NATO vs Russia
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
60 minute piece on Germany playing catch up with its military. One of their politicians said it well, if there was a problem, we called the US, now they know they need to be responsible for their own defense.
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 229
From: UK
How
Gates was 100% correct as were the US Presidents who largely said the same. Trying to diminish a factual statement by calling it simplistic ain’t gonna hold water. Europe underfunded their defenses and then allowed itself to become energy dependent on an adversary which in turn funded their war in Ukraine.
It was seen as a more prosperous way of establishing and maintaining peace instead of threatening war to maintain peace, with the (peace) dividend that money could be diverted from the armed forces for social considerations (incidentally winning votes). Considable effort was poured into Russia to try to help them to operate in a capitalist world in the order to establish Democratic Peace.
Was this naive or optimistic? Probably both.
So yes, underfunding is simplistic in hindsight, the reasons were much more complex at the time.
Last edited by beardy; 1st June 2026 at 07:57.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 373
From: PLanet Earth
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 675
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWFdBy6H5uo
60 minute piece on Germany playing catch up with its military. One of their politicians said it well, if there was a problem, we called the US, now they know they need to be responsible for their own defense.
60 minute piece on Germany playing catch up with its military. One of their politicians said it well, if there was a problem, we called the US, now they know they need to be responsible for their own defense.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
So yes, underfunding is simplistic in hindsight, the reasons were much more complex at the time.
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,243
Likes: 1,154
From: Central UK
All this self-righteous indignant frothing and blethering from the US about Europe not pulling its weight (despite the fact it is) is pretty short-sighted (understatement of the decade) if you consider the position the USA would be in if Ruzzia overran Europe and suddenly there was only a bit of water bordered by numerous deep-water ports between Ruzzia and the US.
The introverted little-world blinkerdness of this policy is simply astounding. Have they no sense of self-preservation? Or are they so indoctrinated in their automatically assumed infallibility (intentional joke - see their recent performance in Afghanistan and Iraq against 3rd/4th division opponents) to assume a happy result?
The introverted little-world blinkerdness of this policy is simply astounding. Have they no sense of self-preservation? Or are they so indoctrinated in their automatically assumed infallibility (intentional joke - see their recent performance in Afghanistan and Iraq against 3rd/4th division opponents) to assume a happy result?
Joined: Sep 2023
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 219
Likes: 99
From: Montana
I would love to know how you think that they can win a military offensive in Europe.
Joined: Aug 2012
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 343
Likes: 173
From: Scotland
Gates was 100% correct as were the US Presidents who largely said the same. Trying to diminish a factual statement by calling it simplistic ain’t gonna hold water. Europe underfunded their defenses and then allowed itself to become energy dependent on an adversary which in turn funded their war in Ukraine.
Are you trying to suggest that Russia constructed it's armed force to combat Italy or the UK or France or anyone in Europe?
Do you think that Russia has thousand of nuclear weapons to combat the hundreds of Europe’s?
Europe was the USSR's / Russia’s battleground, not their enemy.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Are you trying to suggest that Russia constructed it's armed force to combat Italy or the UK or France or anyone in Europe?
Joined: Aug 2012
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 343
Likes: 173
From: Scotland
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Russia invaded Ukraine, precisely the opposite of what you're postulating. Wriggle as you might, you won't transfer Europe's failure to provide for its own defense to the US via some bizarre counterfactual diatribe. I'm curious now how you'll next assign blame to the US for Europe's dependency on Russian energy. Tackle that next please.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 668
Likes: 127
From: London
Russia invaded Ukraine, precisely the opposite of what you're postulating. Wriggle as you might, you won't transfer Europe's failure to provide for its own defense to the US via some bizarre counterfactual diatribe. I'm curious now how you'll next assign blame to the US for Europe's dependency on Russian energy. Tackle that next please.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
FT: https://archive.is/20260602041233/ht...1-5dc053c6c214
US in talks to expand nuclear weapons deployments in Europe
Washington has signalled openness to additional countries hosting nuclear-capable bombers
The US is discussing whether to deploy nuclear weapons in additional European Nato states, in a move intended to reassure allies that reduced conventional military support does not weaken security guarantees.
US officials have signalled openness to additional deployments beyond the existing six countries hosting nuclear-capable bombers, three people briefed on the discussions told the FT.
The talks, which are highly confidential and may not lead to any changes in nuclear-sharing arrangements, come amid widespread concern in Europe over Donald Trump’s moves to remove US troops and critical weapons systems from the continent. It would potentially allow more countries to host so-called US dual-capable aircraft (DCA), which are able to deliver nuclear strikes.
Two of the people said the openness to discussing an expansion was intended to show the US commitment to providing a nuclear umbrella even as Nato allies were pushed to shoulder more of the conventional defence burden.
Countries on Nato’s eastern flank including Poland and some Baltic states were interested in potentially hosting DCA bases, the people said.
Polish officials have in particular spoken publicly about a desire to host nuclear weapons. Former president Andrzej Duda called for the US to expand the DCA initiative to its soil, while Warsaw this year joined a new French initiative to explore the potential of temporarily moving parts of its nuclear deterrent to allied European countries for the first time.
Discussions were ongoing in Nato channels, said one person familiar with the discussions, adding that allies closest to Russia’s borders had shown the most interest. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and repeated remarks by President Vladimir Putin about the Kremlin’s nuclear capabilities had catalysed interest among some allies in playing host to DCA, they added.
A second person familiar with the discussions said that an agreement to expand US nuclear hosting was not imminent.
Nato’s nuclear sharing programme involves allies — currently Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK — approved to host US DCA and “forward-deployed” nuclear bombs. These are under US protection, with Washington retaining sole authorisation for their use.
Drawn up during the cold war, Nato says the arrangement “provide a platform to non-nuclear Nato Allies to shape the Alliance’s nuclear policy and planning as a mean to guarantee their security without acquiring nuclear weapons”.
US nuclear weapons deployed to European states are stored and guarded by US troops. Allied nations’ assigned air groups, using F-35, F-15 and Tornado jets, are trained to participate in exercises and missions to demonstrate force posture, and ultimately deploy the bombs when authorised by the US.
Recent moves by the Trump administration to cancel planned deployments of key weapons systems to Europe and announce troop withdrawals as part of a move to shift more military assets to Asia and other regions have startled some Nato allies. They fear it will leave gaps in the continent’s defences and ability to deter or repel any attack.
While European allies have committed to drastically increasing their defence spending and investments in key conventional military capabilities currently provided to them by the US, the nuclear umbrella is considered irreplaceable.
Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte said after a meeting of alliance foreign ministers last month that there was a “common understanding that whilst the US will pivot more towards other theatres . . . the overall deterrence and defence in Europe has to stay the same”.
“Let me be crystal clear . . . Were anyone to be foolish as to attack us, the response would be devastating,” Rutte said.
Washington has signalled openness to additional countries hosting nuclear-capable bombers
The US is discussing whether to deploy nuclear weapons in additional European Nato states, in a move intended to reassure allies that reduced conventional military support does not weaken security guarantees.
US officials have signalled openness to additional deployments beyond the existing six countries hosting nuclear-capable bombers, three people briefed on the discussions told the FT.
The talks, which are highly confidential and may not lead to any changes in nuclear-sharing arrangements, come amid widespread concern in Europe over Donald Trump’s moves to remove US troops and critical weapons systems from the continent. It would potentially allow more countries to host so-called US dual-capable aircraft (DCA), which are able to deliver nuclear strikes.
Two of the people said the openness to discussing an expansion was intended to show the US commitment to providing a nuclear umbrella even as Nato allies were pushed to shoulder more of the conventional defence burden.
Countries on Nato’s eastern flank including Poland and some Baltic states were interested in potentially hosting DCA bases, the people said.
Polish officials have in particular spoken publicly about a desire to host nuclear weapons. Former president Andrzej Duda called for the US to expand the DCA initiative to its soil, while Warsaw this year joined a new French initiative to explore the potential of temporarily moving parts of its nuclear deterrent to allied European countries for the first time.
Discussions were ongoing in Nato channels, said one person familiar with the discussions, adding that allies closest to Russia’s borders had shown the most interest. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and repeated remarks by President Vladimir Putin about the Kremlin’s nuclear capabilities had catalysed interest among some allies in playing host to DCA, they added.
A second person familiar with the discussions said that an agreement to expand US nuclear hosting was not imminent.
Nato’s nuclear sharing programme involves allies — currently Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK — approved to host US DCA and “forward-deployed” nuclear bombs. These are under US protection, with Washington retaining sole authorisation for their use.
Drawn up during the cold war, Nato says the arrangement “provide a platform to non-nuclear Nato Allies to shape the Alliance’s nuclear policy and planning as a mean to guarantee their security without acquiring nuclear weapons”.
US nuclear weapons deployed to European states are stored and guarded by US troops. Allied nations’ assigned air groups, using F-35, F-15 and Tornado jets, are trained to participate in exercises and missions to demonstrate force posture, and ultimately deploy the bombs when authorised by the US.
Recent moves by the Trump administration to cancel planned deployments of key weapons systems to Europe and announce troop withdrawals as part of a move to shift more military assets to Asia and other regions have startled some Nato allies. They fear it will leave gaps in the continent’s defences and ability to deter or repel any attack.
While European allies have committed to drastically increasing their defence spending and investments in key conventional military capabilities currently provided to them by the US, the nuclear umbrella is considered irreplaceable.
Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte said after a meeting of alliance foreign ministers last month that there was a “common understanding that whilst the US will pivot more towards other theatres . . . the overall deterrence and defence in Europe has to stay the same”.
“Let me be crystal clear . . . Were anyone to be foolish as to attack us, the response would be devastating,” Rutte said.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
I think what's being suggested is that Europe was the de facto battle ground between Russia and the US. i.e. that the US was going to defend itself in Europe. I don't mean that was an evil strategy or anything but that it is of course better to do your fighting as far away from home as possible. The Russians obviously responded to this by building a huge force. The US could have chosen not to spend all that money and risk having Russian effort concentrated on other things.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,471
Likes: 844
From: Here 'n' there!
From ORACs post on the US nuclear umbrella a couple posts back from here (#4754):- ".....While European allies have committed to drastically increasing their defence spending and investments in key conventional military capabilities currently provided to them by the US ....."
From where I'm sat (in the UK) I think you can safely count the UK out re "drastically increasing their defence spending"!
The much-vaunted Defence Investment Plan is approaching 6 months overdue and, even when it's finally published (whenever that actually happens - latest guestimate is just ahead of next months NATO summit) I suspect it will simply promise "jam tomorrow" ........ with "tomorrow" never actually being defined!
Apparently the Defence Minister, Luke Pollard, has said the government has signed "1,200 major defence deals" since the general election in July 2024. I've just checked and, yes, fear not, there is no shortage whatsoever of paper-clips in the Stationery cupboard so we're absolutely fine Chaps and Chapesses!!!!
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 2nd June 2026 at 14:18.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 373
From: PLanet Earth
I think most Governments were reluctant to tell their population the truth (knowing that the average voting public wouldn't have been ecstatic over this message) and were hoping all would be well. Hope is a well established and tried and tested operational principle. In many walks of life.
Joined: Sep 2023
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 219
Likes: 99
From: Montana
I think most Governments were reluctant to tell their population the truth (knowing that the average voting public wouldn't have been ecstatic over this message) and were hoping all would be well. Hope is a well established and tried and tested operational principle. In many walks of life.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
I think most Governments were reluctant to tell their population the truth (knowing that the average voting public wouldn't have been ecstatic over this message) and were hoping all would be well. Hope is a well established and tried and tested operational principle. In many walks of life.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Norway signing up to be under the French nuclear umbrella has me curious. Why, if the reason is known does one NATO nation need sign up for nuclear protection from another NATO nation when Article V should already do that. An attack on one is an attack on all, cept for no nukes unless you've signed an additional agreement?