@Richard
Germany had the caricature of an army in 1933 and was a capable aggressor on a continental scale 6 years later.
Germany has enough population, industrial potential, and military clout to fight its corner when needed.
There is no reason to keep a large military in peace times. Rather to the contrary: the excessive military capacity of the USA shows that war is too easily considered an option when the military-industrial complex dominates politics.
43
@Ronald Grünebaum Well said.
2
@Ronald Grünebaum
The trouble is it can't do it from a standing start.
I hardly think Russia is going to give three years notice of invading somewhere
8
Figures mentioned about size of german defence are not comparable. In the last decades the base of professional military was on average 180.000 heads, filled up with consript army serving just 5 to15 month after 1990. The military share of GDP was 31 billion in 1990 and 44 billion 2018.
I fully agree this is definately not enough and I would welcome a growing EU army, however without nuclear power, which could be maintained by France and UK.
5
The question should be would you die for corporate greed. All wars boil down to the psychopathic greed of the very few and of course none of them are ever put in harms way.
27
@MDM...Was Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan...were they corporations ?
1
@DP Do some research about WW2 plenty of corporations made fortunes off of the war, including American corporations that helped Hitler.
The idea that central and Western Europe faces a threat of invasion from Russia is preposterous. Russia doesn't have the money and manpower to occupy Ukraine and Poland, let alone all the way to the Netherlands. European military spending should not be more like US levels. The US should be more like Europe. Germany and Netherlands are among the safest nations on earth. They do not need to turn themselves into military states.
69
@Peter - Russia will not invade Western Europe, but it will, as with the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, "nibble" at the edges. Putin wants to recreate a Russia that is the former Soviet Union, incorporating Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic States. Since the United States seems at this point ready to withdraw, a European Army is the answer.
On a slightly different note, from a military history viewpoint the integration of the various armies, such as the Dutch and the German, is like the combination of various National Guard units into World War I divisions in the United States (such as the "Rainbow" and the "All American"). These units remembered their regimental histories, and some of them had fought one another in the Civil War!
9
@Peter, thank you for reminding us of Chamberlain's famous line that it's Poland that is threatened not Western Europe.
11
@DoctorRPP Firstly, it is 2019. Not 1939. Nuclear powers do not invade other nuclear powers. The standards of living are vastly higher, which makes the cost of war vastly higher. No rich country is going to shed blood and fight for eastern europe. And nor should they. The only thing worse than a regional war is a continental or global war.
4
I think it's a very good start, and you have to start somewhere. One really obvious question that no one seems to be asking. Why are we asking Europe to pay us for defense while we do it for Israel for free and even give them almost 4 billion a year for the honor? Some of that money could be used to help the European military establish itself and thus take pressure off the U.S. to handle any and all aggression from other powers Europe may face.
81
@C. Bernard Apples to oranges. You seem to have forgotten to mention that 95%+ of the annual aid needs to be spent within the United States, and in return, the US receives in essence an immovable aircraft carrier in the heart of the Middle East with no need to station troops in the country. On the other hand, the US military has over 60,000 troops physically stationed throughout Europe. I wonder how much that costs the US taxpayer per year, or better yet, for the seven decades they've been based there?
6
@C. Bernard
If Israel were a US state, it would rank 48th, between New Jersey and Connecticut.
The EU is smaller than the US, lacking The vast wilds of Alaska and the Western deserts, but has 180 million more people.
Europe outnumbers its adversaries. Israel is vastly outnumbered by hers.
3
@C. Bernard they have a very good and effective lobby. and they do control a lot of things.
6
There is no way to deny Europe’s free security umbrella. Trump is not as insinuatingly subtle as a EuroZone bureaucrat, but he is right, we cannot afford to keep safe people who don’t feel threatened and don’t want to pay or exert themselves to maintain their socialist societies.
A “European” army is a bit of theater to convince the few who actually care about European security that something is being done. Want to see what a “European” army would look like and how effective it would be? Look at the Austro-Hungarian Army; commands given in almost 20 languages and dialects, confused command structure, military units refusing to serve outside their regional base, and refusal of units to obey orders not given by officers from their own region in and in the proper language. An Army denied funds for equipment and training until just before the war. The Army fought and won a few early battles, but was largely defeated in detail after the first 14 months of WWl. And on the issue of thermal underwear, the Dual Monarchy’s troops were issued paper underwear.
6
@DEH writes: "exert themselves to maintain their socialist societies"
which "socialist societies"?
Read about the NATO member states in the CIA Factbook to correct your faulty impression.
1
It continues to amaze me how clueless European politicians are when it comes to safety and security.
These politicians have not learned one thing from the ongoing migrant crisis. Not one new law that defines a comprehensive solution to prevent this human trafficking or that demands the speedy repatriation of refugees who have had their asylum request denied by the courts.
On national defense, politicians here don't know the concept. They have always relied on the United States to tell them what to do.
12
@Ex New Yorker
It seems that the flux of migrants has been shut down now. By more intelligent means than walls and military hardware.
The US approach to problems is almost always to send people in uniforms and kill the brown man.
Because Europe has a far more complex neighbourhood solutions needs to be smart. There isn't anything to be learned from the USA these days.
9
@Ex New Yorker American led interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria created the refugee crisis. and the EU/NATO gang reaped the unintended benefits.
4
There is another binational unit: the German-French/French-German Brigade that is integrated into Eurocorps and dates back to 1989.
3
@Max In the Franco-German brigade the binational integration is limited to brigade level. At battalion and company level French and Germans remain segregated. Even when they go on mission together, say to Mali, they live in camps 3km apart and do very different things (the germans training the Malian army, the French hunting terrorists). Very different picture from the deep tactical integration in Dutch-German battalion where soldiers from two countries ride in the same tank...
5
The French better learn some English then ;)
In all seriousness though, I agree that a European army would be a good thing. Never mind the Trump administration, which is bound to go away at some point, a stronger EU means a stronger NATO and "western" world.
Given the shameful change of direction made by China under Xi Jinping, and the ever more aggressive stance of Russia in eastern Europe, the EU must find the courage and motivation to overcome its petty differences and work towards common goals.
29
We love to Speak English, if we can make the world a better place
Bonne journée
11
@Marcello Dini
It should be the other way round !!
3
We have not any other choice but to build an european army, as soon as possible. Integrated strategic and tactical command could be the best way leading to an european army. It have already a name :NATO.
14
With all due respect for otherwise excellent reporting, it is hard go see how tank battalions will make much of a difference in the evolving tensions between Russia and Europe.
The real danger points are the cyberbattles going on 24/7 as we speak and the threat of little green men showing up in the Baltics.
Also, as a payer of European taxes, I would like to see more money go to the French nuclear Force de Frappe which in today's world is the real guarantor of European security.
14
Perhaps a UN peacekeeping force in Eastern Ukraine comprised of volunteers from EU member states under rotating European command could be another step towards a security force for Europe. Ukraine has called for UN peacekeepers and Russia has not rejected the idea although there has been disagreement about where the peacekeepers would be situated.
Europe has security problems that could worsen as climate change advances. Ukraine offers the opportunity to respond to a genuine need rather than an exercise. A European staffed force would not be NATO. A European peacekeeping force operating within the framework of the UN and paid for by Europe could address European security concerns without stressing Germany's reluctance to take the path of a military power. A European peacekeeping force under the EU Commission but operating within the UN framework would also strengthen the UN at a time that some UN functions are under attack by the Trump administration.
A European peacekeeping force would also raise the question of reforms in the UN itself, not just the strengthening of European security. If the EU becomes a significant factor in the capacity of the UN to address conflicts it would stand to reason that the EU should become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Perhaps president Macron could advance a European unity and security agenda by facilitating the seat of France becoming the seat of the EU on the Security Council?
3
The irony of it all! The UK is in the process of leaving the European Union, and yet English is the common language that the Europeans in a European army will share. My hope is that peace will reign.
21
@Dfkinjer
Latin was THE official language in Europe long after the Romans had vanished.
English can be the common language of a european army long after the US have been nuked by the Iranians !! Lol
1
@Komrad....Well since the Europeans LOVE communist China...English is likely to be replaced by Mandarin (not cantonese). Maybe Russian...I get the feeling that Europe is just tired of defending itself given thier history. Will likely roll over if attacked....Better RED than DEAD....
This article inadvertently demonstrates a major underlying issue with the whole discourse alleging a lack of military preparedness in Europe, and in Germany in particular. It claims to be about common defense - but then the truth breaks through several times when the piece argues that Germany must overcome its reluctance for intervention and similar assertions. This is a bit funny, because a major reason for equipment and personnel problems in the German armed forces is that the money gets spent on ... interventions instead, and it’s a bit hard to attract volunteers to die not for Europe, or Germany - but for ill-defined geostrategic interests and in far flung operations that go on and on simply because nobody can figure out how to end them.
42
@Christian Haesemeyer NATO is hammer in the american empire foreign policy tool box. it outlived its mission when the berlin wall came down. EU will be better off with its own defense forces.
1