European Army

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by B Fraser

Perhaps the question should be "If Russia attacked the UK, what would an EU army do?".

No, the question is what would NATO do?

A supplementary question would be how would Russia attack the UK without involving other countries?

[B Fraser]

NATO would fulfil it's obligations on a European state by state basis, unless of course they individually walk away from NATO which would be bizarre. An EU army would probably sit outside of NATO, otherwise what is the point of creating one ? The question remains perfectly valid as per Orac's post.

As for your other question, there are plenty of options which I am sure you can work out for yourself ........as referred to in #418.

[Recc]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

No, the question is what would NATO do?

A supplementary question would be how would Russia attack the UK without involving other countries?

The first is a very good question. Donald Trump has gone on record as having made an article 5 response contingent on financial contributions during his first presidency, and has openly talked about withdrawing in his second. NATO without the USA and a matched nuclear deterrent would become a lot less credible. European governments (including the UK) would be extremely reckless to consider NATO as a reliable security guarantee post 2024. This may be a positive step in the longer-term, but it doesn't leave us a great deal of time to prepare.
My answer to the second question would be the use of a combination of ballistic and cruise missile strikes combined with an attempted naval blockade of UK ports using the Northern fleet. My reasoning is that the Russian submarine fleet is one of their most capable and modern assets and has numerical superiority over the UK fleet. Secondly, their armaments production has ramped up considerably due to the Ukrainian war, particularly in the manufacture of missiles. If Russia is able to conclude the Ukraine war on reasonable terms over the next year or two, full rearmament could be quite swift.
I would like to think that UK technological superiority would be sufficient to deal with such a threat in the absence of US and European assistance but I am not as confident of this as some here seem to be. If it became an attritional war I would be even less confident.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Ninthace

A supplementary question would be how would Russia attack the UK without involving other countries?

The Houthis have an answer for you. Also, Russia is getting better at drone warfare. Expect that to be a feature.

Originally Posted by Recc

My answer to the second question would be

the use of a combination of ballistic and cruise missile strikes combined with an attempted naval blockade of UK ports using the Northern fleet.

Mostly submarines, since the North Fleet surface fleet would likely find itself in trouble. (Their carrier, Kuznetzov, is still in the yards ...what has it been, five years?)

My reasoning is that the Russian submarine fleet is one of their most capable and modern assets and has numerical superiority over the UK fleet.

Yes, and they practice sea denial as a core competency. (Well, that was in the Soviet Era, not sure if they've carried that over. Probably have).

Secondly, their armaments production has ramped up considerably due to the Ukrainian war, particularly in the manufacture of missiles. If Russia is able to conclude the Ukraine war on reasonable terms over the next year or two, full rearmament could be quite swift.

There are enough trading partners around to make that feasible, yes.

I would like to think that UK technological superiority would be sufficient to deal with such a threat in the absence of US and European assistance but I am not as confident of this as some here seem to be.

If the numbers are too small, one loses the ability to put sufficient forces into the field...

If it became an attritional war I would be even less confident.

Your reasoning is sound.
The only point I'd make is: Air defense. More funding likely needed. Yesterday.

I don't think that the European allies would shirk on their NATO commitment to the UK, but what form their response would come in is a matter of capability and political will.

I don't think that it will come to this, however, but ... if for some reason the US choses to withdraw from NATO the Washington Treaty requires a one year notice before that becomes a fact.
A year later, the US would have then relieved itself of the obligation to participate as a member.
As a practical matter, at that point NATO would have ceased to exist, but ... if the other alliance members chose to carry on (as it's a reasonably well run collective security organization) you could go back to calling it OTAN (the French term for NATO) and not miss a beat once the various gaps were filled.
.
Various NATO C2 and Infrastructure backbone (which is non-trivial) remaining in Europe would likely be either turned over to the Host Nations, or, be kept warm under a series of bilateral agreements/treaties/MOUs, whatever.

[B Fraser]

In other words, almost every way is possible other than a land based assault.

[dead_pan]

Is this thread drift a result of that idiotic Torygraph article?

Donald Trump has... openly talked about withdrawing in his second

Surely that'll only happen once he's locked up Hilary and got Mexico to pay for that wall?! Honestly, have we learnt nothing?

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by B Fraser

In other words, almost every way is possible other than a land based assault.

A ship or s/m launched missile strike is an option, albeit short lived as returning to rearm would be problematic. Land assault, obviously not, air attack - without involving the airspace of the rest of Europe - its a long way round!

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by dead_pan

Is this thread drift a result of that idiotic Torygraph article?

In the past year or so, a lot of people have been wondering just what would/will happen if (1) Mr Trump returns to the Whitehouse and (2) (given his fractious relationship with various European leaders) would he turn a lot of his bloviation on his frustrations with NATO allies not paying their share into an action to no either end US participation in the alliance/treaty, or somehow establish that Article V no longer applies to the US.
While I don't think (1) will happen, (2) can't happen by executive fiat since treaties include a legislative piece (the Senate) so there'd have to be a bun fight over here first before any change in the Washington Treaty (the core NATO document) would see a change of state for the US.

[dead_pan]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

would he turn a lot of his bloviation on his frustrations with NATO allies not paying their share into an action to no either end US participation in the alliance/treaty, or somehow establish that Article V no longer applies to the US.

But didn't the money "come rolling in" from NATO allies the last time he was in office? I'm sure he said something along this line.

While I don't think (1) will happen

I'm already resigned to our collective fate.

(2) can't happen by executive fiat since treaties include a legislative piece (the Senate) so there'd have to be a bun fight over here first before any change in the Washington Treaty (the core NATO document) would see a change of state for the US.

Weirdly things are never quite as simple or easy as the big man makes out. Yet people fall for it every single time.

[hunterboy]

The good news is I doubt Trump would want to lose his Scottish golf course and hotel to the Russkies, so I would think we could count on full US support should Trump get elected. Biden on the other hand…..

[Gargleblaster]

I think an EU army / navy / air force is a bad idea. Imagine Hungary in there. Austria is an EU member, but probably couldn't participate due to history and treaties. Same may apply to Germany. Imagine how long it'd take to reach any decision at all. UK is part of Europe, but out of EU. NATO is the answer, even minus the US.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by Gargleblaster

I think an EU army / navy / air force is a bad idea. Imagine Hungary in there. Austria is an EU member, but probably couldn't participate due to history and treaties. Same may apply to Germany. Imagine how long it'd take to reach any decision at all. UK is part of Europe, but out of EU. NATO is the answer, even minus the US.

Setting aside the rights or wrongs of a European Army, how is any of what you describe different from the current position with NATO?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The good news for the EU is that Ukraine has so degraded the Russian Military that it will be will a decade before they would have the ability to present a creditable conventional threat to any NATO nation.

[ORAC]

https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/what-h...merica-ukraine

What Happens to Europe If America Withdraws?

THE UNITED STATES IS ON THE VERGE of making one of the most—if not the most—self-defeating foreign policy decisions in its history.

After more than 75 years leading NATO, there is a good chance that in the coming months or years the United States will diminish or even withdraw from the alliance, which has provided the United States with its most reliable partners, much of its international influence, and a degree of security that few states in history could have dared to dream about.

This self-destructive crusade is led, of course, by Donald Trump, the Pied Piper of American decline, and supported by his “America First” faction within the Republican party.…

[B Fraser]

Originally Posted by Gargleblaster

I think an EU army / navy / air force is a bad idea.

It's a potentially expensive vanity project, like much else.

[Ninthace]

Originally Posted by B Fraser

It's a potentially expensive vanity project, like much else.

Surely, no nation can afford to run multiple armed forces, the only part of a such a.force that would be likely to exist on anything other than paper would a notional C2 organisation. Actual forces would be assigned from within national forces according to perceived national interests to form ad hoc structures to meet the military requirement.

[t43562]

Originally Posted by B Fraser

It's a potentially expensive vanity project, like much else.

I think the way Ukraine has been helped with a huge assortment of varied equipment and (presumably) has supply/maintenance problems with it does suggest that the countries in NATO now could buy equipment in bulk and standardise more. The US, a much more integrated federal system, must have an advantage from being able to make very large purchases. An EU army might be able to get some degree of standardisation going at least when it comes to equipment that might be used in a European land war.

I'm sure it would be hard to get everyone "on the same page" but NATO has done it to some extent and perhaps we could just do it more.

[ORAC]

Ninthace,

Perhaps - but in terms of Europe there can be cooperation as to who has to do what - as I think the Germans are suggesting. I refer you back to the comment in a previous article ai posted..

“They, too, are having difficulties in ensuring their security. They, too, are running out of money for the two aircraft carriers they have. They are also finding it difficult to maintain their capacities. And in this respect, it is perhaps now also right to start an organized structured dialogue with Great Britain."

As an example, there is concern over our lack of MBT, whilst Poland and others are buying over 1000s, and other armaments needed for a conventional European war.

There could be a quid pro quo where we concentrate on expeditionary air and naval forces, including providing a European nuclear deterrent.

To be frank, the few new MBT/Ajax and other armoured forces we are looking at purchasing are so small they’re irrelevant except in terms of a tripwire capability where we deploy them forward in Estonia etc - and lighter expeditionary units would serve the same purpose.

The days of BAOR, ot that we could deploy an armoured division as in Granby and Telic, are gone forever.

[Beamr]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The days of BAOR, ot that we could deploy an armoured division as in Granby and Telic, are gone forever.

Forever is a strong word. No one knows what lies ahead triggering who knows what.

Peace for our time etc.

[B Fraser]

Originally Posted by t43562

An EU army might be able to get some degree of standardisation going at least when it comes to equipment that might be used in a European land war.

Something along the lines of the NATO NSN system perhaps ?