HOW EUROPE WINS & AMERICA LOSES IF THEY WITHDRAW

Its time I think, to face the bottom line of what happens if America actually withdraws from Europe – I’ll tell you why its unlikely to go and why we shouldn’t be too bothered if it did leave militarily.

Europe+ is a group of willing nations. We have the problem of Hungary, a nation so self centered on its authoritarian leader Victor Orban, who speaks much about loving Russia, while staying neatly inside NATO just in case the Russians ever reach his border. At the same time he stays inside the EU he never stops impeding because without it, his tiny little country would be a bankrupt wasteland of peasant farmers. He knows which side of the bread is buttered and he intends on keeping it that way. Until he gets thrown out of office next April by one of his former colleagues whose new party is doing well in the polls and is set to win.

Trump’s America thinks he’s there for good and they use him as a sort of coat hanger for policies they want all of Europe to adopt. But if the Americans withdraw militarily from Europe, Orban is on his own, even if he cheats his way to another win. He’ll be infinitely more isolated and far more amenable to EU needs.

That’s one minor gain for Europe.

Other more tangible gains will be the very thing I believe that will stop the US from withdrawing completely. There are major military bases at Ramstein in Germany – a facility paid for by the German Government I might add, that the US uses almost as if it were sovereign territory – it is not. The new military hospital alone at Ramstein cost the US $970m & the German Government $190m. You don’t hear Trump or his acolytes mention that. Or the fact that the Germans spend around $120 million a year maintaining Ramstein & Spangdahlem air bases for the US to use.

They’re not the only countries that spend large amounts of money on US bases. The UK pays for the upkeep of RAF Lakenheath which is used 99% by the USAF. Italy pays for Aviano air base and Catania, as well as the Sixth Fleet base at Gaeta near Naples, Greece for Suda Bay in Crete and Turkey for the base at Inçirlik near Izmir. What the US pays for tends on these sites tends to be only things they feel they must have for their use.

These bases would be very useful to an America-free European military. When it comes to Ramstein particularly we should not underestimate is importance to the US strategic posture in North Africa and the Middle East. Pretty much anything the Americans send or use to deploy in Qatar, Israel, generally for CENTCOM, it all flows through and via Ramstein. It has for years and there is nowhere else that matches its facilities and capabilities anywhere outside of the US itself. In the event of any major American military problem, or hostages or casualties, where is it they first fly back to before returning to the US? Ramstein medical centre. I cannot imagine Congress being willing to ever let it go, because it’s absolutely central to American operations in the Eastern Hemisphere. But if they did it’s an ideal joint operations base for a revised NATO rapid deployment force to send whatever is needed anywhere in Europe.

Another major base the Americans will not want to give up because it’s partly for their own protection, is the AEGIS Ashore anti-missile system in Poland. Poland would not want to see that go either, but one of its key purposes is the interception of ballistic missiles from Russia or Iran heading towards Europe or the US East Coast.

Nor would the Americans be happy to say goodbye to their Satellite Ground Station, the US Air Force’s 422nd Air Base Group, operating one of Europe’s largest military switchboards for communications, and has a vital military comms relay for US forces at Brackley in Northamptonshire, UK. Nor would it be happy to see the removal of access to the live feeds from Fylingdales or Akrotiri in Cyprus, or the Norwegian monitoring stations near North Cape and a multitude of other key facilities that make up 70% of NATO’s combined ISR capacity, most fed to Langley, the DIA, NSA and military command centers.

Then lets not forget the BMEWS site at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base, renamed in April 2023), uses a Solid State Phased Array Radar System (SSPARS) for missile warning and spacecraft tracking. In Greenland, which is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO, and EU member. I mean if Russia was so nonthreatening and such a good friend to America? Why would you even need it?

And then there’s The NWS, a joint US-Canadian radar network operated by NORAD for aerospace surveillance across North America’s northern approaches. It includes 47 sites—mostly in Canada—with 11 long-range AN/FPS-117 radars and 36 short-range AN/FPS-124 radars stretching from Alaska to Labrador. The US Air Force owns the radars and tactical equipment, while Canada owns the sites and infrastructure. Canada finds it useful but would America need them, it’s all part of NATO and they’re such good friends with an nonthreatening Russia now.

There is so much the Americans could give up, but they won’t want to. Indeed much of it is essential to the deployment of the Golden Dome missile defence system they’re already about to build. They have so much to lose and very little to gain. However let’s say they do walk out of Europe and leave us alone, they blow all caution to the wind and they exit NATO. How does Europe stand?

WHAT EUROPE GAINS

First of all, there’s the strategic element to all of this at a geopolitical level. A Europe+ NATO is not a global power seeking to influence and control other parts of the world. It is not aiming to prop up other regimes, or deny existence to others. It is a defensive alliance designed to protect its members. That membership is expected to attain a certain degree of liberal democratic process and the acceptance of differences, while at the same time showing a united front in the realm of self defence. By all of us working together we have the ability to be far more capable than perhaps is realized. Whether or not Turkey would continue as a member is a question that would soon be answered. In any even Ukraine would be welcomed with open arms.

This new Europe+ does not need 11 carrier battle groups to patrol the world’s oceans, or an overwhelming nuclear arsenal on 24/7 alert ready to fire globe ending destruction. It needs a couple of at sea nuclear submarines with around 28 missiles and 200 warheads – because that’s all it would take to wipe Moscow and St Petersburg off the map if it came to it, and no Russian leader wants that.

In rough comparisons the Europe+ version of NATO is equal militarily to China. It dwarfs Russia on land, in the air and at sea. It has a budget that even allowing for PPP (purchasing power parity) is 1.5 times that of Russian expenditure in war mode. It’s about 55% of what America spends, and that’s without the booster programs currently running in Germany, and the new EU development program.

Europe could if it chose to, quickly carve out some rapid wins. It could agree to stop developing competing missile, warship and MBT programs and work hard to resolve one program for each everyone could get with. This would be especially true for the sixth generation fighter program, although I suspect that’s too far down the road now and Britain, Japan & Italy are miles ahead of the still nascent Franco-German project.

In the distant future Britain and France could cooperate on a next generation SSBN program, and Britain could work with France on a new sea launched ballistic missile that they could both deploy, or just buy the French version, its perfectly adequate. The AUKUS project is too far ahead to ignore it and that needs an update article of its own.

Cooperative surface vessel programs like frigates and destroyers, minesweepers and drone warfare at sea should be easy enough if we decided to do it. Britain and Norway are cooperating on Frigates, France and Italy too. We can widen that level of cooperation. Running multiple IFV fleets and manufacturing programs is also counterproductive, especially given their importance over MBT’s these days. Long range fires like HIMARS are needed – but rather than develop something new we can work with Korea on license building their allegory system.

Much of this like artillery and SPG’s, attack helicopters and the like needs to be streamlined, made more efficient and in doing so cut costs. Ukraine is the global leader in drone warfare and modern tactics and command and control, let them lead us to develop new ideas and new systems we can use for all of NATO.

Just as ammunition has been hugely streamlined and its universality greatly improved – the days of 300mm mortars not fitting in other peoples 300mm tubes or 155mm shells not quite the same from one nations manufacturer to another have been greatly reduced.

Long range anti-air systems, something as good as or better than Patriot is not impossible. That systems has more launchers globally than ammunition it can fire – and it looks like it’s going to stay that way for years. The Israels have decommissioned theirs because they have something better – so we too must move on. Europe’s biggest weakness – especially the UK – is lack of anti air cover.

We have the basis of a heavy lift Air Force in those countries who employ C-17’s but there’s nothing being built of in the pipeline to replace them, even in the US. The European air transport and tanker fleet is too small. But we have Airbus that can build both.

We need AWACS replacements and eventually we will need new aircraft that do the job of the UK’s only pre-historic RC135 Rivet Joint ESR plane that’s almost as old as I am give or take a year.

We need more cooperation, not less. We must make it possible for all the remaining members of NATO to work better, smarter and more rapidly together. We cannot put EU restricted road blocks in the way to the rest of NATO’s members. It would be a mistake to detach Turkey which has a burgeoning defence industry – and lets not forget it was Turkey that built the drones that turned the tide of war for Azerbaijan against Armenia and against General Hifter in Libya, let alone was crucial at the start of the Ukraine invasion. We have to stop being so protective and picky about what we choose to buy and who from when they are allies with excellent products. America remember is no longer our ally.

And that puts us up against America. They want us to buy their equipment. We should stop as soon as possible. Europe is capable of producing technically excellent equipment – it often doesn’t because the American defence giants are very good getting their first when it’s not always the best option. Ownership of much of the European defence industry is held by BAe (as American as it is British these days) Northrop, Lockheed, General Dynamics have deep reach into the industry. They must be blocked from taking more of it because they do not represent value for money.

At the same time European industry must not become monopolistic because if it does it will lose its originality and its innovation. This is all a very complex maneuver to undertake. We need innovation, economies of scale and unity of purpose. We need a more open minded and general willingness to work smarter and better without national pride getting in the way. It’s that last feature that hampers so much French and British development. both sides let their national foibles and pride get in the way of getting it right. The British Ajax program IFV is one such grotesque example.

There are many governments already willing to dive in and make this happen. There are just as many with their foibles and hangups – “oh we can’t have that on that side of the wheel because we never have before” – no more of this drivel. Adapt!

Europe has a huge amount to gain. Standing up for itself and defending its geographic area from the local predator is easier than we think. We have programs to boost our defences, and facilitate the use of what we have. Now we must get on and do it.

NATO has to overcome American disengagement especially at the command level. We need our own UK-France produced tactical nuclear weapons to replace those allocated by the US under their control. Russia has to know we have a response. In so many areas we have developments under way that equal the best of what they have, or are superior. We talk ourselves down too much.

What must change above all else however is how we treat Russia and react to it, let alone the Chinese. China is a manipulative undermining long game player. We must never forget that and we must stop letting them get away with things like buying the Royal Mint as their new embassy in London. What do they want it for? A police station to terrify Chinese people in the UK, a signals monitoring facility and social manipulation point designed to gain secrets and commercial advantage.

Russia is a spent cartridge that’s going to take years to put itself back together, but like a bad penny it will always turn up and it will always spoil the party, if not now then in five or ten or twenty years. We have to stop thinking of it as the big bad bear because it’s more dangerous on social media than it is in invading Poland or anywhere else. The thing is it has to be deterred from doing it because all they understand is military force, and they always think they’re more powerful than they really are. And we must never again give them access to key energy markets despite the temptation. Nordstream is dead, let’s keep it that way.

We can NEVER trust Russia and we must NEVER trust China. And we must NEVER be in a position where we can be intimidated by them or the Americans.

Defence costs money but it is the price of freedom. Until that changes, it’s a price we have to pay. Europe+ can do it. It will take time, there will be issues, pride, arguments and change. That’s the democratic process for you. But in the end it works and we’re still here. Long may it continue.

The Analyst

militaryanalyst.bsky.social