anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Finland has a bad ass military. Poland has been beefing up. GB isn’t bad. They’ve had experience losing along with the U.S. in Iraq.The article with the title of this thread was published today on Scheerpost, written by Kit Klarenberg, who I've come to think is quite good. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of his article:
**
On April 23rd, Politico published an extraordinary article, “The US cavalry isn’t coming”, documenting in forensic detail the extent to which European defence planning and infrastructure has for decades been exclusively “built on the assumption of American support,” and “speeding American reinforcements to the frontlines.” Now, “the prospect of that not happening is throwing military mobility plans into disarray,” and the continent “stands alone” – defenceless, directionless, and bereft of solutions to the disastrous results of their prostration to US hegemony over many decades.
The article begins with a subpar stab at fantasy fiction, sketching a nightmare scenario that erupts during March 2030. “In the early spring mist”, a multi-pronged Russian attack commences against Lithuania and Poland, sending foreign soldiers posted there scrambling for cover, as “allied countries rush to respond.” But while Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the Nordics mobilise their militaries for the task, “there is one stark absence”:
“Leaders and soldiers alike look westward, to the ocean, hoping for the warships that have always come to Europe’s rescue over the past century. But the sea offers only silence. The Americans aren’t coming. Donald Trump’s second presidency has ended the United States’ commitment to European defense.”
Of course, Trump has not extricated Washington from NATO – yet. “But what happens if America abandons Europe?”, Politico reports, is a troubling question reverberating with ever-increasing urgency throughout Western corridors of power. The answer highlights an “uncomfortable reality” – “without US support, moving troops across Europe would be slower, costlier and hampered by a patchwork of logistical bottlenecks.” In the event of all-out war, these shortcomings “might not just be inefficient”, but “could be fatal”.
Politico goes on to paint a romantic portrait, evoking a Hollywood portrayal of the Normandy landings. It claims that since NATO’s 1949 founding, “one of the key roles of the alliance’s European members has been to resist an invasion while the US gathered its immense power and sent troops, equipment and supplies across the Atlantic to win the longer war.” The outlet notes numerous historic ports were structured to greet Europe’s American saviours, who would then “use roads and rail to head toward the fighting.”
However, “planners never envisioned a NATO without the US, and for decades, Europe’s military logistics have been built on the assumption of American support.” Much of the continent’s transport infrastructure has thus been “shaped by the expectation that US reinforcements would arrive from across the Atlantic,” and “both legacy and new military mobility projects rest on the premise that the Americans will come.” Of course, the obvious question of whether Washington ever intended to actually fulfil that “premise” is not asked by Politico.
[snip]
Presently, “the only body that arguably holds a full picture of military mobility in Europe” is NATO’s Joint Support and Enabling Command, situated in a German US military base, which “[oversees] routes, choke points and movement planning.” JSEC falls under the authority of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, a position always held by Americans, meaning all European military planning again ultimately “runs through Washington.” Politico reports the Trump administration is now “contemplating handing that role to a European for the first time” since NATO’s founding.
For Politico, this move “[underlines] America’s dwindling interest in European defense” – a testament to how “if the Americans don’t ultimately show up” in the event of a war, none of “the corridors, the ports, nor the meticulously crafted logistics” constructed to defend against Russian invasion “may stand a chance.” After all, “the ships and planes they count on could remain parked thousands of miles away.” The outlet concludes by cautioning:
In a sense, NATO’s constantly growing membership has always been “preparing for the wrong conflict”. The “US cavalry” European countries have been promised for decades would come to their rescue in the event of war was, by design, never going to arrive. On April 24th, The Times quietly reported Britain was not only scrapping plans to deploy troops to Ukraine, but had “always” considered the risk of doing so “too high”, with her forces “inadequate for such a task.”
This followed months of bombastic, bellicose pronouncements from Keir Starmer. He variously declared himself “ready and willing to put British troops in Ukraine,” was prepared for them to remain there “indefinitely”, and would even commit fighter jets to policing the country’s skies. All these undertakings were contingent on US forces providing a “backstop”, which Washington repeatedly made clear wouldn’t happen. If other European leaders have likewise finally woken up to NATO’s reality, then perhaps their fantasies of keeping the conflict grinding on will likewise crumble.
**
Full article:
NATO Fraud Exposed: Europe Defenceless Without ‘US Cavalry’
Leaders and soldiers alike look westward, to the ocean, hoping for the warships that have always come to Europe’s rescue over the past century. But the sea offers only silence.scheerpost.com
Germany’s the Weak Man of Europe but they have some nice fighter jets.
Russia is at an *almost* stalemate with Ukraine who uses second hand and surplus weapons from nato.
