The United States has always occupied a preeminent position in NATO due to its vast military and financial resources (the table provides a useful comparison). Apart from the United States, the bulk of NATO combat power was historically provided by the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. But much has changed in recent decades. Are Germany, France, and the United Kingdom capable of deploying heavy ground forces in a timely response to the eruption of a major military confrontation with Russia? Are there other important hard power contributors to NATO?3
The short answers to his questions are all “no”. Of the most powerful countries only the United Kingdom has the highest level of preparedness (I was wrong in thinking that only France was). Germany’s military is a charade. Even the UK’s military is greatly reduced in its ability to project force.
The most reasonable conclusions are that they don’t really think that Russia is an existential threat but they wouldn’t object to the United States shouldering a disproportionate share of the responsibility for defending our allies. I question whether we can without the industrial base to support us. My claim is that military power is downstream from industrial strenght.
I still think my question is the right one: what would it take to bring the militaries of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom up to the necessary level of preparedness and strength. 2% of their GDPs? 5%? The erosion certainly can’t be remediated in the short term.
“I question whether we can without the industrial base to support us. My claim is that military power is downstream from industrial strenght.”
Yes, especially if you acknowledge strategic materials as part of industrial strength.
I still think my question is the right one: what would it take to bring the militaries of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom up to the necessary level of preparedness and strength. 2% of their GDPs? 5%? “
Certainly more than they are willing to spend.
“The erosion certainly can’t be remediated in the short term.”
Because they won’t spend, true by definition. You can only do it over an extended timeframe.
Governments have spent so much effort on income or service handouts and the inefficiencies that are attendant to such bureaucracies, and the social engineering efforts, that they have no room for real government functions like infrastructure or national defense.
For France, you probably confused the Foreign Legion with the Regular Army. Unless they have changed, nobody is going to let the Foreign Legion operate on European soil, but they would get the job done.
The US had bases with equipment, armaments, munitions, and troops stationed in Europe during the Cold War. Not enough to win, but enough to provide a holding action until equipment, armaments, munitions, and troops from the US could arrive.
The US had bases with equipment, armaments, munitions, and troops, plus an industrial base. It is all gone, and we have smart bombs, drones, and historically ignorant elites.
With a civilian industrial base, it takes about 3 – 6 months to re-tool a facility for wartime production. The raw good acquisition need to be readjusted for wartime production. The “My Little Pony” factory is now producing .50 cal receivers, and the material for the tail is now being used for kevlar vests.
As you note industrial base is a problem, but it is the problem. They could spend 20% or 200% of GDP. Where are they (or us) going to get the equipment, armaments, and munitions to supply the troops?
Training will take a minimum of 3 – 6 months depending upon the quality, longer for better troops. After Vietnam, the US military prefers to rotate entire units, but for a major conflict, this will probably be a luxury not possible. So, replacements will be sent into existing units, and these replacements can get some of their training on-the-job.
Of course, this is not the Hollywood version. No, a few smart bombs, some drones, no civilian casualties, hospitals magically protected, and the losing populace that realizes that “the American way” is best for all.
Too bad the Afghani transwoman realized it was bullshit on her way down from being thrown off a building for “the American way”. Honestly, you all sicken me.
(It is too bad President Biden cannot hire the French Foreign Legion. Then, you disloyal f-ckers would not get within a buttstock radius.)
Because these are democracies, seems reasonable to conclude the voters don’t see a threat either. From press and family contacts, a military career is not viewed highly, while the Bundeswehr frets over whether their enlistees are patriotic and so right wing. then lets throw in declining birth rates.
You are wrong about UK. With only 70,000 army troops they at most field one or two brigades. (The ratio of logistical to combat troops is about 10 to 1.) They will be poorly trained and equipped, and what little transport capability Britain has will not be able to sustain them. (About 8 transport aircraft like the C 130.)
NATO is a sham military alliance. And in the era of industrial warfare, they and the US have no industry. The hegemon torch has been passed to Russia-China (always one country). The US has to find a way to submit gracefully, and unannounced, if we are to avoid nuclear war on a grand scale. Fat chance, with our current Ruling Caste.
Seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. NATO is a shambles and wouldn’t be able to protect itself. OTOH, all you guys seem to want to believe that Russia had to invade Ukraine to protect itself from NATO.
Steve
I don’t think that. I think the Russians think that and, for reasons I don’t understand, we’re doing our best to convince them it’s true.
My impression is that you think that Russians’ national interests are illegitimate. My view is that the Russians’ interests are the Russians’ interests. See the distinction?
My view is that Russian opinion is not based upon reality, if indeed NATO is their primary concern. The Russian belief is delusional. There is no evidence that NATO is interested in invading Russia. Russia knows that as they can easily see the number of troops and where they are stationed. They have a pretty good idea of the readiness of European troops if they read public sources, or even your blog. The publicly expressed fears about NATO are just an excuse to do what they appear to want according to what Putin claims ie re-establish the empire. That is the Russian interest.
Inasmuch as NATO might act to stop the spread of empire, then it’s a threat.
Steve
There’s evidence. All of the major members of NATO have invaded Russia in the past. That doesn’t mean that I agree with them. But their belief is not entirely without basis.
Dave Schuler: There’s evidence. All of the major members of NATO have invaded Russia in the past.
That’s the reason why the political right in Russia so easily accepts the lies. NATO clearly doesn’t have a military aggressive capability. As you have pointed out, NATO can barely maintain military readiness. Even if it were true, that doesn’t mean aggressive expansionism is the best policy going forward.