The numbers tell some of the story, but does a solely European NATO have the staying power to endure in the long term?
As NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary, there’s growing speculation about the Alliance’s future, especially with the potential return of Trump to the White House. This has sparked a lot of discussions about what NATO might look like without the United States.
Can Europe manage on its own? With whispers of America possibly pulling back, people are increasingly questioning whether NATO can still effectively counter threats, particularly from Russia.
At first glance, the answer seems simple. The combined military strength of NATO members, even without the US, is impressive ā far beyond what Ukraine had in 2022 when it managed to stop and even push back the Russian advance.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Back in 2022, Ukraine faced Russia with older Soviet-era military gear. They had about 850 to 1,000 main battle tanks like the T-64, T-72, and T-80, a few hundred artillery pieces, and fewer than 100 operational combat jets. Yet, with a bit of help from advanced Western weapons, Ukraine managed to stall and push back Russian forces in most areas.
Russia, despite its huge arsenal of up to 13,000 tanks and over a thousand fighter jets, showed major weaknesses, including logistical issues and big equipment losses. If Russia couldnāt overwhelm Ukraine, its chances against the much larger and more advanced NATO forces ā even without the US ā seem slim.
European NATO members alone have a vastly superior military compared to what Ukraine had in 2022. They boast thousands of modern main battle tanks, advanced jet fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and SAAB Gripen. They even have some advanced US weapons, like the F-35 fighters, the M57 ATACMS ballistic missile in Poland, and Britainās Tomahawk cruise missiles.
When it comes to troop numbers, NATO (excluding the US) has over 1.5 million active military personnel, compared to Russiaās 1 million. But itās not just about the numbers. The real strength of NATO lies in its advanced technology and how well its forces work together. European NATO members have invested heavily in next-gen aircraft, precision-guided munitions, state-of-the-art electronic warfare, and cyber defence. These investments make NATO capable of conducting highly effective operations over vast distances ā something Russia struggles with. The war in Ukraine has shown that having more troops isnāt always enough. Russia has struggled against Ukraineās sophisticated defences, highlighting the importance of modern military tactics that emphasise mobility, flexibility, and precision.
Even without the US, NATOās strength is in its cutting-edge technology and integrated command structures, allowing it to adapt quickly to changing battlefield conditions.
Where NATO really shines is in combined arms operations. This means using different military branches ā infantry, armour, artillery, aviation, and naval forces ā together to achieve a shared goal. This strategy makes NATO forces far more effective than if each branch worked separately.
In contrast, the Russian military has relied on outdated Soviet-era tactics, like just throwing soldiers at a problem without adapting. In Ukraine, Russia has struggled to integrate its air and ground forces effectively. Given that Ukraine used Western tactics taught by NATO, itās unlikely Russia could realistically challenge a fully mobilised NATO force, even without the US.
However, a NATO without the United States would face some serious challenges. The Alliance heavily relies on the US for key capabilities like operational intelligence, air-to-air refuelling, missile defence, and more. Without these āAmerican enablers,ā NATOās ability to sustain a long-term fight would be tested. Moving tanks and troops around Europe effectively would still be a big challenge.
And letās not forget the US nuclear umbrella. Without it, Europeās nuclear deterrence depends on Britain and France, which, while capable, donāt match the comprehensive coverage provided by the US. This might lead Putin to believe Europe couldnāt inflict serious damage on Russia.
Sure, a European NATO could likely fend off a Russian attack initially, but what about months down the line?
Europe needs to boost its military capabilities and invest in areas currently supported by the US. At the same time, diplomatic efforts are crucial to maintain unity and commitment among NATO members. The real strength of the Alliance lies not just in its numbers but in its collective resolve. A fleet of tanks, planes, and ships means little if everyone knows youāre hesitant to use them.
We aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters at the UK Defence Journal. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
To sign up for our newsletter, click here
The Achilles’ heel would be ammunition stocks.
For dumb ammunition last I checked Europe was actually ahead of the US in terms of production.Would need to double check the current numbers though.
Thatās good to hear. Production rates have certainly ramped up, but stockpiles will take years to build up to sensible levels.
Europe was always ahead of the US artillery manufacturing primarily due to the Czechās.
But the US doesnāt use much artillery so it wonāt have a lot of manufacturing capacity.
Surely that would be a disadvantage for the US in any conflict. It suggests that they are relying on its high tech to win a war quickly overwhelming opposition with superior tech. If that tech is worn down however any lack of artillery could compromise defence and indeed defending any attack from counter attack. Drones may well supersede artillery on the battlefield but still seems for the foreseeable future at least artillery plays a vital role on the battlefield to add depth, especially with smart ammunition.
Itās more that the USA relies on air power than artillery.
The ghost of Pierre Sprey and the fighter mafia lives on…
I don’t think Drones will supercede Artillery as drones are a force multiplier for artillery.
May be Spyinthesky was referring to munitions carried by or within drones. In that sense, the evolution is huge. We all ear about autocanons on various types of vehicules. Though, this may not cover everything, nor anyone out of a vehicule. Hense drone FPV with grenades can be considered as light artillery some how.
I think the return of mortar or wheeled mounted mortars will be important to regain firepower. But they too will not be able to replace drones in every situation.
The thing is, the longer a War between ENATO and Russia goes on the better it will be for Europe. Europes Industrial and Economic Power (and population) dwarfs Russia, so if the war keeps going on, that’s more time for Europe to switch to a war footing, more times for it’s MIC to ramp up.
Russia’s best hope of defeating a NATO minus the US is to strike quickly, and hope that the lack of unity of command means a confused reaction, and then hope for some substantial gains before the EU switches to a war economy.
Failing at the first hurdle and then being stalemated as Europe brings more and more factories online will, in the long term, be a loosing proposition.
If Russia goes to war with Europe it instantly finds all of its sea ports cut off, it canāt export oil so it can import any of the tools and many if the components it needs.
Id love to know what people think Russia can strike quickly with unless it went nuclear.
They cant take over a country next door, are recruiting foreign criminals to fight for them goodness knows what state the equipment they have left is in.
I really doubt they have any capability at all left to attack anyone in a conventional way with anything that even remotely constitutes a professional fighting force.
Russia striking quickly is at least plausible, they’ve done it numerous times in the past, and succesfuly.
Their typical mode of operating is to claim local Russians are oppressed, then use Russian sponsored organised crime syndicates to stage an uprising, followed by at first unmarked Russian soldiers “supporting” the uprising in order to confuse a western response, followed by Russian troops openly crossing the border to support the rebels. This chain of events happens rapidly and gets inside NATO decision making cycles, so that by the time anyone has worked out that Russian ground forces are operating in, for example, Latvia, and not just local uprisings, the Russians are already outside most of the Latvian Army bases.
Even if NATO activates itself, and decides not to accept the fait acompli, which it might do as we did in 2014 in Ukraine or 2008 in Georgia, NATO standing forward presence is quite light in the Baltics. 1 Battlegroup in each Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, and the local forces need time to be called up.
So yeah, a mashikorvka, forcing NATO forces to surrender in confusion, and quickly advancing into the Baltics and forcing the West to accept the status quo as a frozen conflict is probably the best case scenario for Russia. Failing that, if they planned for it, they might be able to sustain a high loss, attrition assault ala Avdiivka for a while, but progress in that regard will be slow and rely on NATO forces not arriving in strength and having ammunition shortages for a few months to a year.
Dern,
What happened about the plan to upgrade BGs in the eFP missions to brigades?
Requires things like Tanks, vehicles and infantry. Stuff we don’t have in abundance.
UK is the framework nation in Estonia – we do not provide all the assets. Currently 4 other countries provide assets. We would of course have to uplift our national contribution to some extent, but we would not have to provide the full brigade ourselves.
Germany is going through with it, they’ll have a Panzer Brigade permanently stationed in Lithuania, ala BAOR (so no rotating units back to Germany).
Panzer Brigade 45, will consist of Panzer Battalion 203, Panzergrenadier Battalion 122, and the German EFP Panzergrenadier battlegroup. Which is a pretty meaty formation. I don’t know which CS and CSS units are going with it, and Germany has an artillery shortage, generally holding it’s guns at divisional level so I don’t know what the artillery is doing.
As far as I know, there is no UK plan to match this.
Thanks Dern. It seems that perhaps NATO has not issued an edict to increase from BG to brigade in the various eFP locations but rather left it up to individual members to ‘uplift’ if they can.
Europe should be able to stand against Russia one to one BUT Putin and Russia have been willing to shell nuclear power stations, blow up their own gas pipeline attack civilian populations. He wonāt face nato straight on.
āAnd letās not forget the US nuclear umbrella. Without it, Europeās nuclear deterrence depends on Britain and France, which, while capable, donāt match the comprehensive coverage provided by the US. This might lead Putin to believe Europe couldnāt inflict serious damage on Russia.ā
Even without the US, the UK and France together can field over 500 warheads. Thatās more than enough to effectively wipe out several major Russian cities completely. Moscow would certainly cease to exist.
Would Putin gamble on using his nukes, with impunity?
NATO, without the US, might be a smaller dog but weād still have a big bite.
Ummm…er…believe the correct measure would be the number of deliverable warheads, in the case of the UK, it would be the warheads on station w/ the CASD, currently publicly stated as 40. Of course, there are/may be short periods of time when there is overlap w/ the next scheduled CASD boat transiting/on station, when the warhead count would double. Additionally, the loadouts of the Vanguard and/or Dreadnought classes could change over time, but probably at a deliberate pace. The overall inventory of warheads is significantly discounted w/out means of immediate delivery, because the nuclear infrastructure for additional deliveries may well not exist, post first strike. The same concept holds true for every nuclear state. The French may have a larger baseline, as a function of a triad of delivery systems (land, sea and air). Notwithstanding previous discussion, the baseline British and French response would presumably seriously inconvenience someone’s day. š¤š
Yes you right, with the US then NATO nuclear fire power is immense but without it, it may be seen as token by people like Xi and Putin. The concept of loosing a few cities to these people is something they would be entirely prepared to do.
I really think the UK should substantially increase its number of warheads and possibly add in an additional 2 bots to the SSBN fleet. Unfortunately we already took the decision to go to 12 rather than 16 missiles so not much can be done there.
The UK a looks to provide security to its NATO partners but NATO has plenty of conventional forces spread across 27 different members.
The main additional capabilities the UK can bring are submarines and nuclear weapons as well as C4ISTAR.
Both the British and French governments have already decided to do just this in their last defence reviews.
Ultimately, HMG may choose to increase both the number of D-5s and the number of warheads per missile routinely deployed for CASD mission. Eventually, firmly believe when SLCM-N is fully deployed, the tyrants will reconsider their options. š¤
Iām not sure i am in favour of the SLCM-N, the capability that the US and NATO has to launch thousands of cruise missiles is more effective than a tactical nuclear strike but we could conceivably launch such a strike even against a nuclear equipped advisory without a nuclear retaliation.
However by having nuclear cruise missiles this is probably not possible.
Does France routinely have an SSBN in the Pacific, because we don’t. As far as I know, neither force is capable of reaching China from the Atlantic. In theory DeGaulle can still carry nuclear armed Rafales, but in practice it hasn’t for a long time. Why would Xi take British or French nukes seriously. It has more to fear from India.
Technically, the CDG can have ASMPA at any time.
It’s never publicly announced whether they’re part of the load or not.
And yes, this is regularly the case, since the FANU also needs to train.
Atlantic – Beijin is roughly 9000-10000km of distances, so it’s in range of SLBN…
You are right. It is within range. Thanks for the correction.
Both French and British ICBMās can reach China from their station in the Atlantic.
They can go over the North Pole or direct.
Believe you intended to state SLBMs.
Jon, you can’t possibly know where our CASD bomber is or is not.
Presently China is not a real concern as a nuclear threat for Europe it would be destroying the very markets (unlike Russia), its economy relies upon for its wealth. That is gradually changing but for some time to come Russia is the threat for Europe. Our role in a Chinese physical threat to Taiwan is as good as nothing I suspect. China would do everything to split Europe from the US in any conflict it first and foremost wants to dominate commercially as Britain did with its Empire, military use will build up slowly behind that and nukes a long way back and kept as an ultimate threat for many more years as it is presently greatly out matched in numbers, so Chinese missiles coming our way is presently very remote, in 15 to 20 years who knows how that might theoretically change.
Rumoroud range of M51 is able to reach China. Some intel say 14000 km.
Loose cities? Really need to get them tightened up
No French Triad, the Pluton Missiles have been retired i think in the 80s, France fields a Diad, Air and Sub Launched
Huh, thanks for the info, believed the French had maintained a modest land based component.
“Some how le ArmĆ©e de terre has returned…”
Thanks, USAF. I did see the 40 warheads already on the CASD, but just chose to mention the total number available to both countries
France did restart production of nuclear material earlier this year through EDF.
We normally have 1 sub at sea at all time, not so much, but still serious. 192 warheads in 32 missiles. It is enough to drastically hamper the production capacity of a state, even Russia. Additionally, only 50 warheads for Rafale strikes. Serious once again, but no more than that.
No land component in the strike force as up now.
The nuclear arsenal is on a path to come back to state of the art, with new air launched fast missile and potentially an hypersonic glider.
Since we are meant to be the great equalizer if US is not in the dance, the fleet may rise to 6 submarines, but this has not been decided yet. May be we will go 5 / 5 with UK if confidence is strong enough.
The US has a large enough force to conduct nuclear counter force against Russian upland based ICBMās.
Britain and France donāt have enough deployed weapons to do this against Russia on their own.
It would take atleast 600 deployed weapons for this role. This is what the UK nuclear weapons actually do in concurrence with US submarines.
Our weapons are not targetted at indiscriminate cities although without the US in NATO we might have to go back to that approach like the French do.
Are you saying we have adopted a first strike strategy that is dependent on the US? Why? The point of us having an independent nuclear deterrent is that we can cause the end of the world, whatever Russia, the US President or anybody else does. Firing half-a-dozen missiles at “Russian uplands” wouldn’t achieve that. If we aren’t targetting cities, our deterrent doesn’t actually deter.
NATO has always had a first strike strategy. Our weapons can be commanded by NATO and there principal use along with all Trident D5 missiles is to degrade Russian land based ICBMās and nuclear submarines in port. Obviously nuclear war is much more complexed than push button end the word. Modern systems are highly accurate which opened up significant options in the 80ās.
My main point is that the US can do that without us, but we can’t do that without them. NATO won’t make the decision that US nukes will be fired. NATO forces may execute the command, but the US president will make that call. If we agree to allow our nukes to be used that way because the US president thinks that we can degrade Russia’s response, we have no decision making capability of our own. In terms of deterrence, Russia only needs worry about US and French reactions. We pay a lot of money to have an independent deterrent specifically so Russia will have yet another country whose leadership just might, and so they have to worry about us too.
Second, a single multiple-warhead nuclear missile fired by a “degraded” Russian capability can wipe out Britain. That isn’t true of the US. We need a different agenda to the US.
As long as people believe that nuclear war is a lot more sophisticated than push-buttonāworld-ends, we have edged closer to exactly that. The world might get away with a small tactical nuclear exchange, but anything beyond that is so likely to end the world as we know it, degrading Russia’s ability to strike should not be part of UK thinking. France has this one right.
The reality has always been that the US President or even Australian PM is far more likely than the British PM to be ordering our Vanguards to fire as in any kind of nuclear exchange with Russia the British PM will be dead almost instantly.
I fully agree we need our own system though to replace D5, especially in regards to China. The US may get its self into a nuclear exchange in the pacific that we are not part of and at present any nuclear adversary of the USA would likely attack the UK because our BMD radar and SLBMās are heavily intertwined.
I would much rather we had a fully independent system even if it was more expensive and less capable like France.
Australian PM? Presumably an updated (21st century), AUKUS based “On the Beach” scenario? Intriguing thought. š¤š³
The British PM writes their own letter of last resort but itās believed it contains instructions to sail for Australia and come under Australian command. Even before AUKUS the British and Australian governments are closely linked and share a head of state.
Huh
Knew there is a letter of instructions/last resort from the PM, unaware of presumed content. Interesting.
“as in any kind of nuclear exchange with Russia the British PM will be dead almost instantly”…Lets hope its not after 18:00 on a Friday night then as Starmer never works past that time apparently so he literally wouldn’t know what hit him…
Really? The letter of last resort states that? Because last I checked those where destroyed unread when a PM resigns…
They are.
But what Jim says re AUS, or CAN, has been repeated many times over the years, so who knows the validity of it.
Don’t confuse him with facts. To date not a single letter of last resort has been read by anyone other than it’s writer.
Wonder what Corbyns would have said, probably head for the nearest friendly Russian, Cuban or Venezuelan port and offer their services.
Out of curiosity, doesn’t nearly everyone on the planet (aside from a few survivalists, billionaires, and political leaders) likely die from starvation due to nuclear winter if more than 100 to 1000 (depending on locations and megatonnage) strategic level nuclear weapons get fired off in an exchange?
Nah, most of the planet would survive , just the UK and Japan that tend not to survive simulations.
I’m sure the PLANET would be fine. I thought the concern was mass starvation of most of Earth’s human population due to 1-2 years with minimal harvests. Any links to recent studies that indicate otherwise?
Northern hemisphere probably would be somewhat worse for wear/(war š). Previous simulations evidently indicated OZ relatively unscathed, may not be remain a correct assessment, post AUKUS. However, the Kiwis may still have room, provided you don’t mind the sheep. Best practice would be to keep passport current. š¤š
Suspect that in run up to or following a nuclear war, odds of emigration to NZ would be unlikely unless millionaire owner of private jet….
Not certain if true in the UK, but In the States there are tv programs devoted to the doomsday preppers (survivalists). Plans may be beneficial in certain scenarios, however, rather discount the value in the circumstance where iall abide in the wrong hemisphere. š¤š
Putin would become a goat herder apparently.
š
2 things relevant to this I think. Russia though huge is concentrated in its European heart and certainly France and the UK could wipe out that head leaving just for the most part vast expanses with no real capability to operate away from central control and a few eastern cities and land that China would probably absorb over times as most was theirs originally. However the fly in the ointment would be the massive in balance of theatre nuclear weapons which it would undoubtedly try to exploit. This is why Poland has desired to defend every yard of territory rather than retreat and try to win it back once NATO forms its strength. It knows that Russia will try to absorb large areas particularly in Poland and the Baltics, even Finland claim them as Russian territory and threaten theatre nuclear strikes on anyone invading ānew Russiaā . How would that go down in Europe, would there be a Farage effect where others are happy for others to give up territory so they arenāt threatened? Short term thinking true but Farage isnāt the most stupid in that regard be it in Europe or the US of course and who knows how united Europe might be or not be in light of Putinās attempts to divide and conquer by no doubt naming prospective targets he is willing to remove if there is cooperation.
Britain of course has nothing to retaliate with on that level, not sure how much France has. Intimidation has always been Putinās plan (donāt know if Farage is too stupid or too implicated to see reality) to subjugate Europe and Ukraine, Moldova and perhaps the Baltics thereafter were always the perfect way to achieve that Ottomanesque policy quickly thereafter using threats and Mafia and Oligarchs to dominate surrounding Countries and beyond as they once did and until the last few years still did, even if that power was threatened through the EU and other structures. Thankfully the quick painless victory failed to materialise and only the toothless bravado remains but Heāll will he by necessity exploit that and the rhetoric to the end.
Russia is now being lead from the new Capital in Omsk.
Intriguing thought: If US would w/draw from NATO completely, there would be an obvious initial asymmetry in the numbers of nukes between ENATO and a Russian coalition, but the status quo would not persist indefinitely. Would predict ENATO initiative to rapidly increase French and UK stockpiles, followed by withdrawal of selective states from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as they pursue national nuclear programs. There are multiple countries w/:the tech base to succeed, provided it would become a national priority. š¤
Except Russia has put its economy onto a war footing and is gaining first hand fighting experience, however slowly and badly. Whilst Europe is still dithering and the UK is cutting what’s left of its armed forces.
Agree. One of the lines from the original Jurassic Park movie was delivered by the professional big game hunter (in either a British or Australian accent): They (the Velociraptors) learn…š¤š³
Actually, the line is actually: “They remember.”. Doesn’t have the same impact .
One ‘actually should suffice. š
Putin is not gaining any first hand fighting experience that woukd be relevant against NATO.
He is refighting the First World War with hobby drones and propeller planes.
Itās more like mad max than anything approaching modern warfare.
For all talk of deterrence, attack and counter attack the UK should be getting its GBAD happening sooner than later so that there’s less of or no chance of an adversaries missiles ever getting through.
Agreed this should be on the list of priorities which ever government get in power š¤
The list of “priorities” any new HMG has will be immense, not just in defence matters. The list of defence priorities is just simply huge rather than immense….
I agree but it should also be part of a European shield. We should probably buy our own arrow 3 in conjunction with Germany while developing Aster 30 NT blk 2 with the French and Italians.
Iām pressuring the BMD radar we are buying from LM can provide the targeting data the Arrow 3 needs.
ššš¤
Mad Vlad = Mad Max š¤šš
Yes with his turtle tanks and flame throwing motorbikes š
I think the experience is only useful is people survive it and can re-apply the skills gained.
If you lose everyone you send to the front line the experience counts for nothing,
Russia is also losing a lot of combat-ready men while ours are fresh…
Its losing a lot of men, how many would be certified ‘combat ready’ is debatable!
I think something missing from the above is C2 and C5I capabilities the US brings. The USN and USMC provide substantial C2 and power from the sea. The USMC MEUs alone are a countries military on their own. And then with the USA and USAFvast CS5 apparatisus I doubt NATO could mount an effective defense. While numbers such as manpower and ammo stocks do matter a great deal, they’re not much good without the coordinating infrastruture and trained personnel to get something from point A to point B
NATO without US Support could manage.
Firstly though you need to discount Nuclear weapons and assume that nobody would use them. So making that assumption and sticking to just conventional warfare…You also need to assume that NATO would get fair warning of a US withdrawal and up its spending and equipment availability as a result.
Combined arms warfare across all arenas would flatten ivans war machine.
What’s been seen in UKR is not combined arms warfare. Its akin to WW1 tactics.
The timelapse for GW1Desert Storm – The Air War, Day 1 – Animated (youtube.com) shows what is possible on day one. OK no US assets but you get the idea of what everyone else in NATO would be bringing to the table. The one thing NATO would miss is the volume of ALCMs as it doesn’t have heavy bomber aircraft akin to a B52. This was 30 years ago. Since then systems have improved.
Now add in Maritime domains. Anything that ivan has afloat or underwater in the Med, Black sea, or Northern waters would last a few days. Civilian shipping doesn’t need sinking so as to avoid the resultant pollution issues, simply board it and take it into port.
Land warfare. No individual AFVs doing Thunder Runs. There would be large armoured formations of tanks and supporting AFVs, deep fires, air strikes and attack helos all adding to the mix. And this would be 24/7. NATO would own the night.
No border restrictions so going after logistic hubs, power generation, radar, EW, Command hubs would all be on the cards.
Destruction and casualties on both sides from AF Personnel and Civilians would be monumental.
Anyway, it’s all hypothetical and a bit red storm rising.
Does anyone really think that a US Prez would last very long by removing the US weapons manufacturers from their biggest markets? Lockheed, Raytheon,Boeing, Northrop would all lose a massive market. Job losses would be huge.
Thing is if the USA did pull out of NATO how many other countries would follow suit š¤ š š
I should think non, if the US did pull out the world would be a more dangerous place and there would be even more need for NATO.
Hi Jim,
Whilst I agree with you I would point out that some of the right wing parties gaining ground in Europe at the moment are pro-Putin and may take their country’s out of NATO. Their country’s may well live to regret it, but since when did politicians ever think beyond their dogmatic world views..?
We live in strange and dangerous times.
Cheers CR
That may be true, good thing for us is we are the furthest away from Russia š
But I doubt any European country would leave as NATO would remain the biggest military force on the planet even without the USA but it would suddenly have the USA removed as defacto leader making it a body open to political gains by countrie like Turkey, France and even the UK that might all seek to amplify their Geo strategic position through control over NATO.
Hmm, that is an interesting point Jim,
Jockeying for position within NATO would need to be sorted pretty quickly, so hopefully that is something the European NATO members are quietly discussing already.
I would say that all of this discussion overlooks Canada.
If the USA was to pull out of NATO, it is likely, but not certain that Canada would follow suite. The Canadians would want to protect and assert their independence whilst maintaining close links with the US or risk being completely dominated by Washington. They would have to walk a pretty tight line…
Cheers CR
I can see Canada staying in for political reasonās, if trump pulled out there would be a rally round the flag effect for all western leaders, Canada included.
No Canadian partyās seems enthusiastic about their relations with the USA.
Nothing to stop Canada being in NATO but maintaining USUK and NORAD agreements with the USA though.
Jockeying for position if US leaves NATO? I don’t see that at all. Which ENATO country want to do that – and why? It could only be a ENATO country with super-power like levels of military might ie no-one.
I served in Canada for two years on a NATO exchange programme. I could not see Canadians wishing to leave NATO if the US withdrew. They are not American puppets or copycats. They have a threat from Russia in their High North…and they have a strong record of supporting European allies in the world wars and in the Cold War.
Hi Graham,
I take your point about Canada wanting to stay in NATO, but they are very closely intergrated with US forces for the defence of North America and given some of the political tendencies we see at the moment they may find themselves under pressure to leave NATO and focus on North American defence… I should have said that this should be considered a very worst case scenario but given where we are at the moment almost anything seems possible…
Cheers CR
Hi CR,
I don’t see even a future President Trump pressuring Canada to leave NATO. Canada has already prioritised defence of North America over wider NATO tasks. Canada ranks defence of Canada first, of North America second and wider support to NATO third.
Canada’s forces are slender – the US would never feel they needed Canada’s forces for their own defence – they are a superpower with huge resources.
Also, Canada has exceptionally strong affinity for the safety and security of the UK.
Cheers Graham
CR,
Prior to last Thursday’s US Presidential debate, believed any discussion of US deemphasizing NATO role was wildly overstated/exaggerated by European audience. Post first Presidential debate — perhaps not as much. The US Democratic Party has an issue, and by extrapolation, so do others.
If US role would change, believe the first European governments to reevaluate NATO status would be Hungary, Turkey (and possibly Slovakia). Remaining NATO countries would confront an interesting choice: either seriously rearm, or seek military and political accommodations w/ Mad Vlad and the ChiComs. If rearmament path chosen, the new defence spending baseline would be considerably north of 2% of GDP. š¤š³
From what I have read across various news sources, a Trump win will effectively mean the US withdrawing forces/membership of NATO. Believe that they see the PRC as their only serious threat and will adjust their defence posture accordingly.
How a European only NATO reacts/adjusts only time will tell, but agree about several flakey former East European members jumping ship.
Why this hasnt had more airtime and serious discussion during our election race is somewhat puzzling, but then looking at the two main party leaders – chipmunks, it should perhaps come as no real surprise! What it will do though, further down the line is bite us all in the ‘arse’,
The US isolanist movement is exhibiting much the same racial under tones as the 1930ās. Strong against Imperial Japan and weak against the Naziās and facist Italy.
Not that they are wrong, China is clearly the greatest potential threat but they have never been willing to use it unlike Russia. The real lesson is that undivided Europe and America are undefetable either now or 100 years from now.
Both continents United can produce a power so great that no adversary, even China would bother to oppose it as it would loose. This power is what the North Atlantic treaty is, our untouchable bubble from which we may strike at any adversary anywhere in the word well our homeland remains untouched.
This is what we built since 1945, hopefully a few dumb politicians donāt throw it away in a hissy fit.
Hmmm…had never even considered that there may be an element of ethnic/racial bias in the degree of antipathy exhibited toward different despotic regimes. Another intriguing concept. š¤š³
What would happen is that there would be a European political stampede to make bi-lateral defense agreements and trade concessions with the United states.Next Trump Towers, Hotels, Casinos and Country Clubs real estate deals would suddenly appear all over Europe. His Washington, DC. Hotel would be booked out every year.
Historians won’t go for the isolationist narrative: it’s “The Long Expected Parting”. (Everyone should google SecDef Robert Gates last speech in Europe, it’s on C-SPAN.org). The US will not withdraw from the Pacific or Japan and Australia. Note what they are doing to their own defense budgets and plans; and they are buying American. No. This is a specific and foreseen reaction to European cynicism, free-riding and mercantilism.
The US may not withdraw though; I can tell you there’s still a chance. If Trump wins I suspect that, besides the real estate deals, he will ask a bigger budget increase than 2%, ‘back payments’, a hard quota for US defense sales (SecState Madeleine Albright’s 3Ds – EU member states never listen) and maybe trade concessions. He would be right to make those demands. But – France.
Deep,
Agree that a Trump victory may ultimately result in at least a gradual de-emphasis of US commitment to NATO.
Meanwhile, hopefully, someone w/in the bureaucracy is tracking both ChiCom and DPRK behavior, especially over the next six months. Although perhaps a somewhat unlikely scenario, imagine either or both rolling the dice for unopposed geopolitical victories, especially if they perceive US confusion and indecision/lack of resolve at the highest level of government. š¤š³š±š¤š
Events appear to be unfolding at an increasing pace. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan is no longer available for duty.
After rereading your post, realized that UK political chipmunks are probably indistinguishable from the US variety. š¤š
Hi mate,
I also see that Trump has won a significant degree of immunity in the Supreme Court today. Things are changing globally at quite a rate just now… Hopefully NATO will hold together.
If the US stays in NATO but swings more to the Indo Pacific region as Deep32 suggests, then hopefully there would still be some level of US participation / engagement in Europe. On the plus side perhaps a reduced US level of engagement in Europe will encourage at least some of Europe to step up…
As for Hungary, Turkey and Slovakia potentially leaving may be. I would think that Turkey would be unlikely to leave given they have crossed swords with Russia in recent years, shooting down a Russian fighter that had crossed into their airspace and they have been pretty supportive of Ukraine as well. Hungary and Slovakia are in odd positions at the moment given their populist government.
Cheers CR
I agree, until sleepy joe slipped up I thought the real prospect of the US withdrawing from NATO was remote, however I think itās on the cards if not now then at some point.
Unfortunately I see the US retreating back to its pre 45 isolanist stance in Europe with a keen eye still on the pacific.
Non of this has to be a big deal, the reality is Russia is finished one way or another and some combination of the EU/European nato can keep Russia at bay much the way the South Korea keeps North Korea at bay.
The biggest issue is going to be China, I can see a Franco German EU being very much keen to come up with a reproach with China.
Go knows where the UK will fit in that world. I can see us much the same as in 1940 trying to hold some form of global coalition including northern and Eastern European countries as well as the likes of Australia and Japan in some form of global network of alliances holding a thin line but we also have our own isolanist movement in the Shape of Nigel Farage who will become a political force in the next 10 years.
No matter what happens best move for the UK is to increase defence spending and focus on sovereign capability especially submarines, nuclear, BMD and C4 ISTAR.
Our submarine capability if properly funded is probably good enough to defeat any nation at sea including China and if history has taught us anything itās that winning the sea is enough to win a long term war even against a stronger adversary.
None of this is particularly pretty and I would much rather we keep the UK commonwealth, EU and US all on side. That way we are undefeatable to the point no one would bother trying.
But just as in the 1930ās some times things have to fall over before they can be picked up.
The western alliance/ pax Americana is the greatest force for stability since the pax Brititania or the Pax Romania. Some people are willing to throw it away too easily.
Hopefully sleep Joe sees sense and the orange man is put back in his box.
Actually, the UK would probably have favorable winds and following seas during a 2nd Trump administration. Why? Because he is a landowner, and mere politics pales in comparison to a P&L statement. The UK”s parochial interests would be well protected, while those on the periphery of NATO–not necessarily so.
The Pax Americana is rapidly drawing to a close and is virtually dead and buried in the estimation of principal rivals. Uncle Sugar should pursue a policy of forming defensive alliances in multiple theaters. However, no guarantee of enlightened US foreign policy decisions going forward.
Believe UK would be well advised to continue w/in AUKUS to reap the tech and financial benefits of membership. SSN-A boats will be leading edge tech. Pillar II initiatives will eventually dwarf Pillar I in scope and importance.
Significant additional funding should be allocated to the RAF and RN. These are the UK’s high cards in the world’s floating global poker game. GCAP and regenerated surface escort classes are valuable first steps. Unknown a whether the political class will sense the wisdom of such investment.
Random thoughts triggered by your post…š¤
I know the prevailing wisdom is Trump would be good for the UK but I donāt see it. The Donald doesnāt believe in mutual benefit only in what he sees as winning, any US UK trade deal would be heavily one sided.
I would be quite happy to stay in AUKUS as it meets our own security obligations with Australia but I canāt see why Trump would pull out of NATO, Japan and South Korea but keep AUKUS.
Relax, the UK is perfectly safe, as long as the Donald remains a landowner. Mad Vlad understands this position completely. Wouldn’t be shocked if Mad Vlad himself owns substantial amounts of prime London real estate, through well camouflaged shell corporations. Mad Vlad also perfectly understands his own net worth statement. š¤š
Fortunately our nuclear weapons are stationed close to the Donaldās most expensive golf club š
All things considered, the Donald actually likes you Brits and the Aussies. Recommendation: Strive mightily to stay off his long and varied s**t list. š¤šš
Hard to say what he likes, he seems to change his mind a lot š
“I don’t care about you, I just want your vote.”
– Donald Trump 6/9/24
He also said that he plans to be dictator, revoke the Constitution, remove power from the legislature and judiciary to concentrate power in the executive in other words, him.
He has no interest in US citizens rights or freedom. He wants to join the dictator club with vladolf putler, chairman xi and kju.
Another #45 term means that the CCP can do whatever they want as NATO will be busy Supporting Ukraine without the USA.
.
The only NATO member to invoke Article 5 was the USA (9/11) when everyone responded. So clearly NATO membership is the USA national interest.
Congress passed a law to prevent an Executive Order to exit NATO.
.
NATO says the 2014 spending agreement is on track so his alleged delinquency by Europe is just to trigger his supporters. Lies.
.
So it’s in the national interest of the free world and Ukraine that convicted fraudster and rapist #45 is defeated by US voters in November šŗš²
Current candidates for POTUS include a convicted felon w/ definite authoritarian proclivities and an octogenarian who may well be exhibiting signs of dementia. Interesting choice. š¤š³š±
PRC may pursue a predetermined course regardless of the choice of the next POTUS. Xi has commanded PLA be ready for war by 2027. Alea jacta est. Mad Vlad and the Orcs will not attack ENATO until (and only if) US is eliminated as a viable threat. Would presume that any Russian offensive against ENATO would involve significant employment of tactical nukes, as a minimum. Best wishes for continuing good health under those circumstances. š¤š³
Pardon…Alea iacta est…š
“Interesting choice. š¤š³š±”
The voters choice is dictatorship or democracy so choose wisely. .
Dictatorship means no further choice as he will do whatever he wants. That’s it, you’re done.
Democracy means another choice in four years and no regrets. Vote š
None, probably. The trajectory is of more and more countries joining NATO.
All ENATO countries greatly benefit from being an Alliance member – why would they leave?
I think whatever happens will be a surprise. Trump is underhand and lying is second nature to him. He may very well stay in NATO and simply refuse an article 5 request. The ensueing chaos may very well see the demise of said NATO member and NATO itself.
Yes, I would rather they just left than had a president openly stating he would be selective on article 5.
We should perhaps just focus our attention on JEF and forget the rest, too many assholes in NATO with their hands out.
The JEF area is what we need to actually defend the UK.
š¤£šš Jim, don’t hold back, please expound on certain NATO member states, which don’t meet the 2% minimum agreed defence expenditure rate. The Donald and you apparently have at least one opinion in common..
I can live with them not meeting the 2% threshold, itās the political jockeying of Hungary, Turkey and to a lesser extent France and Germany that gets me.
The JEF represents the UKās homeland defence area in the way that NORAD represents the USAās. Thatās why I think we should focus on it as a force within NATO.
NATO says that the 2014 spending agreement is on track, specifically median 2.11% GDP exceeds the 2% GDP recommendation.
People who promote ‘alternative truth’ must be confronted with the facts.
Why would anyone believe a convicted felon, proven fraudster and rapist…
Letās look at the strengths and weaknesses
ENATO strengths vs Russian weakness..concrete
1) profoundly stronger airforce
2) profoundly stronger surface and sub surface fleets
3) 4 carriers
4) wealth, vast amounts of wealth
5) industrial capacity
6) European port access
7) population and manpower
ENATO weakness vs Russia theoretical risks
1) lack of alliesā¦without the U.S. European becomes isolated..especially if Russia and china formalise an allianceā¦china could isolate Europe from resources.
2) political strengthā¦ a fractured NATO could fail politically..would the Uk and France risk a nuclear exchange for the Baltic states..especially if NATO has already fractured once.
ENATO actual weakness vs Russia
1) energyā¦.a very big weaknessā¦Russia has more oil..if the U.S. is out the picture and if Russia is supported around the world by china and with Iran ā¦maybe blockading the western Indian occean.
2) nuclear weaponsā¦.simply put vast overwhelm.
You would have to look at the wider determinantsā¦and overwhelmingly military, economic and wealth might would do you little good if you fell to political weakness, energy shortage, isolation from raw materials or nuclear blackmail.
In reality the U.S. could suffer the same sort of issues with china if itās isolatedā¦the west can win a war against its enemies if it stayās politically strong and United..if it fragments and shows political weakness its military might and wealth will not save it from its enemies if they develop a unified frontā¦the U.S. or Europe on their own could not fight a war and win against a unified Russia, China, North Korean and Iranian power block on their ownā¦
Can we rely on Turkey in such a scenario? They make up a fairly big chunk of the non-US NATO numbers (large land forces and big F-16 fleet). I think without them included the comparison with Russia is closer than I’d be comfortable with. Although the tech advantage would still be big in Europe’s favour.
Reminder that the EU (so not including Turkey or the UK) has just under 2million members of their armed forces.
I count 1,563,000 in EU military, so not quite 2m but still very sizeable. The problem is you will have huge amounts of duplication across those 28 countries. How many of those are ceremonial only positions? Or recruitment people in uniform?
I know there have been some efforts to co-ordinate commands etc, but they will each still have their own command structure, speak different languages, have different training, not fully compatible equipment etc.
And can you see countries like Ireland and Austria sending troops to face Russia? There are so many political hoops to jump through to get those 1.5m troops organised into an effective, cohesive fighting force.
It will be, as it always has been, a coalition of the willing. Reasonably certain the Poles and you Brits will step up, as well as the Nordic bloc. Others? Maybe, a good indicator would be those willing to contribute troops to the Sandbox
You’re leaving out fourth branches like Carabinieri that have wartime light infantry and rear echlon security duties, which often don’t get counted but still would provide part of the EU’s “Day 1” capability.
As for Ireland and Austria that’s such a nitpick, and really irrelevant. I’m using EU numbers as broad indicator for European NATO; if you really want to subtract the circa 30,000 troops that Austria and Ireland would provide be my guest, just make sure you count the circa 6-700 troops that would be added by counting Turkey, the UK, Norway, and Canada into NATO.
Itās honestly no where near..Russia when you break it down does not have a lot of soldersā¦itās inflates by their 200,000 cleaners and potato peels they get in every year from national service as well as the 300,000 reservists they have drafted inā¦the Russian professionals and semi professional army ( many contract soldiers are national service types who sign a two year contract for better conditions) has only really ever been around 150,000.
If you just take, Germany, France, UK, Polish and Italian armies you are talking around 500,000 professional solders and 150,000 pretty well trained reserves.
then in the north you have the universal conscription training armies of Sweden and Finland..both nations who have essentially trained their entire male populations to fightā¦and have mobilisation plans to bury Russia in gun and hunting obsessed..mortar toting Norsemen.these two nations have a few million trained reservists between them.
Small correction: Sweden does not have universal conscription, it has selective conscription. In practice only about 4% of it’s annual cohort actually completes conscript training.
Hi Dern, time flies, it did have a universal conscription model up until 14 years ago..so in theory itās still got many hundreds of thousands of trained reservists in their 30s from that system ( around 10000 per year cohort ).
With the state Russia is in I think unified or mostly united European NATO would certainly have an advantage in a “full scale” conventional war, whether long or short, against naked Russian aggression. The biggest risk for Euro NATO would be that whatever made the US not commit would also see other NATO nations drop out. But that aside, if Euro NATO is united but whatever made the US drop out does not demoralize and divide the rest of NATO then Euro NATO is probably good. That said, there are some nasty cards Russia might use that it hasn’t played much other than to demonstrate it could possibly do so. such as cable and pipeline sabotage and ASAT attacks. It’s also possible that the US might be fighting Russia but just be unable to help due to a prior simultaneous engagement in the Pacific. If so, there’s also a possibility that this could have already lead to tit to tat space attacks that have created an orbital debris cascade catastrophe, massively degrading everyone’s satellite coverage which, given the greater number of satellite-enabled com and targeting systems NATO has relative to the Russians, may level the playing field a little as well as causing huge economic problems in Europe and worldwide.
Europe’s nuclear defence relies on the UK and France without the US. And here we are with the UK about to build it’s replacement subs with fewer missile tubes than the existing class. Round of applause for the people who made that decision. Astounding planning.
Yeah 16 would have been nice with hindsight, the US took a big reduction as well from 24 to 16 as did the Russians from 20 to 16. The Chinese also carry 12.
Nothing wrong with 12 missiles if they are fully loaded though. Thatās more nuclear weapons that we have or plan to have.
The Ukraine has something that most of NATO do not. Balls.
Additionally I am not 100% convinced that if Russia attacks the likes of the Baltics, countries like Holland, Belgium and France and to a lesser extent Germany would come galloping to the rescue. The UK and Poland, yea, the others?
Then on the Southern Flank, again, I am not convinced the likes of Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia would tangle with the Russians in their neck of the woods.
Let’s be honest, most of NATO comprises of countries that joined so that the likes of the USA and the UK come their aid in time of need, not necessarily the other way around.
The idea of NATO is very much that itās so overwhelming that Russia wonāt even try as it will lose very fast.
The reality is that the force is so large even if many nations donāt show up itās still overwhelming.
Countries tend to quickly find balls when they are invaded like Ukraine did. Everyone including the Russians thought they would role over again like in 2014.
Everyone was wrong
In fairness, Ukraine really didn’t role over in 2014. They beat up the DPR and LPR so badly that Russia had to openly cross the border, and then they (well, the Azov regiment… which may have something to do with the Russian “Azov are nazi’s” propaganda) halted the Russian advance on Mariupol.
Win?. It wouldn’t even fight. Europe shows zero incentive to defend itself. In fact it seems eager to destroy itself.