Europe Reckons With Its Depleted Armies

[Dashinka 25,856]

By 

Julian E. Barnes in Brussels, 

Anton Troianovski in Berlin and 

Robert Wall in London

Updated June 2, 2017 7:22 p.m. ET

370 COMMENTS

Soldiers in Germany’s Light Infantry Battalion 413 near the Baltic Sea coast complained last year that they didn’t have enough sniper rifles or antitank weapons or the right kind of vehicles.

During exercises, they told a parliamentary ombudsman, their unit didn’t have the munitions to simulate battle. Instead, they were told to imagine the bangs.

Across Europe, similar shortfalls riddle land, sea, air and cyber forces following years of defense cutbacks.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump last month irked European leaderswhen he berated them at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s new headquarters for insufficient defense spending and what he called unpaid military bills.

Current and former European officials were quick to point out that NATO members don’t owe dues to the U.S., but they acknowledged Mr. Trump wasn’t wrong: Europe lacks the capabilities to defend itself.

 

“Trump won’t have made many friends during his trip to Brussels,” said Richard Shirreff, a retired British four-star general and a former senior NATO commander. “However, Trump is dead right that European nations do not spend enough on defense.”

When Belgium put hundreds of soldiers on street patrols in Brussels after the Paris terror attacks in November 2015, it had to request a thousand armor sets from the U.S. Army. Britain’s Royal Navy has 19 destroyers and frigates. In 1982, during the Falklands War, it had 55.

Fighting wars—and preventing them—doesn’t entail just bullets and bombs. Troops and heavy weapons must be moved to the front, requiring fleets of planes, helicopters and trucks. Arsenals must be ready to reload weapons, necessitating stockpiles of munitions. Armies must be ready to defend themselves and to counterattack, which requires specialized systems. In Europe, all are in short supply.

The U.S. has also cut back its troop strength, naval fleet and tank forces from their Cold War highs. But Europe’s offerings are far outmatched by America’s high-end military capabilities, including advanced fighter planes, armed drones, elite special-operation forces and aircraft carriers. 

 

Despite cutbacks in the Pentagon’s budget in recent years, U.S. military spending far exceeds Europe’s, and American conventional forces are generally better trained and equipped than their European counterparts. The U.S. defense budget, $680 billion by NATO calculations, dwarfs the alliance’s European members, which spend a total of $242 billion.

Europeans have tried for decades to more efficiently build military hardware and organize troops. That effort is littered with failures, delays and compromises. Today European allies spend roughly half as much as the U.S. on defense yet have less than one-sixth of its combat power, European officials acknowledge.

The U.S. has long chastised Europeans on their inadequate military. After the 2011 bombing campaign in Libya, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized allies for not having enough smart bombs to conduct the effort. NATO countries had to rely on U.S. targeting experts and refueling planes and even borrowed American munitions.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-reckons-with-its-depleted-armies-1496444305

[IAMX 3,055]

13 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

By 

Julian E. Barnes in Brussels, 

Anton Troianovski in Berlin and 

Robert Wall in London

Updated June 2, 2017 7:22 p.m. ET

370 COMMENTS

Soldiers in Germany’s Light Infantry Battalion 413 near the Baltic Sea coast complained last year that they didn’t have enough sniper rifles or antitank weapons or the right kind of vehicles.

During exercises, they told a parliamentary ombudsman, their unit didn’t have the munitions to simulate battle. Instead, they were told to imagine the bangs.

Across Europe, similar shortfalls riddle land, sea, air and cyber forces following years of defense cutbacks.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump last month irked European leaderswhen he berated them at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s new headquarters for insufficient defense spending and what he called unpaid military bills.

Current and former European officials were quick to point out that NATO members don’t owe dues to the U.S., but they acknowledged Mr. Trump wasn’t wrong: Europe lacks the capabilities to defend itself.

 

“Trump won’t have made many friends during his trip to Brussels,” said Richard Shirreff, a retired British four-star general and a former senior NATO commander. “However, Trump is dead right that European nations do not spend enough on defense.”

When Belgium put hundreds of soldiers on street patrols in Brussels after the Paris terror attacks in November 2015, it had to request a thousand armor sets from the U.S. Army. Britain’s Royal Navy has 19 destroyers and frigates. In 1982, during the Falklands War, it had 55.

Fighting wars—and preventing them—doesn’t entail just bullets and bombs. Troops and heavy weapons must be moved to the front, requiring fleets of planes, helicopters and trucks. Arsenals must be ready to reload weapons, necessitating stockpiles of munitions. Armies must be ready to defend themselves and to counterattack, which requires specialized systems. In Europe, all are in short supply.

The U.S. has also cut back its troop strength, naval fleet and tank forces from their Cold War highs. But Europe’s offerings are far outmatched by America’s high-end military capabilities, including advanced fighter planes, armed drones, elite special-operation forces and aircraft carriers. 

 

Despite cutbacks in the Pentagon’s budget in recent years, U.S. military spending far exceeds Europe’s, and American conventional forces are generally better trained and equipped than their European counterparts. The U.S. defense budget, $680 billion by NATO calculations, dwarfs the alliance’s European members, which spend a total of $242 billion.

Europeans have tried for decades to more efficiently build military hardware and organize troops. That effort is littered with failures, delays and compromises. Today European allies spend roughly half as much as the U.S. on defense yet have less than one-sixth of its combat power, European officials acknowledge.

The U.S. has long chastised Europeans on their inadequate military. After the 2011 bombing campaign in Libya, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates criticized allies for not having enough smart bombs to conduct the effort. NATO countries had to rely on U.S. targeting experts and refueling planes and even borrowed American munitions.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-reckons-with-its-depleted-armies-1496444305

The EU right now is desperately trying to rally Europe to create a better military, however, to use it they need to justify it. The US involves itself in conflicts regularly that's why it justifies the expenses.. the EU doesn't like to. So of course they also lack clout. Maybe when Islam floods them and becomes more prominent, dictating how they do things, they might realize the importance of military forces.

[Dashinka 25,856]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

It would be nice if we could have a nice conversation without all the mudslinging,trolling and mudslinging 

So getting back to the topic, can the EU or individual European countries afford to beef up their military?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So getting back to the topic, can the EU or individual European countries afford to beef up their military?

It's a matter of priorities, IMO. Of course they could spend more if they so choose, but it seems like relying on the US is how it ended up.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

This is what Europe's leaders look like when asked to pay for a military  

 

Why does Europe need pay for a military force when there's a bunch of suckers the other side of the pond already paying.

 

 

[Dashinka 25,856]

4 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

It's a matter of priorities, IMO. Of course they could spend more if they so choose, but it seems like relying on the US is how it ended up.

I agree that this seems to be the case.  With that being the general feeling, I don't think the EU would be best served by starting a trade war with the US unless they truly want to reorganize their priorities.

[IAMX 3,055]

11 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

This is what Europe's leaders look like when asked to pay for a military  

 

Why does Europe need pay for a military force when there's a bunch of suckers the other side of the pond already paying.

 

 

They want more clout worldwide without putting in the manpower. So basically the easy way. 

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

They want more clout worldwide without putting in the manpower. So basically the easy way. 

Europe is lazy when it comes to military, but it will come crying to the US someday cap in hand looking for help.  

[IAMX 3,055]

6 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by TBoneTX
to edit removed material from quote

[TBoneTX 47,505]

Multiple off-topic and bickering posts have been removed.  Please discuss the topic and not each other.

[Dashinka 25,856]

15 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Europe is lazy when it comes to military, but it will come crying to the US someday cap in hand looking for help.  

That is an interesting take.  Given the reduction in equipment and manpower over the years in Europe, this does appear to be the case.  The U.K. Is a great example, once one of the leading navies in the world, now primarily and also ran with the equipment they currently have.  I think Canada is in a similar boat, but they may be taking advantage of their proximity to the US.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is an interesting take.  Given the reduction in equipment and manpower over the years in Europe, this does appear to be the case.  The U.K. Is a great example, once one of the leading navies in the world, now primarily and also ran with the equipment they currently have.  I think Canada is in a similar boat, but they may be taking advantage of their proximity to the US.

The US has long played and paid for the role of being the worlds police while other countries cut back. Everyone calls for the US to get involved in conflicts but then refuse to support it when it does. Now with the talk of an EU army maybe it is time for the US to cut right back and see how Europe gets on. But eventually they will come calling to the US again.    

[IAMX 3,055]

36 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The US has long played and paid for the role of being the worlds police while other countries cut back. Everyone calls for the US to get involved in conflicts but then refuse to support it when it does. Now with the talk of an EU army maybe it is time for the US to cut right back and see how Europe gets on. But eventually they will come calling to the US again.    

Like letting a kid take off his training wheels. It's amazing that Europe needs to be taught after all this history of wars that dwarfs the US.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

1 hour ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The US has long played and paid for the role of being the worlds police while other countries cut back. Everyone calls for the US to get involved in conflicts but then refuse to support it when it does. Now with the talk of an EU army maybe it is time for the US to cut right back and see how Europe gets on. But eventually they will come calling to the US again.    

Amen.

[Dashinka 25,856]

2 hours ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

The US has long played and paid for the role of being the worlds police while other countries cut back. Everyone calls for the US to get involved in conflicts but then refuse to support it when it does. Now with the talk of an EU army maybe it is time for the US to cut right back and see how Europe gets on. But eventually they will come calling to the US again.    

What will be interesting is will this lead to an EU military, or individual national military?  Of course, they already have NATO, but this could easily (relatively speaking) be transformed to an EU military.