NATO

[OPSSG]

1. This latest US move in a decision made by Trump is not good for the alliance. Moving troops out of key NATO country, out of petty spite, is another step the Trump has taken to strengthen Putin’s hand in the region. See: Trump Undercuts Pentagon Over Germany Troop Withdrawal

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288508772596547584

2. Making US taxpayers pay billions for this flawed policy is absurd.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288569583247515648

3. Germany does not owe a 2% fee to NATO. Every country spends its own defence budget to protect itself. Some spend more, some less. A country’s defence budget is not owed to NATO or the Americans. Trump’s ire has been so relentless and damaging that U.S. allies in Asia and Europe now question the United States’ ability to restore itself as a credible security guarantor, even after a different president is in the White House. The damage Trump is doing to US Alliances in this latest move is going to be hard to undo —
Saving America's Alliances | Foreign Affairs

4. The 2% is recommended guideline for percentage of GDP a country should spend on defence, not a cumulative military fund. It’s an American choice to spend around 4% of GDP on defence. I cannot tell if Trump is too stupid to understand NATO, or lying.

 

[ngatimozart]

The 2% is recommended guideline for percentage of GDP a country should spend on defence, not a cumulative military fund. It’s an American choice to spend around 4% of GDP on defence. I cannot tell if Trump is too stupid to understand NATO, or lying.

I think it's a combination of both. This is a "punishment" of Germany in Trumps eyes but I don't think so and if anything I think will just drive a wedge between Europe and the US, which only serves two people; Putin and Xi.

 

[kato]

I think will just drive a wedge between Europe and the US

Merkel's statement on the withdrawal back in June was: "We grew up thinking the USA wanted to be a world power. Should the USA no longer want to be that we will have to reevaluate the transatlantic relationship." No further comment from her needed really.

Friedrich Merz (conservative hawk positioning himself as a candidate for her succession) today tweeted - in response to Trump's latest accusations - that "we don't owe anything to the USA, we owe something to common security", on Trumps diversion regarding Germany buying "energy" from Russia further elaborating that Nord Stream 2 is something Germany will only discuss with its European allies.

 

[spoz]

The Europeans aren’t the audience for this; but it plays to the only audience that matters to him in the run up to the election. Since when has truth stood in the way of that imperative? In reality, it’s a tiny move of no strategic importance. The optics at home are what counts to him, and it doesn’t really provide any comfort above that already provided to the autocracies.

 

[Terran]

I think to much the German aspect is being played up. Part of this is reshuffling troops from Germany to closer to Russia.
First there are 36,000 active US troops in Germany. Closer to 47,000 When you count reserves.
Of that 6,400 will return home
Third 5,400 will be moved farther east closer to Russia.
So 11,800 will be moved out of Germany. 24,200 will remain in Germany that’s a pretty good sized force.
I have seen this spun as a “Gift to Putin”. He will now have 5,400 More American troops on his boarder rather than sitting back in Germany drinking pilsners. Only a political Masochistic would consider that a gift.
NATO when established was to secure the allies in Europe okay Western Europe is pretty secure. The boarders with the USSR were prior to 1989 on the line with West Germany. Today the Russian Federation doesn’t share any boarders with Germany. Poland whom is a NATO state (Circa 1999) sits between the two and has what 5500 US forces? If your really worried about Russia than shouldn’t we be more routing for more troops in Poland and Eastern Europe as opposed to Germany?

 

[kato]

Part of this is reshuffling troops from Germany to closer to Russia.

None of the troops are shuffled any closer to Russia. Newly erected V Corps HQ is planned to be placed in Poland, but that's just that: The Corps HQ. No troops. At all. The Corps HQ involves a battalion-sized group stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky (which will remain there) and a company-sized forward-deployed element that was planned to rotationally deploy to Europe - which now, subject to Poland signing a treaty paying for it, will be placed there.

All troops shuffled within Europe will be moved to Italy (52nd Fighter Wing and those 173rd Airborne elements not stationed in Italy already) and to Belgium, concentrating them at SHAPE (HQs from Stuttgart with support units plus the sole US air defense battalion in Germany). The EUCOM/SHAPE concentration is something that their commander seems to have been planning for months anyway, apparently he doesn't want to travel for his double hat.
The decision for Italy is reasoned for as "bringing those troops closer to the Black Sea Region", which proves about every stereotype Europeans have about US geography knowledge.

2SCR will be moved from Germany to the USA, and replaced within Germany by rotationally deployed SBCTs. In other words: Same troops, just costing 30% more money than leaving them in place and being able to claim not to have any combat troops permanently forward-deployed in Germany. Considering 2SCR was previously only actually in Germany half the time and the other half deploying from Germany supporting various US adventures in the Middle East, there isn't really any difference in that either.

 

[Terran]

Nearly 12,000 US Troops Will Pull Out of Germany at Cost of Billions, SecDef Says

The move will cost billions of dollars, according to Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

www.military.com

Major US military units to leave Germany as part of large drawdown to begin within weeks, Esper says

The Pentagon will remove nearly 12,000 troops from Germany, sending thousands of service members home to the United States and shifting others to different locations in Europe, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday.

www.stripes.com

That doesn’t Match up with what I have read. Yes not all are going East but units are moving East and To the BalticS. Yes some to Italy and some to Belgium and some will stay in the UK, but it’s not all. Also Italy for the fighters puts them near the Med a recent... Always hot spot.
As to the rotating SBCT in Germany. I did point out that the lions share over 24,000 will still be in country.
here is the Russian view on it.

Pentagon: US Troops From Germany to Be Repositioned Closer to Russia's Borders

In mid-June, US President Donald Trump announced Washington’s readiness to withdraw about 9,500 American soldiers from Germany after accusing Berlin of being delinquent in its defence spending.

sputniknews.com

Hardly breaking out the Vodka and caviar.
yes a signature is needed on the Poland deal but they were asking for Fort Trump. I think they will happily sign. Seems like if not there Romania will roll out the Red Carpet.

Romania Ready to “Welcome” US Troops Removed From Germany

After the US announced plans to re-deploy troops from Germany, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis on Wednesday said his country would gladly host more American forces.

balkaninsight.com

That would be on the Black Sea unless I am mistaken on geography.

I know it will not be cheap but that’s not the point is it? The US has and will continue to have a strong presence in Germany. But when you consider the map of Europe and how it changed in the last 30 years that heavy emphasis is frankly Cold War. The units there though useful still are less on the front lines and vs any possible action in Europe or Africa more rear line supporting. I get it it’s not a clear cut deal but really to slam it as a gift to Putin or a slight to NATO? Yeah there was a bit of slamming on Germany. Yet I remember a few years back for exercises German troops were mounting black painted broom sticks in machine gun mounts.

 

[kato]

That doesn’t Match up with what I have read.

You can find the official transcript of the press conference here:

Department of Defense Senior Leaders Brief Reporters on European Force Posture

Defense Secretary Dr. Mark T. Esper; Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander of U.S. European Command and NATO's supreme

www.defense.gov

I did point out that the lions share over 24,000 will still be in country.

Rotating forces are not included in the 24,000.

The 24,000 consist primarily of USAFE assets around Ramstein and Landstuhl, the largest US base area outside CONUS and entirely dedicated to supporting US deployments within the EMEA region not relevant in any way to NATO or its mandate.
Beyond that the only troops remaining in Germany are pretty much only 12th CAB assets - about 2,000 men - that are not mentioned in the above document (basically: a single AH-64D battalion at Ansbach and a general aviation battalion with UH-60s at Wiesbaden).

 

[Terran]

EMEA region not relevant in any way to NATO or its mandate

sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it to.
The First AOR Named in that Acronym is Europe, how is that not “Relevant in any way to NATO”?
I mean sure it supports other AOR, yet it’s still in Germany and supporting NATO. They may not be forces in Germany but if it’s in Europe it’s almost guaranteed to be NATO.

 

[swerve]

Are there any Pommy troops in Europe now? I thought that they were pulled out ages ago. ...

They're mostly in Europe. There are a few in the Falklands, Mali, etc., but most are in the UK, which is, as it always has been, in Europe. There's no plan to pull them out. For a start, we don't have enough bases anywhere else to put them.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

I am surprised at how concerned everyone is about a single American President's action. A man that likely won't even be in office in 6 months. A man that obviously made this decision to appeal to his base in a desperate attempt to change the tide in his election. The USA, like every democracy, will have its ups and downs, but in the long run I still think we can all continue to rely on them, just as I hope they will be able to rely on us. Remember, the USA is not just the President, there is an entire Congress and Senate as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all of them have a say in what happens.

I don't particularly like the current President. I believe he is too bombastic and narcissistic for the position. That said, and though he doesn't seem to understand how NATO works, he is correct about how many NATO allies (including my home country) are not committing enough to our mutual defence. It should be pointed out that the 2% goal was set for 2024 (I believe), but many of us are likely not going to reach that goal in time. And his calling the rest of us on this, has helped raise awareness and pushed us closer to the goal.

In the long run, leaders will come and go, but as long as the men and women in service continue to have dialogue between our countries, I think we can count on the saner members to keep the ship moving forward (so to speak).

 

[kato]

It should be pointed out that the 2% goal was set for 2024 (I believe), but many of us are likely not going to reach that goal in time.

The nominal self-obligation that NATO member states signed up to in 2014 was to "aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade". As in, even spending a single cent more every year and failing to hit the guideline by 2024 still meets that goal and fulfills that obligation entirely.

Declaring that 2% are an "obligation" or "due" has always been a unilateral US action.

Wales Summit Declaration issued by NATO Heads of State and Government (2014)

www.nato.int

See Section 14.

 

[John Fedup]

A speech given by NATO head wrt to the value of strong and resilient societies being just as important as tanks and jets. One point I found very interesting was the comment on how civilian youth would manage without internet. With no GPS could the average youth read a map? My question would be where would find a map? The days of free maps at the petrol station are long gone.

A 21st-Century Reality Is Dawning on NATO

In today’s security environment, non-kinetic threats pose as grave a danger as kinetic ones.

www.defenseone.com

 

[kato]

With no GPS could the average youth read a map? My question would be where would find a map?

Maps? New-fangled stuff.

For Our first night-time orientation march in the army they made us crawl something like ten miles over hills - the only map provided was at the time 25 years old, and half the trails we stumbled along weren't on them. Our only orientation point were the lights of a soccer stadium in a city 15 miles away, and the task was to basically get over to that side of the hill and wait for pickup at a parking lot by a specific road over there.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maps? New-fangled stuff.

For Our first night-time orientation march in the army they made us crawl something like ten miles over hills - the only map provided was at the time 25 years old, and half the trails we stumbled along weren't on them. Our only orientation point were the lights of a soccer stadium in a city 15 miles away, and the task was to basically get over to that side of the hill and wait for pickup at a parking lot by a specific road over there.

Sounds like a cub scout trek. I assume this was back in conscription in a conscription or training unit?

One point I found very interesting was the comment on how civilian youth would manage without internet. With no GPS could the average youth read a map? My question would be where would find a map? The days of free maps at the petrol station are long gone.

While I think general skill level in the community as a whole is probably quite low, formative educative organizations like Scouts and those going through cadet corps would still be quite valid.

as scouts we did 25km hikes in sections orienteering ourselves, two of these we did at night. Although we cheated, we started at sunset and by the time it got pretty dark we were already onto proper hiking trails or dried up creeks.
in cadets we did a 50km hike in year 8, 100km 6 day trek in year 9, year 10 you were then a lcpl or cpl, and year 11 you were sgt or cpt of a platoon doing said trek including all navigation. Proper nav, nothing but hills and mountains for land marks.

I don't imagine mobilising every random youth would be easy. But I also imagine those that sign up to professional volunteer force would have had some basic field craft training. They may not be very good at it, but would be at the stage something more sophisticated would stick. While not compulsory I would say a majority of ADF applicants would have spent at least 3 years doing some of this. Many more would be RFS bushfirefights, volunteer SES etc. Which although different focus, would still have a lot of relevant field craft skill building.

Also with GPS downs most phones can still locate using the mobile and wifi network signals and stations. Not as accurate, but combined with readings from the in built compass, reasonable dead reckoning. Maps can be downloaded onto the phone, essential in places like Australia, where mobile phone reception is very bad outside of the towns and cities, even while on major roads.



Are such organizations still popular in NATO countries?

 

[John Fedup]

I honestly can’t say how much scouting and other similar training is happening, probably lower as they have similar problems like the Catholic Chuch. I would suspect the US activity is higher than Canada, not sure about Europe.

As for GPS and cell phone navigation, in Europe for sure, the Russians would likely negate this pretty quickly in a crisis.

 

[kato]

Sounds like a cub scout trek. I assume this was back in conscription in a conscription or training unit?

Conscription, part of the mandatory set of tasks to mark off in the first couple weeks to complete basic training.

Was part of a longer overnight thing with multiple stations that also included a detectability and observation at night lesson as well as a rather claustrophobic crawl on our backs through a rather wet storm drain under a street. Trek - split down to squad level, with light gear (15 kg plus rifle) - started after that, at something past midnight and went until about 3 am, with pickup an hour later and regular day service training starting a bit late the next day at 6 am.

Are such organizations still popular in NATO countries?

I honestly can’t say how much scouting and other similar training is happening, probably lower as they have similar problems like the Catholic Chuch.

Scouts are reasonably considered an adjunct of church organizations in most of Europe (not tied to a particular church or religion, there's also muslim scouts in some countries and France also has a buddhist scout organization).
Probably somewhere around 1-2 million members throughout Western Europe*, pretty stable at that, maybe 15% of them being age 16-20. Due to the church association mostly non-existant in most ex-Warsaw Pact countries except some traditionally religious ones like Poland.

Cadet organizations as in paramilitary training for youths, usually in an educational setting, mostly vanished around WW2 in Western Europe, and even before that was mostly an anglophone Commonwealth thing. Outside that among NATO members Belgium and Lithuania seem to still have singular organizations of that type with a few hundred cadets.

*) e.g. 260,000 in West Germany, 180,000 in France, 190,000 in Italy... with stable numbers since the 80s.

 

[swerve]

The scouts in the UK claim 480,000 members (January 2020), & girl guiding claimed 490,000 in 2018. In both cases that includes children as young as 5 or 6. I don't know the age breakdown.

There are cadet forces in the UK. The Army Cadet Force has 39,000 members, Sea Cadets 15,000, & RAF Air Cadets over 50,000 including adult volunteers, so maybe 40,000 young people. There are separate organisations operating in universities & schools (mostly private schools). They have varying levels of involvement by the armed forces, up to being operated by the army (university) but all have some.

Fun, Friendship, Action And Adventure | Army Cadet Force
Home
Sea Cadets - How and Why to Join the Sea Cadets - Sea Cadets
Royal Marines Cadets - How and Why to Join the Royal Marine Cadets - Sea Cadets

 

[Beholder]

the Russians would likely negate this pretty quickly in a crisis.

How?
Its pretty much impossible, not to mention they will never do it in the first place.
I don't doubt any enemy of any western army will want to degrade navigation, at least to make it difficult for guidance systems on cruise missiles. So they will target GPS in one way or another. But it's very hard.
Cell phone navigation on the other hand no point to degrade, soldiers won't use it, bcs it's dangerous and may give to enemy unit location.

 

[John Fedup]

How?
Its pretty much impossible, not to mention they will never do it in the first place.
I don't doubt any enemy of any western army will want to degrade navigation, at least to make it difficult for guidance systems on cruise missiles. So they will target GPS in one way or another. But it's very hard.
Cell phone navigation on the other hand no point to degrade, soldiers won't use it, bcs it's dangerous and may give to enemy unit location.

Cellphone disruption ( and landline, media) won’t affect the military very much but will for the civilian population. Without a reliable means to communicate with the public, confused civilians could easily be a problem for military operations.