US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany

[ORAC]

https://www.dw.com/en/us-threatens-to-withdraw-troops-from-germany/a-49959555US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany

[Asturias56]

"The US says it might pull out some troops from Germany" is what it says - and they're only going to move them to Poland -which when you think of it makes sense - the German deployment is a 1980's hang-over (plus Poland will be cheaper to base)

[Less Hair]

The US have 35.000 troops in Germany and might move around 5000 to the east.

[chevvron]

Plenty of space available at ex USAF bases in the UK.

[atakacs]

Very good idea to move them to Poland. Definitely in line with the NATO restraint promised to the Russian at the fall of the wall...

[Less Hair]

5000 are more of a tripwire instead a threat. Bit like the US Berlin Brigade back then.

[weemonkey]

5000 are more of a tripwire instead a threat. Bit like the US Berlin Brigade back then.
Or the British Army deployments in Estonia..

[aw ditor]

Tripwires assume that somebody, or something, will take a fall?

[ORAC]

No, just set off a Claymore pointing towards them....

[dead_pan]

Very good idea to move them to Poland. Definitely in line with the NATO restraint promised to the Russian at the fall of the wall...

That promise was broken long ago.

[pr00ne]

"That promise was broken long ago."

And seeing what Russia has been up to in Georgia, the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine it is also totally obsolete.

[minigundiplomat]

5000 troops is not a lot in the big scheme of things; but the symbology is much larger. This is Trump telling Germany that US military support in Europe is not 'gratis' and tied to economic and political cooperation.

[obgraham]

Can someone answer this basic question:

Why does the US have 35,000 troops in Germany anyway? WW2 ended 75 years ago. Cold War ended 30 years ago. Aren't these nations advanced in economics and technology and capable of defending themselves now?

Now, if the claim is "mutual defense", are there European troops stationed in the USA, Japan, Korea? Not in significant numbers, it would appear. Or if we simply need jumping off spots on our way to invading all the little despotic places on the globe, can't we just sign an agreement to rent some space there?

[atakacs]

"That promise was broken long ago."

And seeing what Russia has been up to in Georgia, the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine it is also totally obsolete.
Well Georgia was unequivocally started by the Georgians who got suckered into it by the good offices of Washington.

Ukraine is certainly more debatable but at the very least there is a valid discussion to have about Crimea. NRD is indeed fairly shady (although I'd guess that a significant majority of the locals would rather be under Russian administration). On the other hand NATO has continuously closed in around Russia over the past 20 years. You can't expect zero pushback.

[shrivaldo]

"The US says it might pull out some troops from Germany" is what it says - and they're only going to move them to Poland -which when you think of it makes sense - the German deployment is a 1980's hang-over (plus Poland will be cheaper to base)
A 80’s hangover???

[Simplythebeast]

5000 troops is not a lot in the big scheme of things; but the symbology is much larger. This is Trump telling Germany that US military support in Europe is not 'gratis' and tied to economic and political cooperation.

It is not US Military Support. It is forward operating stations to maintain the US capability to respond to anything East of Germany....the troops are not there for the benefit of Germany or any other European State, they are there to maintain US interests. All this rubbish spouted about Germany needing to pay more for the protection offered by America is Codswallop, the USA, certainly under it’s present leadership, gives not one fig about anyone other than the USA.

[nonsense]

It is not US Military Support. It is forward operating stations to maintain the US capability to respond to anything East of Germany....the troops are not there for the benefit of Germany or any other European State, they are there to maintain US interests. All this rubbish spouted about Germany needing to pay more for the protection offered by America is Codswallop, the USA, certainly under it’s present leadership, gives not one fig about anyone other than the USA.


"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"

[West Coast]

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests"


If the US sees dwindling interests in a particular nation that we help to defend, then it’s time to review the nature of the relationship. That money would be better spent here in the US than on an ally who has become too comfortable in their security guarantees.

[West Coast]

Well Georgia was unequivocally started by the Georgians who got suckered into it by the good offices of Washington.

Ukraine is certainly more debatable but at the very least there is a valid discussion to have about Crimea. NRD is indeed fairly shady (although I'd guess that a significant majority of the locals would rather be under Russian administration). On the other hand NATO has continuously closed in around Russia over the past 20 years. You can't expect zero pushback.

How in your mind are water so muddied that there’s a difference in discussion between Crimea and Ikraine?

[West Coast]

Can someone answer this basic question:

Why does the US have 35,000 troops in Germany anyway? WW2 ended 75 years ago. Cold War ended 30 years ago. Aren't these nations advanced in economics and technology and capable of defending themselves now?

Now, if the claim is "mutual defense", are there European troops stationed in the USA, Japan, Korea? Not in significant numbers, it would appear. Or if we simply need jumping off spots on our way to invading all the little despotic places on the globe, can't we just sign an agreement to rent some space there?


A valid question, drilling down a bit deeper on the thought, why doesn’t Europe entirely manage it’s own defenses? To prevent nuclear proliferation may have been the answer decades ago, not a valid answer today.

NATO is past its best use by date.

[atakacs]

How in your mind are water so muddied that there’s a difference in discussion between Crimea and Ikraine?
Well you most likely know that the story of Ukraine as a self standing nation is not a simple one, just as the exact status of Crimea relative to the various nations around it. But it is not really the subject at hand.

[West Coast]

Well you most likely know that the story of Ukraine as a self standing nation is not a simple one, just as the exact status of Crimea relative to the various nations around it. But it is not really the subject at hand.


A complicated, intertwined history is something for a history book, it shouldn’t be used as a grounds for Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea or its proxy war with Ukraine.

[BDAttitude]

One thing, not many people now, even in Germany, is that the german federal government pays for a lot of things. The bases are ceased to the US troops for no charge, part of the buliding costs is refunded, clean-up costs when the troops left - which usually are very significant - are taken over.
In the past there has been mourning when the US closed bases. Those were typically cold war installations, e.g. in the Fulda gap which are rural areas, so the troops were an important economic factor for that specific region, however subsidised by the german government itselves.
This is no longer the case. Most US installations are in the Rhein-Main vally or around Stuttgart, where land for business development is very rare. Those estates could very well be used for other purposes.
I don't have the impression many germans feel protected or defended by the presence of US troops. However there was much discussions about the bases being used for scetchy OPs like rendition flights or drone assassinations. Maybe this is not considered as much of a threat.
​

[West Coast]

One thing, not many people now, even in Germany, is that the german federal government pays for a lot of things. The bases are ceased to the US troops for no charge, part of the buliding costs is refunded, clean-up costs when the troops left - which usually are very significant - are taken over.
In the past there has been mourning when the US closed bases. Those were typically cold war installations, e.g. in the Fulda gap which are rural areas, so the troops were an important economic factor for that specific region, however subsidised by the german government itselves.
This is no longer the case. Most US installations are in the Rhein-Main vally or around Stuttgart, where land for business development is very rare. Those estates could very well be used for other purposes.
I don't have the impression many germans feel protected or defended by the presence of US troops. However there was much discussions about the bases being used for scetchy OPs like rendition flights or drone assassinations. Maybe this is not considered as much of a threat.
​


The question isn’t whether the German people feel protected, the question is whether the threat still exists. The answer I’d say is yes. Should the protection of Germany be left to the Germans and other European states, the answer is yes as well.

[obgraham]

I'm no fan of Putin's Russia, but let's be realistic here. Russia is not a military threat to Europe. The EU countries, if they wished to, could be well ahead of Russia, both economically and militarily.

Okay, Russia has lots of nukes. But they have never used them, and have never even threatened to.

Putin thinks he is the protector of ethnic Russians everywhere. So Crimea, yes. And he would probably make a move on the Baltics if the opportunity arose. Beyond that, he has no interest.

In the face of this relatively minor threat, then, I see little reason why Europe should not be providing its own defense, and the US troops should be brought home. European industrial and economic power should be way beyond what is needed to see off Russia. Euros are always banging on about their superior culture and lifestyle, while characterizing Americans as gun toting redneck Jesus freaks. We should leave them to it.

Perhaps Trump'll get this done soon, too!

[West Coast]

I agree that Europeans can and should defend Europe mi us the US. I disagree with the assessment about Vlad being a threat to Europe however. Ukraine is a part of Europe and is battling Vlad, Crimea, well that battle is over. I don't think we need to worry about Russian tanks reaching the english channel but the portions of Europe adjacent to mother Russia have a real reason to worry.

[Asturias56]

couple of years back I was lucky enough to hear a very senior US general give his views on possible further Russian destabilisation in E Europe.

He thought the Baltic states were pretty safe - NATO had reacted, trip wires in place, local Govt's cooling anti- russian gestures etc

He said they were focusing on the Belorussia/Moldova/Romania/Turkey arc where Governments were a lot less stable and politics was very inward looking

[dead_pan]

The thing is Vlad isn't the force he once was - signs are he's beginning to lose interest in keeping his people happy. I reckon he'll be concentrating on keeping ordinary Russians in line rather than embarking on more ill-judged foreign interventions.

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/05/trump-orders-9500-us-troops-to-leave-germany

Donald Trump orders 9,500 US troops to leave Germany

[Asturias56]

When you look at a map you have to say that Germany isn't exactly the front line any more - its a bit like having them in the Channel Islands

Move them to Poland - or if you really want to rattle VP - to the Baltic States

[Captivep]

I'm no fan of Putin's Russia, but let's be realistic here. Russia is not a military threat to Europe. The EU countries, if they wished to, could be well ahead of Russia, both economically and militarily.

Okay, Russia has lots of nukes. But they have never used them, and have never even threatened to.

Putin thinks he is the protector of ethnic Russians everywhere. So Crimea, yes. And he would probably make a move on the Baltics if the opportunity arose. Beyond that, he has no interest.

In the face of this relatively minor threat, then, I see little reason why Europe should not be providing its own defense, and the US troops should be brought home. European industrial and economic power should be way beyond what is needed to see off Russia. Euros are always banging on about their superior culture and lifestyle, while characterizing Americans as gun toting redneck Jesus freaks. We should leave them to it.

Perhaps Trump'll get this done soon, too!

"Euros (whatever they are) banging on about their superior culture" seems a pretty odd reason to destabilize an enormously successful alliance; it seems incredibly short-sighted and even isolationist not to understand that it is in America's geo-political and economic interests to be part of a strong grouping that encompasses so many countries across two continents.

It perhaps should also be remembered that the only time NATO's article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11. In other words, the only time that NATO has treated an attack on one of its members as an attack on all was after an attack on the USA.

[racedo]

Putin thinks he is the protector of ethnic Russians everywhere. So Crimea, yes. And he would probably make a move on the Baltics if the opportunity arose. Beyond that, he has no interest.

And how is this different from Israel belieiving it is the protector of Jews everywhere ? Pakistan / Saudi believing they are the protector of Muslims everywhere ? No doubt some people will claim Hitler claimed he was the protector of Germans everywhere but does that mean people would equate Hitler with Israel ?

Russia clearly does not want a threat to the "Motherland" on its doorstep. 3 invasions and 40 million dead in just over 100 years does indeed colour their viewpoint here. Sadly in the West we ignore this viewpoint.

The Cold War ended 30 years ago, some wish it to restart because the MIC see profit opportunity.

A plane flight with a US Mil attachee a couple of years ago was interesting. He highlighted when Crimea vote was happening, the total competent Military, viewed by Pentagon in Ukriane was max 20,000, this was able to fight and put up a competent coordinated defence / attack. He said ignore the official figures, he opinioned that Russia had better figures and if Russia had needed they could have gone in from Transnistra / Crimea and Russia and got to Kiev in a week but there were No movements of anything, not even training deployments and they were looking.

I would like to see US Mil withdrawn home, on a day like today, D-DAY it would be good, US has had a lot of the blood of its young men spilt on European soil. I hope not to see anymore happen in any European military conflict, I hope not to see a European military conflict.

There are some in US establishment would will happily spill anybodys blood to enrich themselves and control whatever they can.

[obgraham]

Why are you lot re-arguing a post of mine from a year sgo? Got nothing current?

Evidently this draw down has been negotiated and agreed over many months, not just "impulsive Donny".

At any rate, while you all are on a continual T D S rant, I see bringing more U S troops home as a good thing. Hopefully Donny can get them out of Afghany, too.

[Finningley Boy]

Next stop Hong Kong then!

To be where the action is of course.

FB

[Captivep]

Why are you lot re-arguing a post of mine from a year sgo? Got nothing current?

Evidently this draw down has been negotiated and agreed over many months, not just "impulsive Donny".

At any rate, while you all are on a continual T D S rant, I see bringing more U S troops home as a good thing. Hopefully Donny can get them out of Afghany, too.
I see very little comment in this rejuvenated thread about the current occupant of the White House; it's more about the impact/merit of the USA taking a more isolationist posture (which it does tend to revert to from time to time) so I think you're being a little over-sensitive; it's not always about Trump.

Although he does seem to think everything is...

[West Coast]

Bring them all home. As was mentioned, the CW ended a long time ago.

[West Coast]

seems a pretty odd reason to destabilize an enormously successful alliance; it seems incredibly short-sighted and even isolationist not to understand that it is in America's geo-political and economic interests to be part of a strong grouping that encompasses so many countries across two continents.

Germany and many other euro nations have become accustomed to the US providing the heavy lifting for NATO. It’s been grinding on a number of US administrations that the burden for Europe’s defenses has fallen on US taxpayers so don’t make this a Trump thing, it was an Obama thing and a Bush thing prior as well.

It’s time for that to change. Europe should lead the defense from a threat from a fellow European nation, not the US.

[Lonewolf_50]

Germany and many other euro nations have become accustomed to the US providing the heavy lifting for NATO. It’s been grinding on a number of US administrations that the burden for Europe’s defenses has fallen on US taxpayers so don’t make this a Trump thing, it was an Obama thing and a Bush thing prior as well.

It’s time for that to change. Europe should lead the defense from a threat from a fellow European nation, not the US. Based on one of the Ike biographies I read, it's been a contentious issue as far back as the lata 50's and early 60's, and when I was a JO, during the 80's, it was a very public harangue on who was or was not meeting their fiscal commitments to the Alliance. (It would crop up in Aviation Week and Space Technology, of all places).

I am surprised that it has taken this long to get the footprint down, but as it's a political thing there are a variety of snags and obstacles to various key decisions to leave a particular place. Shutting down DoD facilities in Vieques and Puerto Rico happened at light speed, in comparison. (And while my memory may be hazy, once President Aquino (Philippines) said "You are invited to leave" it didn't take long to start folding the tents. The volcano (Pinatubo) merely hastened what had already begun).

[BEagle]

Bring them all home. As was mentioned, the CW ended a long time ago.

Perhaps the real reason is that Trump needs them to augment his militaristic 'defenCe' against domestic protestors in the so-called 'Land of the Free'??

[West Coast]

Based on one of the Ike biographies I read, it's been a contentious issue as far back as the lata 50's and early 60's, and when I was a JO, during the 80's, it was a very public harangue on who was or was not meeting their fiscal commitments to the Alliance. (It would crop up in Aviation Week and Space Technology, of all places).

I am surprised that it has taken this long to get the footprint down, but as it's a political thing there are a variety of snags and obstacles to various key decisions to leave a particular place. Shutting down DoD facilities in Vieques and Puerto Rico happened at light speed, in comparison. (And while my memory may be hazy, once President Aquino (Philippines) said "You are invited to leave" it didn't take long to start folding the tents. The volcano (Pinatubo) merely hastened what had already begun). Layers of history, convention, apathy, likely some special interests have firmly anchored the status quo in place for far too long a time.

There isn’t a conventional threat to Europe that Euro militaries shouldn’t be able to manage.

I really need to renew my sub to AW&ST. War on the Rocks helps with the philosophy, but sometimes you need to read about the hardware as well.

[obgraham]

Why is the European Union (445million) + UK (68 million) so petrified of Russia (145 million) that they need the US to bear the load of their defense? Sure, Russia has nukes, but so do France and UK, and they would likely lend a few to Germany if needed. Moreover, Russia's economy is moribund in all aspects except oil and gas.

Bring the troops back home. Give Euroland thoughts and prayers and "support from behind" as the Sainted One used to say.

[Lonewolf_50]

We will thank you not to poke fun at our Greek allies, OB. :E

[racedo]

Why is the European Union (445million) + UK (68 million) so petrified of Russia (145 million) that they need the US to bear the load of their defense?

Why is US media so worried about Russian media spend who spent <$100k in total on promoting news stories on Twit/FB etc in 2016 and apparently influenced the election. Must pee off Soros who spent $100 million and Rothshcilds who spent the same. Still can't get to the bottom of how folks in Ohio voted for Trumpo instead of HRC, don't have a computer and look sparingly at TV.

The days of Russia threatening anybody are long gone. Yup it uses its influence overseas but ahem so does everybody else.

I am not in the slightest bit worried about Russia, more worried about getting run down by some of the "we oppose Putin now folk because we caught with hand in the till so we reside in UK" brigade and the way they drive in the UK and fight with their mafia friends.


Sure, Russia has nukes, but so do France and UK, and they would likely lend a few to Germany if needed. Moreover, Russia's economy is moribund in all aspects except oil and gas.
Bring the troops back home. Give Euroland thoughts and prayers and "support from behind" as the Sainted One used to say.

The economy bit is overdone and comes from same sources who fact check nothing. It could pay off all its foreign debt and still have shed loads of cash in the bank.
Russia is the biggest Wheat exporter in the world and has been for a few years so hardly the moribound economy people think.

Russia will use Nukes if the country is invaded and threatened. Strangely these see the same reasons why UK / France would use nukes.

[obgraham]

Agreed, Racedo, I've no idea why US media gets so worked up over Russia. A former superpower, it's not one now. No reason to have a bunch of US troops over there to fend them off.

On the contrary, Russia has been an incredible conservator of Western culture -- art, music, literature. We should be friendlier with them, despite their love of authoritarian leadership.

[pr00ne]

racedo, obgraham,

The good people of the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States most probably do not share your complacency.

[West Coast]

racedo, obgraham,

The good people of the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States most probably do not share your complacency.

Tend to agree with you. It begs the question then of why don't the euro nations feel the need to prepare for the next threat? The CW is over, the chances of tanks rolling down the Fulda gap taking on the entirety of NATO are nil. What’s happening in the areas you listed is the new normal and is what must be expected. Lacking the clear focus a Soviet armored column provides, low intensity wars have lulled Europe into a false sense of security. Couple that with the US tiring of shouldering the burden and it doesn’t make for a good combination.

[MightyGem]

This puts that "next thread" into perspective:
Book Review: 2017: War With Russia. An Urgent Warning from Senior Military Command by Andrew Monaghan ? The Changing Character of War Centre (http://www.ccw.ox.ac.uk/blog/2016/6/10/book-review-2017-war-with-russia-an-urgent-warning-from-senior-military-command-by-andrew-monaghan)

[Lonewolf_50]

racedo, obgraham,

The good people of the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States most probably do not share your complacency.
They have seen to their detriment how they can't rely on Europe, nor the EU, to care about them.
League of Nations, part 2, insofar as collective security goes.

The major political motives for joining NATO had nothing to do with joining or not joining the EU.
The perception was: we need a big friend, not a whole lot of unreliable friends.
(I got to see some of this up close and personal during some of the pre NATO expansion activity in the mid to late 90's).

[FlightDetent]

The major political motives for joining NATO had nothing to do with joining or not joining the EU.
The perception was: we need a big friend, not a whole lot of unreliable friends. Undeniably so. Pure Maslowian motives: Security first, prosperity next. Namely any security arrangement not involving USoA was considered insufficient, lacking a raison d'être.

For joining the EU, we ran a referendum: 70 per-cent agreed.
Joining the NATO 5 year earlier was done as a political act. All parties except for one, thus representing 90% of votes from the last election, worked jointly to achieve the goal they promised before the ballots.

[obgraham]

racedo, obgraham,

The good people of the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States most probably do not share your complacency.What did the European countries do in response to Putin's aggression?

Besides signing up for more Russian oil and gas.

[Fareastdriver]

For joining the EU, we ran a referendum: 70 per-cent agreed.

We voted to join the European Economic Community, a totally different thing to the European Union that it turned into later.

[racedo]

racedo, obgraham,

The good people of the Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic States most probably do not share your complacency.

Crimea - people there happy to be part of Russia, not a single poll since 2014 has shown otherwise including the ones carried out by Western media. People there never wished to be part of Ukraine and when they sought indepence in 1990's were threatened with military Invasion from Kiev. At a rough count 9% of Crimean population have left and incomers have increased population by 25%. People see no threat from Russia

Ukraine - real split between Western Ukraine who see themselves as European and Eastern Ukraine who see themselves as Russian, the Independence vote in 1990's showed a lack of entusiasm for being ruled by Kiev, they decided post Maidan to protest and were attacked by own Govt. Many in Eastern Ukraine have always seen themselves as Russian, nothing will have ever changed that. The population of Ukraine have voted with their feet as 2.5 million now live in Poland (Polish Govt stats) and another 3-4 million live across Europe since 2014, not counting those who went to Russia. Internal persecution of people's language rights be it Russian / Hungrarian / Polish has driven out many families who were a hodge podge of many backgrounds. Suggested population from census Million is 39 million reality is closes to 33 million or less. Eastern Ukraine do not want to be part of rest of Ukraine, you can let them decide their own future after a vote or can attack.

Georgia - again areas people by Russian emigres with loyalty to Moscow, local Govt wished control and they failed to consider who was safeguarding certain areas. Not the first to ignore a big neighbour or badly drawn borders like Nagorno-Karabak.

Baltic states - depends on the country by a number have completely disenfranchised anybody with a Russian background, irrespective of how long they have lived there, making them non citizens. i.e. Estonia where 30% of population have Russian roots and were refused citizenship. So who speaks for minorities ?

Of course there is a case for demanding people of the wrong Ethnic identity be forced out of a country where they have lived for centuries or frig the border to make it different. Perhaps closer to home that could come home to roost in Ireland or Scotland or elsewhere.

Seeing it from both sides doesn't mean you have to agree with any side but at least you understand a different viewpoint.

[racedo]

What did the European countries do in response to Putin's aggression?

Besides signing up for more Russian oil and gas.

Followed Obama and made the Russians become self sufficient in many areas and screwed European farmers. Yup that strategy really worked. Vicky Nulands 500 million was paid to who again ?

[ORAC]

Crimea - people there happy to be part of Russia, not a single poll since 2014 has shown otherwise
Under Stalin the Tartars were deported wholesale to Siberia and elsewhere in a diaspora, returning after the fall of the USSR. Now they are fleeing or suppressed. Since 2014 140,000 have fled whilst Russia has encouraged and funded resettlement with 250,000 ethnic Russians moving to the peninsula.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mejlis_of_the_Crimean_Tatar_People

Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People

https://emerging-europe.com/news/under-russian-rule-crimean-tatars-face-oppression-and-abuse/

Under Russian rule, Crimean Tatars face oppression and abuse

[BDAttitude]

Stolen from the internet
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1405x955/image_f56fbc0bd3ca686a29b4bf1a36bcb51a3caae161.png

[exhorder]

Another example of Trump'esque loudmouthing while saying nothing really substantial. The number of US soldiers has both risen and fallen quite a bit over the last couple of years, so there is no real outcome here, apart from the obvious propaganda effects. US troops in Germany mostly have support functions. The Ramstein/K-Town base is an enormous logistical hub, whereas the Grafenwöhr/Hohenfels training grounds provide ample opportunity to train with the various NATO and other European allies. Wiesbaden and Stuttgart largely provide command and control to various theaters in Europe and the Middle East.

However, the main function of these bases, from a German/European standpoint, is to keep the Americans in the game, should the balloon go up in Europe for whatever reason. Therefore, the resources put into supporting the deployment of US troops in Europe are usually considered money well spent, compared with the huge financial efforts required if we wanted to build up the same capabilities ourselves. There are a couple of studies deealing with these costs. So, as usual, there is some truth to the comments of the current US president, even though it is covered in a lot of half-truths and outright lies for the sake of his loyal supporters.

@recedo: Rothschilds? Soros? Russia having a stable and viable economy? Jesus, your Kool-Aid is some hard stuff.

[tdracer]

Exhorder, you haven't addressed the basic question:
Why should the US taxpayer pay to defend another country when that country's tax payers can't be bothered to pay for their own defense? Despite repeated promises to the contrary, Germany has not been fulfilling their NATO treaty commitments for many years.
Get Germany's defense spending up to their NATO commitment, then we can talk...

[obgraham]

Well TD I think he gave the reason in the post above: Why should they spend their own money on defense if the US will do it for them?

[Lyneham Lad]

In The Times today:-
We’ll host troops you’re pulling out of Germany, Poland tells US (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f809020e-b0ab-11ea-839f-3d38a5cc49e9?shareToken=8508d8aada31757b8ef913d74d4b20aa)

The US is in “intensive talks” about expanding its military presence in Poland after President Trump confirmed that he planned to withdraw nearly 10,000 troops from Germany, Warsaw said yesterday.

President Duda of Poland has hinted at a shift in US security strategy as American officials sought to reassure allies that the total strength of their armed forces across Europe would not be diminished.

[exhorder]

Exhorder, you haven't addressed the basic question:
Why should the US taxpayer pay to defend another country when that country's tax payers can't be bothered to pay for their own defense? Despite repeated promises to the contrary, Germany has not been fulfilling their NATO treaty commitments for many years.
Get Germany's defense spending up to their NATO commitment, then we can talk...

I agree. Which is what I meant when I wrote "So, as usual, there is some truth to the comments of the current US president". It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years, by various "real" presidents as well. It took the whole Crimea/Eastern Ukraine malarkey for us to wake up, at least to a certain degree.

However, as usual with the way the current president is doing things, he is doing more harm than good with his tone and the impulsive nature of his decisions - which, in turn, makes it easy for German politicians to dismiss his remarks. Especially since he, in truth, does not give the slightest of f*cks about defense and foreign policy, if it does not serve the purpose of increasing his re-election chances. Sorry for the political rant.

[Lonewolf_50]

About 20 years ago, a bit more maybe, the US was looking to reduce its footprint in a variety of areas beyond the massive movement of VIIth Corps out of Europe via the Mid East in 1990 - 1991.
Regardless of how much that footprint was to go down, the capacity to deploy if stuff gets hot again needed to be retained.
The ability to access bases both North and South of the Alps through which, and into which, move CONUS based forces was retained.
The concept of ops from JCS was "CONUS based/deployable" which has met with mixed success.
A variety of ops since 2000 have benefitted from the simple fact of 'there are bases there."

IMO, Exhorder has put his finger on it nicely.
The number of combat formations, particularly north of the alps, is waay down.
Basing rights and the capacity to train with allies in a comonly funded base has value for operations in area and out of area.
That the Poles are interested in a cushier security blanket may not matter to the Spanish, but it matters to the Poles.

Air ports of entry and sea points of entry, most of the latter in the NATO Southern Region, are a strategic capability that you can't make at home.
Remember what the real estate gurus talk about: location, location, location.

The arguments are, and remain, how much of the bill each member of this club pays.
As I noted, above, that's nothing new.
Retaining the relationships and the capacity to move "across the pond" is, so far, still a desired strategic capability.
But, the bigger pond on the other side of our nation is a pressing strategic priority.
And getting moreso by the week.

[West Coast]

I agree. Which is what I meant when I wrote "So, as usual, there is some truth to the comments of the current US president". It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years, by various "real" presidents as well. It took the whole Crimea/Eastern Ukraine malarkey for us to wake up, at least to a certain degree.

However, as usual with the way the current president is doing things, he is doing more harm than good with his tone and the impulsive nature of his decisions - which, in turn, makes it easy for German politicians to dismiss his remarks. Especially since he, in truth, does not give the slightest of f*cks about defense and foreign policy, if it does not serve the purpose of increasing his re-election chances. Sorry for the political rant.

Thing is that Trump is but one of a number of US Presidents who’ve addressed the issue and come away with vague promises of improvements.

[exhorder]

Yes, that is why I wrote "It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years". In fact, we have been increase defense spending by quite a lot since 2014, with the largest surge actually happening in 2019.

To be absolutely clear, there is still a lot to do, not the least improving spending efficiency - meaning that currently, a lot of funds are wasted for bureaucratic calamities, but then again, this is not an exclusive problem on this side of the pond. However, the manner in which the sitting president addresses the issue is counterproductive, to put it mildly, because it provides certain German political factions a perfect excuse to sabotage the defense budget strategy that had been agreed upon earlier. The end result is a growing rift between the US and the Europeans, which goes against both sides' interests, and which only diminishes the effectiveness of "the Western world" vis-à-vis Russia and China.

[Toadstool]

Well TD I think he gave the reason in the post above: Why should they spend their own money on defense if the US will do it for them?

OB

Genuine question. What is your aviation and/or military aviation background? I'm not saying you shouldn't post. Far from it. I've always been curious seeing as I know you are a doctor. I'm not from the US but I post on the Hamsterwheel site as I have a vested interest having spent a lot of my time over the past few years there.

I agree with you and WC on this. The US has far more pressing concerns with China to its west. Its time for Europe to step up to the mark to look at its own security and defence to its east. Long gone are the days of the Fulda Gap and also, I hope, long gone are the days of a Coalition of the Willing.

Thats the easy part. The hard part is getting a bunch of nations used to having a US led Command to somehow form a coherent workable joint defence plan and Command without US involvement and money!

[dead_pan]

TBH I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. From what I've heard many ordinary Germans aren't really that bothered and can see the sense of moving the troops east. It won't be such a good gig for the soldiers though - the nightlife in Poland is a shadow of that in Germany.

Regarding the wider debate about the US's role in NATO, the likes of Ramstein plays a role in the US's wider ops beyond Europe (i.e. in the ME or Africa) from a logistics/medevac etc perspective. It would be a long ol' haul to tank fighters etc non-stop to/from the US or to evacuate critical casualties back to the US, for example. Also, there must be considerable lobbying pressure from the big US defence companies, who benefit handsomely from all those multilateral defence programmes with major European participation (F35, P8 etc).

[West Coast]

Yes, that is why I wrote "It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years". In fact, we have been increase defense spending by quite a lot since 2014, with the largest surge actually happening in 2019.

To be absolutely clear, there is still a lot to do, not the least improving spending efficiency - meaning that currently, a lot of funds are wasted for bureaucratic calamities, but then again, this is not an exclusive problem on this side of the pond. However, the manner in which the sitting president addresses the issue is counterproductive, to put it mildly, because it provides certain German political factions a perfect excuse to sabotage the defense budget strategy that had been agreed upon earlier. The end result is a growing rift between the US and the Europeans, which goes against both sides' interests, and which only diminishes the effectiveness of "the Western world" vis-à-vis Russia and China.

You can only ask, plead, cajole, lay down lines in the sand for so long before it’s time to act. Now is that time. I’ve heard German politicians throw out the talking point that this plays to Putin’s desires. If they’ve known full well this is the truth, shame on them for not acting. Germany has become too comfortable with the status quo. Time for a new status quo.

[obgraham]

Toadstool, I'll answer your question, though there is no real necessity for me to.

Me? PPL, instrument rated, that's it. No military, not secretive about that either. But for that reason you seldom see me post anywhere beyond USPolitics. Medical, at times, if I can help. Never on professional flying topics.

However in the same way you explain posting on the US Politics thread, I posted here as it headed into the realm of anti-US, and anti-Trump. As usual. My opinion in those aspects is as valid as anyone else, military or not.

You won't find me commenting on how you military guys should or should not do your jobs. I have too much respect for you all, regardless of nationality.

[Toadstool]

However in the same way you explain posting on the US Politics thread, I posted here as it headed into the realm of anti-US, and anti-Trump. As usual. My opinion in those aspects is as valid as anyone else, military or not.


OB

thanks. I agree BTW.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/06/30/congress-moves-to-block-trumps-germany-troop-withdrawal-plans/

Congress moves to block Trump’s Germany troop withdrawal plans

[Lonewolf_50]

politics as usual
As Trump confirmed rumored plans to draw down American military personnel levels in Germany in the coming months, a bipartisan group of senators led by Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney proposed an amendment to the Senate’s version of the annual defense policy bill that would freeze troop numbers in Germany. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., said separately Tuesday that the plan seemed strategically unsound and that Congress should block the administration until it makes its case. Legislative action is likely in the House on Wednesday when Smith’s panel marks up the HASC version of the bill. How do our German colleagues feel about this?
Happy, sad, indifferent?
I remember a British colonel responding to a German complaint about British and American troops in his homeland:
"The Army of Occupation arrived in 1945. We are not sure that it's safe to leave yet." :E (This was in the mid 1990's).
Maybe it is 'safe to leave' now?

I'd still recommend keeping the air bases open/present, but that's a personal bias and I've no influence in DC.

[exhorder]

Well, if we want to present ourselves (us being NATO and the "West" in general) as a united front against potential or real enemies, this troop withdrawal is not a smart move at all. Of course, in real terms, one might discuss whether the current troop levels and force structure is still relevant to the threats we're facing today.

However, as I've written earlier, this call for withdrawal clearly has its roots in domestic politics (read: the upcoming elections) rather than a true strategic background. Even though some here will undoubtedly accuse me of anti-American bias again, the currenct incumbent really does not care about geostrategy though - and this has been known well before the recent Bolton "revelations". It is just sad, really, because we have been increasing our spending levels constantly for over six years now, and rightfully so. Is it enough? Surely not, but, the current president's decisions only serve to crush the gently increasing awareness for defense policy in Germany, making it easy for certain factions to paint every defense budget increase and equipment purchase as an "appeasement to the irrational in the White House".

The current malarkey is counter-productive in immediate "real world" terms as well, because all it does is delay or block the planned purchases of Super Hornets/Growlers, CH-47/CH-53K and, possibly, P-8As - all systems which we either intend to procure (fast jets/helos) or that are real contenders for an upcoming tender (Poseidon).

On a less serious note: all the Allies wanted in 1945/1949 was to create a de-militarized Germany, unable to have a strong military. Well: you reap what you sow, one might say. I am certainly not arguing in that direction, but it is food for thought at least.

[Asturias56]

Read Bolton's book - Trump sees everything through the lens of a small town property developer............ someone else should be forced to pay for everything

[Cyberhacker]

When you look at a map you have to say that Germany isn't exactly the front line any more - its a bit like having them in the Channel Islands

Move them to Poland - or if you really want to rattle VP - to the Baltic States
In many respects, there in lies the problem.

If you view it from the Russian angle, the EU has already "annexed" The Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania, the two now-separate parts of Czechoslovakia and parts of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia).

The EU then started making big overtures to Ukraine... yet the West gets upset at the Russians taking action to protect their Black Sea Fleet base in the Crimea...

I in no way condone the Russian aggression in Crimea, but I can see why they've got rattled... and with their economy going to rat-****, it offers a useful distraction.

[Less Hair]

The german bases in former west Germany are agreed with Russia since the Cold War days. Moving them east permanently might open some can of worms now. It's therefore smarter to only rotate non-permanent troops to Poland and the Baltic States and exchange them for new ones after some time. Not sure if the president is aware of considerations like this at all?

[BTC8183]

​​​
https://media.nu.nl/m/t1fxxetak7z6_wd640.jpg/helikopters-amerikaanse-leger-via-eindhoven-en-rotterdam-naar-eigen-land.jpgUS Army helicopters to Eindhoven via Eindhoven and Rotterdam
06/26/20 12:41 PMUpdate: 6/27/20 4:38 PM
77 helicopters that are part of the United States Army are returning to the US via Eindhoven Airport and the Port of Rotterdam, the Ministry of Defense reports.

The helicopters fly from Eindhoven to Rotterdam in groups between 1 and 24 July. There they are prepared for sea transport to the US.

The helicopters were part of an enhanced presence of the United States in Eastern Europe. That presence has been there since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea.

[The Toilet Tester]

The Helicopters currently flying into Holland, are not part of a withdrawal. They are returning home, having been on TDY, in Europe for the last six to nine months or so.

Their replacements, a similar number. Are due to arrive, by sea at La Rochelle later this month. For their TDY period.

This, has happened, for the last two or three years.

Hopefully, this is of interest to some.

[ORAC]

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-to-pull-12000-troops-from-germany-after-president-donald-trump-calls-country-delinquent/

US to pull 12,000 troops from Germany after Trump calls country ‘delinquent’

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Wednesday laid out a plan to shift nearly 12,000 service members out of Germany after President Donald Trump repeatedly said the country was "delinquent" on defense spending.

Top defense leaders said the plan, which would bring 6,400 service members home and reposition nearly 5,600 to other countries in Europe, is part of the Pentagon's broader effort to redistribute U.S. forces across the world to better compete with new threats from Russia and China. The move will leave 24,000 troops in Germany, where the United States has stationed a significant number of forces since the end of the Cold War...... The move will cost in the “single-digit” billions of dollars, Esper said, and will begin in the coming weeks......

The plan involves moving the headquarters of U.S. European Command and that of Special Operations Command Europe from Germany to Belgium, said EUCOM Commander Gen. Tod Wolters. In the future, the headquarters of U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Special Operations Command Africa could also move from Germany to a new location, he said.

Esper and other top officials argued that the new approach of deploying more rotational forces, as opposed to troops permanently stationed abroad, will enhance deterrence against Russia, improving the readiness of the deployed forces and providing a more flexible, “enduring” presence, particularly in the Black Sea and on NATO’s southeastern flank.....

Many of the 6,400 troops who return to the U.S. will begin conducting rotational deployments. The 4,500 members of the Second Cavalry Regiment in Germany will return to the U.S. as other Stryker units begin rotations in the Black Sea region.

Of the 5,600 troops in Germany who will deploy elsewhere in Europe, roughly 2,000 will go to Belgium to do headquarters work. Another 2,500 airmen currently scheduled to deploy to Germany from the U.K. will remain in the U.K. And a fighter squadron and elements of a fighter wing will be sent to Italy.

Once Warsaw signs a defense cooperation agreement and burden-sharing deal, the U.S. will also rotate a major Army unit to Poland, Esper said. There may be additional opportunities to move forces into Poland and the Baltics in future, he said.

Right now there are no plans to move any of the troops to the Indo-Pacific, Esper said, despite an op-ed in June by national security adviser Robert O’Brien that floated that possibility......