NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has dismissed calls for a standalone European defence force, warning that Europe cannot defend itself without the United States and that attempts to go it alone would only weaken collective security.
Speaking in Brussels during a joint session of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Security and Defence committees, Rutte argued that talk of a separate “European pillar” risks confusion, duplication and strategic distraction. He said the concept was often poorly defined, cautioning that creating parallel military structures would complicate command arrangements and drain already stretched manpower.
“A European pillar is a bit of an empty word,” Rutte said, adding that proposals resembling a European defence force would duplicate NATO structures and make coordination harder. “You have to find the men and women in uniform on top of what is happening already. It will make things more complicated. I think Putin will love it.”
Instead, he said Europe and NATO should focus on a clear division of labour, with NATO leading on command and control, capability development and standard-setting, while the European Union strengthens resilience, industrial capacity, regulation and defence financing mechanisms. Rutte was also outspoken in his assessment of transatlantic dependence, rejecting suggestions that Europe could secure itself independently of Washington.
“If anyone thinks that Europe can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming. You can’t. We can’t. We need each other,” he said.
He argued that even dramatically increased European defence spending would not close the gap, particularly in nuclear deterrence. “If you really want to go it alone, forget that you can ever get there with 5%. It will be 10%. You would have to build your own nuclear capability, costing billions and billions,” he said, warning that such a path would mean losing the US nuclear umbrella. Rutte also pushed back against claims that the United States is drifting away from NATO, insisting Washington remains fully committed to Article Five collective defence.
He credited President Donald Trump with fundamentally reshaping NATO defence spending, despite acknowledging that such praise would be unpopular with parts of his audience. “The fact that all NATO countries reached 2% by the end of 2025 would never, ever have happened without Trump,” he said. “Do you really think Spain, Italy, Belgium or Canada would have moved from 1.5 to 2% without him? No way.”
Rutte said the defence spending commitments agreed at the Hague summit, including a 5% benchmark combining core defence and security-related investment, had removed Washington’s long-standing frustration over burden sharing. He pointed to Germany as a key example, noting that Berlin’s defence budget is set to rise from around €70 billion in 2021 to roughly €160 billion by 2029, reaching 3.5% core defence spending as part of the wider 5% commitment. Canada, he added, was also “back” as a serious contributor, committing to increased spending and expanded support for Ukraine.
Rutte concluded that NATO remains indispensable not only for Europe, but for the United States itself, citing shared interests in the Arctic, the Euro-Atlantic and wider strategic stability. “The US has every interest in NATO, just as Europe and Canada do,” he said, arguing that transatlantic security remains indivisible despite shifting global pressures.
Is this really true?
Air Conventional – I cannot see Russia lasting five minutes against the existing European air forces.
Air Drone – harder to say as the tech edge isn’t so marked.
Air Anti Drone – about Lo-Lo / Lo / Hi-Lo mixes of anti drone that can secure a huge area. Rapid investment in numbers of medium calibre AAW weapons is indicated as well as other measures.
Surface Naval – Russia wouldn’t last long as its assets would be taken out by air power.
Submarine Forces – this is the greatest threat but again I can’t see this lasting long with the amount of P8 and UDJ g Merlin etc flown from carriers or RFA to prosecute. Our lack of ASW frigates is terrible but there are other ways.
Land forces – mixed pictures. EuNATO has a massive technical and training overmatch. As well as air supremacy. The issue is the industrial endurance to keep fighting at a tech edge and not degenerate into trench warfare.
GBAD – EuNATO has a clear tech edge but the manufacturing rates are the Achilles heel. Never mind the tiny numbers of launchers in service.
It’s utter bollox is what it is. Of course Europe could defend itself what an utterly bizarre self defeating statement to make.
Would it be expensive yes
Would western power evaporate without a tight U.S. European alliance yes
But
Is a set of allied nations with a population of 550 million and and a gross national product of around 30 trillion a year able to defend itself against a nation of 140 million people and a gross national production of 2.7 trillion a year.. of course it can, to say otherwise is the high of delusion.
Is it appropriate for the set of alliances to not develop the full range of military capabilities and be dependent for much of it on one body politic ( the U.S.) which has proven to be potentially an unreliable and unpredictable ally. NO.
This is a man who’s job it is to keep the whole NATO alliance together.. Europe and U.S..but selling the old story of European dependence on the U.S. is not the way to do it.. they only way Europe and the US have a chance of staying allies is via a peer on peer relationship not a Co dependent one.
How many nuclear warheads does Russia have? Yes it’s conventional forces would get shredded, though without SEAD and long range cruise missiles deep strikes into Ru would be limited.
One nuke over EU territory and the socialists and Greens run for cover and surrender.
You really think it would stay unified?
It’s not how many you have it’s how many you need.. even now Europe could put 200-300 nuclear warheads into russia.. that is MAD.no nation state survives 200-300 warheads.
And in regards to the U.S. nuclear umbrella.. do you think for a single moment that the present US would ever in a million years suffer the risk of a MAD response from Russia for a European nation.. NO it would NOT
That is why Europe must have its own effective deterrent.. and it does not need 2000 warheads to match Russia it just needs the amount to convince Putin Russia will die.
So your question is about politic will not capability and I would say the U.S. has far far less political will to defend Europe than Europe has…
So are you counting just French warheads? Because without NATO what agreement would there be to offer ours? It would be an EU effort .
Ru doctrine is the use of tactical weapons. European resolve would fold , it would not lead to the one French SSN releasing 16 missiles. French has missiles on Rafale for the tactical lower level escalation.
Again, who orders the firing, Macron or his replacement or Ursula? Weak command.
it’s the US that keeps the balance of power , a decision of POTUS and the Ru know that.
Then we are screwed. The US will never respond to nuclear attacks on Europe, the only real doubt in Putin’s mind would be the death of large amounts of US personnel in Europe, this is something that Trump intends to remove when he feels he can, his successors on the right, certainly Vance will strive to stop our nuclear cooperation, which means we had better all get prepared to defend ourselves essentially without the US. Trump’s insults to Europe is internally aimed to set the scene for withdrawal, is that not obvious enough? It’s why he wants to separate Greenland from Europe and NATO get real. That’s why I am doubting Rutte is the right man for the job much longer certainly beyond another year or so when his pathetic toadying up might just still have some sway, but like Chamberlain but in reality Trump doesn’t respect such behaviour. But either way it’s essential now that as much unified European deterrence at every level be built up immediately, words to the contrary dismissing European independence is not only naive and self defeating but down right stupid, hopefully Rutte inside knows that but these words suggest otherwise to me as it shows he doesn’t understand the new World developing and he is overplaying a weakening and uninspiring personal hand. If the MAGA movement or what follows survives its present self destruction (which in itself could weaken US power, influence and the deterrence effect anyway) it will double down on its deluded understanding of America alone and survival thinking it can ignore World events as it stupidly thought in 1939. So like it or not Europe has at best a 50/50 chance of being alone, so we had better understand that threat learn to survive on our own for the most part. It’s why Ukraine is so vital they have the most effective conventional army in Europe presently and we will need them.
The biggest question is how we all build our own nuclear deterrence, we better be talking to France about that and then more widely with other European powers.
The big sell to the UK electorate is when we say we will use them and why. Does a nuclear alliance end the days of new EU members because all those lined up are on Putin’s doorstep.
Scenario. Belarus populace revolts against Regime. Courted by EU with offer of EU membership.
Putin says fuck that, sends in troops from east, EU responds with troops from west. They clash.
Is Britain and by default it’s deterrent also at war with Ru?
Can’t see the British electorate having that.
10 million dead so the EU can expand.
The idea French présidents have a weak command and relying on potus is quite funny considering the last 10 days.
Bit of a stupid statement while Ukraine albeit with a fair amount of financial and material support from close allies have held off Putin’s hordes for 4 years now.
Indeed, our only real weakness is in the nuclear domain and how events in the US may weaken that. We may only have about ten years to decide how we deal with an absent US on that front, or be powerfully enough to gain their respect which with the MAGA lot is the only way they will feel it important to remain aligned with us. My enemy’s enemy and all that.
Russia has 5000 nuclear weapons. That’s the bottom line. Both the UK and France have minimal deterrents in comparison. There is also the question of what constitutes “Europe”? The further east one draws the line, the less credible European defence without the US becomes.
But that is utterly irrelevant Roy.. 300-5000 is utterly and completely irrelevant.. it’s like two men with each with a pistol with a dead man’s switch and the barrels attached to each others head.. 1 has 1 bullet the other has 15… 14 of the bullets in the other gun are wasted and utterly pointless.. because both men are dead on bullet 1. Bullet 1 is the deterrent bullets 2-14 are just making a bigger mess of a dead man’s head.
So how do you kill Russia:
Russia has 16 cities with over 1 million
And 64 towns and cities with more than 100,000 people.
Kill those 16 cites and you have killed Russia as a country, kill those 64 smaller towns and cites and you have erased Russian culture from the face of the earth…
So that is it 16 100MT blasts will end Russia as a country… Russia has ABMs system so you would want 20 warheads and 40 penetration aids to guarantee a blast on Moscow the other 15 cities that make out Russia as a nation will only need 1 warhead each… so 35 warheads and 40 penetration aids will kill Russia.. that it nothing more nothing less… if you essentially wanted to wipe Russian culture form the face of the earth you would want another 66 warheads so 100…
The moment Putin threatens the use of nukes , defeat or not would depend if the French leader was willing to sacrifice one of his cities for a chunk of Estonia.
Personally I would want to stay out of any EU effort and I wouldn’t sacrifice Portsmouth to save a chunk of Lithuanian territory from being taken.
He is correct, hundreds if not thousands of warheads with survivable deployment would need to be developed, and who would hold the suitcase? Ursula VDL?
Mad Vlad has threatened nukes many times.
Given that every other weapons system he has used has been defeated by western tech can you imagine the emperors new clothes moment when a nuc of his was defeated?
Like their SSN fleet, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate their nuclear capability.
Can we rely on ours getting airborne 100%, the boats are getting thrashed waiting for Dreadnought.
So you are actually advocating splitting Europe up into small nation states.. and letting Russia gobble them up one by one.. so your not only advocating the dismantling of NATO but the dismantling of any European Co operation.. essentially doing exactly what is needed if we all want to speak russian in a generation.
Have you not noticed how fractured UK politics is, let alone EU
Zac the toy whisperer on 16% wants to have a chat with Putin to give up nukes. The red hard labour lot would scrap them,
Reform on 24% are not going to offer out nukes as protection for the geo political aims of the EU
Even if one coalition did , it would be reversed at the next GE.
NATO folds means proliferation.
If German can pursuade it’s electorate , a tough one, it will get nukes.
Poland and Turkey too.
But forming a one for all alliance? Harder than you think.
Personally I’d get the boffins at Aldermaston to make a nuke for Tempest and develop a road mobile MRBM like Pershing 2.
But offer that umbrella to the EU? No thanks.
And it’s not 1000s of warheads.. 100 warheads in Germany. 100 in Poland and added to the UK and french deterrent you have a deterrent Russia would not dream of engaging with..
So you assume Britain outside the EU would offer ours and agree to MAD?
The left of the labour party? The Greens? reform?
Would anyone win a referendum on that?
Yes because if NATO failed the Uk would join a European version of NATO.. because if it didn’t it would be profoundly isolated.
France was neutral outside NATO. We could also. It would need 5% and an expansion of an independent arsenal of nukes.
I don’t believe the political argument to align with EU on nuclear defence would be met.
It would toxify UK politics even more.
Possible more reliance on Aus, NZ.
The US walks I think you see a nuclear proliferation. Turkey definitely.
Tempest gets a nuke.
As long as the US sold us 50 Trident as an interim, we could develop our own system.
France was never neutral outside of NATO.. its was outside of the command structure for a time but it was in NATO and was not Neutral.
The EU is irrelevant. The UK is inescapably part of Europe (not the same thing as the EU) and UK security is joined at the hip with the rest of Europe. Like it or not that’s not going to change.
Absolutely. Even PooTin knows there is enough retaliatory nuclear capability in European NATO to virtually destroy the main population centers of Mother Russia to make a nuclear exchange unthinkable.
No one is going to launch a sub full of SLBMs in response to a tactical nuke.
The marches and civil protest in Europe will mean a collapse of resolve.
That’s why deterrence works when it run from Washington.
Why are you so convinced that Washington has a greater degree of care what happens in Europe than European nations.
Once you break the proliferation consensus the genie is out.
If Germany and Poland can develop them, or France, or is can supply for Europe ( The EU ) to become a nuclear alliance against Ru, what could they do?
BRICS. Why shouldn’t those 11 nations form a nuclear alliance ? Ru could match the European move, supply whoever it wants.. Is that preferable to desperately trying to keep NATO and the US in the game as Rutte is doing?
There is no none proliferation consensus.. the NPT is a joke and has been for a while.. the NPT only recognises 5 nuclear powers.. but there are already 8 and at one point there were 9 ( South Africa dropped theirs).
that was done long ago, lets face it the west didnt even have the bottle to stop Iran. till Israel bombed them. We just sat on our hands because the leaders dont have the bottle after the Blair era, their terrified.
Anyone can build what ever they can afford lets face it.
Then as I say if that attitude indeed prevails Europe is finished one way or another we become client states of Russia maybe China effectively paying tribute. So we better work hard to put enough doubt in Putin’s mind. Personally being able to take out around 12 Russian European cities would effectively destroy Russia as a power where China and US are involved, so would be deterrent enough to him risking it, it sure has been so even now in Ukraine when he knows the US would not respond so there’s good hope if we further develop nuclear deterrence. One has to understand Putin’s actions have been as much about shoring itself up against a growing China as its so called defence in Europe. It knows where the future conflict will be and the rest is a sideshow to prepare against that risk, break the NATO alliance weaken European resolve and its unity and exploit European technology. Problem is much of that ties in with MAGA too, selling out Europe if it breaks China and Russia, take control of all of the Americas to create a fortress and hope you can exploit the rest of the World and zones of influence to agree big power settlements to maintain stability on their terms. Europe has no independent role in that plan than to be cut up and sold or in any conflict as with WW2 damage both Europe and Russia by selling arms to make profit out of events while the warring parties are weakened. Then it’s merely the two powers (Pitt and Napoleon style) carving out the World in the hope of keeping each happy. Get real Europe has no future in this World unless we can defend ourselves alone at some point whatever convenient alliances like the China/Russia one can bring us in the meantime and even thereafter. We are a mere pawn and I hope Rutte beneath his sickening compliance realises the true game he is in.
Intelligence gathering, that’s probably our biggest weakness compared to the us: 246 satellites for the us, 15 for the French, 6 for uk.
I wish I was so confident. On paper, yes in lots of areas, but I think there are alot of gaps e.g intelligence, space assets, hypersonic missiles, drones, ballistic missile defence, transportation….ability to take losses and of course nuclear which the Russians would be more inclined to use. Even some of the platforms themselves are poor…Ajax, German and Danish ships for starters.
I think however Europe will improve alot in the next 5 years.
Has proper Operational Analysis been done to ‘wargame’ ENATO/Canada being able to currently take on depleted Russian forces in say, the 2026-2028 period and also on a future ENATO/Canada (with increased defence spend kicking in) taking on a somewhat rehabilitated Russian forces after that period?
If not, shouldn’t Rutte do that before making his statement?
Absolutely-bloody-lutely. If he is saying what he believes we are in even bigger trouble than I feared. There is simply no assured future safety in the North Atlantic Alliance, yes patch it up as best you can (though calling Trump daddy isn’t a positive method in my view) for as long as you can, we might be able to extend it into the next Administration as long as it’s Democrat but thereafter it’s madness to think it will be reliable. So we need to plan for a European alliance now whatever the problems because we will be tested after Ukraine and the US won’t under Trump or his ilk give a damn only encouraging Russia.
We also have to understand that Canada’s big commitment to defence has as much to do with the threat of US invasion as it does supporting NATO, perhaps more. The US is in that period where they are trying to weaken it economically to make territorial claims already don on the waterways and eventually force it to comply as a compliant State or become part of the US peacefully or otherwise. Unlikely especially as Canada has totally outsmarted Trump but the longer term aim if Trump gets a third term or his lackeys are in control after him. Plan going bad at the moment but plenty of new pages to turn yet and as his minions are freely doing things that will get them imprisoned even they must have some concept of democracy not being expected to return to judge them.
Even if the next US administration is Democrat, just from an economic point of view there is no going back, Germany and Italy are both talking about removing their remaining gold reserves from the US, it will happen. Pension funds in Europe are pulling out of the US, sure its only small amounts but that’s not the point a precedent has been set.
US bonds are being dumped and no will be in a hurry to buy more, sure people say that bond yields are going up, but that just makes it more expensive for the US to borrow money.
European companies are refusing to invest in the US.
The US dollar is depreciating Its’ only a matter of time before the US dollar is no longer the reserve currency and when that happens the US is screwed
I think this individual is so focused on survival of NATO that he is not really seeing what is in front of him.. Yes what is optional for the west is a Co-dependent Europe and US.. that are using their defence, dollars, pounds and euros to maximum efficiency.. by sharing and covering specific areas.. but that requires a level of political lockstep that simply no longer exists and is fairyland geopoliticals to think it is.
Maybe he is just playing the game to keep NATO ticking as long as it can.. but pretending that European does not now need to be Geostrategically independent of the U.S. is geostrategic make believe.
So by all means keep NATO ticking until the point of Geostrategic independence and at that point have a serious conversation between the US and Europe about what a new peer on peer alliance would look like.. but to advocate maintaining dependence while there is massive political shifts going on is a bit to much like hope over potential worst case reality and defence always needs to based on worst case reality not hope… hope is for arts and sport.
Optimal not optional…
Ultimately he is trying to keep the Tangerine Toddler ‘Daddy’ vaguely onside.
Yes but as long as he recognises that is a limited time game… it’s putting NATO on external pacing.. it still needs cardiac surgery which in this case is Europe being an independent military power.
Spot on Jonathon, can’t believe any rational person can see this any other way, just hope this is just Rutte going his lapdog act while hiding the Rottweiler inside but not too confident about it but better at least be a vicious poodle in there somewhere ready to be unleashed when the right moment arrives.
Rutte is a clown and a mouthpiece for US interest. It became pretty clear after he called Trump his “Daddy”
That imbecile seems unaware that Ukraine has been defending itself from Russia since 2022, while the US stopped sending aid under Biden, when Congress put a stop to it.
Europe has picked up the slack and has been increasing both its budgets and manufacturing rates.
You are mistaking a professional factual analysis for what is IRL a desperate attempt at trying to keep the Tangerine Toddler ‘Daddy’ vaguely inside.
At the outset Germany wouldn’t let the RAF over fly with NLAW.
The EU nations shit themselves about tanks until 14 C2 went.
Germans still shit themselves about Taurus.
The EU alliance could replace US backed NATO my arse.
Fine let’s just lay down and welcome our new alien overlords then, because there is rapidly little choice in the matter. Giving up before we start is hardly an alternative strategy as is not becoming unquestioning colonies of an ever less democratic US.
I agree with him on its a waste of time if your talking an EU duplication and splitting from NATO.
If he is talking Europe as a continent then yes we could fight anyone but China, yes we lack logistics and long range strike but we are working on that. Europe will not forget what trump has done and I think US in the future will regret this.
I suppose the trouble will come as more green/Left wing parties come to power in Europe, will they remember the lessons from Trump
There is actually a general drift to the right in Europe.
Not forever though
Not forever though
How much space based ISR does Europe have? Almost none.
Blind on the battlefield. No defense logistics. The USAF still does more than 95% of NATO airlift.
The UK has plenty of medium and heavy airlift, also even I believe Sweden is inventing in space assets.
The difference is Europe won’t have to be world wide like the US.
NATO can have shared assets like they already do with P8 and awacs
The thing is Chris.. what is Europe fighting.. Russia that is it.. and we do have spaced based ISR the UK alone has will have launched 3 ISR sats in 3 years.. and all we need to keep an eye on is Russia.. we are not fighting a war across 10,000km of the pacific.. that is why the U.S. needs vast ISR and strategic air..
In Europe most lift will be rail based or a sea based… we don’t need a huge amount of strategic air.. the unless we are helping the US out against china.
This. Strategic Airlift is needed for Power Projection, not fighting a war in your own backyard. Hell, several European Armies, like Poland, have large formations that effectively are designed to stand and fight in the towns and villages they live in, because those towns will be the frontline.
A concept that is truly alien to Americans who can only fathom a war across an ocean that doesn’t really effect them.
A weakend, bankrupt Russia, but possibly too a rogue neo colonial USA, a resurgent Islamist coalition & sometime CCP China projecting force.
But I think Rutte is talking nonesense. We need to be funding & developing stand alone capabilities, bringing far more to the collective defence allience, as we should’ve been doing all along post 1990. Britain needs to up its game rather than just talking about it. We have the tools to destroy Russia if they ever used nukes.
Hi frank that is a reasonable list, but I would change out the Islamist coalition to a Middle Eastern collective.. islamists are incapable of coalition and are inherently self destructive.. each sub division thinks its chosen by god and always decides the other sub divisions are heretics who need a good killing..were as the moderate Middle Eastern states are more likely to coalition that could Weald significant power in the western Indian Ocean this could rub against both European power and Indian power.
Re China I honestly think they are going to be the predominant maritime power and we will need to be able to maintain the ability to challenge around the Atlantic south Atlantic and western Indian Ocean as well as high north.
Perhaps it’s time for a new secretary general who can smell the coffee and actually plan for European defence without an unreliable ‘ally’ across the pond!
There are plenty of ex American generals who are warning don’t count on the US to come riding over the hill to our defence with this nobber in the WH!
As for the nukes why are we getting F35A for weapons that will NEVER get release from US control!
The F35A RAF nuclear role never made a lot of sense.
Even less sense now!
I do wonder if the Eurofighter consortium might need to do some rapid qualification work. You get to a point where sovereignty trumps ££££ [pun intended].
Tempest is the aircraft for the role. Almost as if intended and I suspect it’s range and payload was specced for when Japan enters the nuclear club
The UK needs to do some quick work with France around an air launched nuclear tipped missile for either typhoon or tempest.
We also need a ground launched 2000-3000 Km range cruise or ballistic missile we can put a nuclear weapon on.. ( something we can threaten the Russian European cities with.. then use the SLMBs to threaten every other settlement with 100,000 people or more.
The American Generals are universally democrats, making announcements for domestic political consumption.
The other 31 countries cannot rely on their defence from an erratic American president who sees article 5 not as an unconditional call to aide a country under attack but as an opportunity for leverage to extract a concession.
Your job Mr Secretary is to build a NATO of 32 equal partners not USA plus 31.
You need to do your job and set NATO on a path of being independent of your “ Daddy” where the USA are the icing not the cake itself.
Not as if he hasn’t made threats to two member countries either,Greenland/ Denmark & Canada which as a realm of HM’s kingdom would drag us in whatever the others do!
Rutte is deluded if he think Trump can be trusted .
Thought I’d ask Google AI (:)) whether NATO without the US could beat Russia in a conventional war (no nukes):
‘European NATO countries, excluding the US, possess a significant conventional advantage over Russia in numbers of aircraft, ships, and tanks
. While a, European-led force could likely defeat Russia in a conventional war, the absence of US logistical, intelligence, and airlift capabilities would make it a protracted, difficult, and high-intensity conflict.
Key considerations for a non-US NATO conflict with Russia include:
Conventional Superiority: European NATO nations have thousands of modern main battle tanks (e.g., Leopard 2, Challenger 2) and advanced jet fighters (e.g., Rafale, Eurofighter). The UK and France maintain nuclear deterrence as well as capable conventional forces.
Logistical Challenges: The US provides critical “enabler” capabilities such as large-scale transportation, aerial refueling, and space-based intelligence, which European forces lack.
Industrial Capacity: While NATO in total holds an advantage, a prolonged conflict could test European industrial capacity to replace losses, although it would likely still eclipse Russian production over time.
Combat Experience: Observers suggest that if Russia could not defeat Ukraine, its chances against the combined, superior military strength of European NATO are slim.
While some analysis suggests European NATO could win, others argue a lack of coordination and logistical capabilities might limit their ability to win quickly’
Rutte is acting like a politician, trying to butter up the US while at the same time encouraging Europeans to bolster their defences. Realistically, there are serious gaps that need to be filled, but generally Russia is not the USSR and NATO without the US would not be a sensible target!
Now do it with the US switching sides to Russia. They have been allies before.
And at that point the US would be fighting a peer enemy.. it would not like that.. Europe knows war, the U.S. does not in the same way. And it would be so beyond pointless for the US to do that.. because you can guarantee that as soon as the US was fully engaged and in deep against Europe china would wipe the USN from the face the of the pacific… it would be the end of the Democracies.
A scenario to imagine; the US wins, and occupies Europe. What then? They couldn’t control Iraq, a country smaller than France with half the population, and you think the French would lie down and accept an occupation? You think the Poles would? The UK needed to keep almost a full division based in Northern Ireland during the troubles, you think the IRA would be okay with a colonial master from across the Atlantic? Or would it be nail bombs on corners again? How many American divisions would it take to control Dublin, Shannon, Belfast…? How many American coffins would it take before the American spine turns to jelly as it always does and they run home with their tales between their legs?
I don’t see a scenario where America wins any sort of war with Europe, and the only questions are “how long and how damaged is Europe at the end of it?”
What is so star spangled awesome about the USA anyway??
What have they given the rest of the world, nothing except
Morbid obesity and type 3 diabetes
Apple pie British
Baseball British
Chocolate bars British
Computer British, Charles Babbage and Alan Turing
Ever heard of the mouse that roared?? good movie
Would Europe and the UK be able to defeat both Russia and the US, it’s all subjective isn’t it ??
Europe and the UK could kick the ever living snot out of Russia if they had a mind to do it, all they would have to do is keep the US at bay long enough..
Ukraine is a meat grinder for Russian troops 1 million and counting, just add UK and European troops to the mix and the numbers would go way higher
American Troops aren’t much better, well maybe their SF and that is debatable
There are winter exercises run in Europe, you may have heard of them, maybe not
In 2025, US regular forces took part in a winter exercise in Norway and got battered by Finnish reserves so badly that US commanders had to ask the Finns to stop beating the US forces as the losses were humiliating and demoralising.
Is it fair, not really as European and UK forces train to fight in those conditions, US forces turn up for the exercise spend 10 days training, then go home. US forces train to survive in winter conditions, UK and European forces Train to fight in winter conditions
In 2021 UK and Dutch Marines took part in an Exercise in the US at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Centre in Twentynine Palms, California, guess what happened?? that’s right UK and Dutch Marines kicked the snot out of US marines, so much so that the US marines asked for a reset
Ok, so they were training exercises, but I bet that if it came down to a real fight the European and UK forces would give US forces a run for there money, oh and don’t forget the Gurkhas.
If the fight were taken to US soil and it would be taken to US soil, you can bet the Canadians would join in, why ?? Canada is a part of the Common Wealth, the moment that boots were on the ground in the US then they would fold like a cheap suit.
“The US commanders had to ask the Finns to stop beating the US Forces.”
“The US Marines had to ask for a reset.”
Except training exercises aren’t generally free play force on force, there tends to be a degree of structure and planning around them to ensure there training value is maximised.
Whilst that’s true, there is still the reported issue of moral amongst US troops during certain exercises, if true then what should US commanders be doing to solve the issue ??
Can you link these reports because 1) I have never encountered Moral issues with US Forces while working alongside them, and 2) given point 1 I don’t know how you are using the word Moral.
Oh crap, sorry meant to say morale.
An exercise was held in 2025 I think?? Joint Viking ?? There was a report that suggested that U.S. forces experienced “significant difficulties” in Arctic, cold-weather conditions. Finnish reservists, who were playing the role of the opposing force, performed so well that exercise leaders asked them to “go easy” on U.S. troops because it was causing issues with morale.
My question was going to be if there was an issue with “morale” amongst US forces on training exercises, is that an issue with training in US forces??
Sorry mate but the US lads I’ve worked with are top notch in most spheres. Ref your Finish/US exercise reflections, if you have bene to Finland then you will understand the cold. The Finns see the cold as routine, most don’t and as such its tough to train and prepare for. I have to agree with Dern here, no concerns regarding the US forces skill set, morale and ability. Cheers.
Thank you for your reply, and no offence meant to either you or dern, sorry if it came across that way
Nonsense. The only area Europe lags behind is nuclear but with France and the UK there is enough firepower there to deter Russia.
So the Govt has now just been warned by former high level NATO staff that the US is not a reliable ally any more, can’t be relied upon to defend Europe and we need to plan for that eventually, so I guess you can look, listen and take a view on these comments that pretty much contradict those of Rutte. Covering the inevitability of Europe mostly going it alone (with valued others like Canada) is one thing being blind to it totally unacceptable as is the capitulation in the view that we can’t stand united without the US and just accept our fate or more accurately whatever the US decides that is probably after debate with Russia. Thankfully the majority on here see the light and how vital Europe forming as united a combined military force as possible is. Doing nothing and letting a loose connection of Countries and hoping you can rely on them isn’t going to work and having our whole survival gifted to US Presidents and potential tyrants simply madness.
Europe can, and with the UK could deter Pooters from daft adventures. Replace Nato with a European Defence Pact. People are brainwashed into thinking the US would come to fight alongside us. Have they not learned from this past few weeks?
All this constant talk of war is just nonsense. Our nations and Russia have way to much to lose. Theres zero chance of it happening.
There will be civil war in Europe long before we got into a dust up with Putin. France most likely but maybe here too. Our politicians importing millions of people that hate us are the real issue. Islam is the real threat to the West.
in 1913 a lot of people where saying that nobody was going to go to war because the global economy was so interlinked that everybody had too much to loose…
Just saying.
Thats very true. But we didnt have many thousands of nuclear weapons then. Theres no way it’ll kick off and not go nuclear. The downfall of Europe is going to be more like the downfall of Rome. Financial downfall mainly, excessive debt and near zero growth. The barbarians are also in the gates right now. Trump is absolutely correct when he talks about civilisational peril. In less than 20 years Europe wont even look like Europe. Look at London, Paris and Vienna now, hard to even find a European.
Yeah I go through London every week and I can pretty safely dismiss your racism (and like a lot of racists you don’t understand the fall of rome). Anyway, your falling into the same fallacy as they did 100 years ago, and that’s almost as bad a vibe as racism.
Don’t always agree with Trump specially what he said about NATO troops last week ,although he has back tracked on British Troops .But do think it’ best if the USA Stay with NATO and Europe .Has the old saying goes the more the merrier .
Have to agree with him (hello, where’s my stalkers and trolls?) as no matter how we cut it, the US supplies not just mass but the vast amount of niche capabilities in large numbers that Europe does not have. Any duplication and confusion will just empower the Putins of the world! It’s becoming tough enough to show a united front with the orange man taking shite in public, without European nations starting to think they don’t need the US, and believing their own nonsense.
However, if all this talk, by the orange man, continues to cause European NATO members to increase spending and our own capacity for both production and platforms, then that’s a good thing. I certainly am all for all of us Europeans to increase spending and realising the importance of defence (well maybe not the Starmer Government, who also seems keen to prosecute vets) and become the tip of the spear, very much like Poland, but let’s not get about ourselves. The US is essential to a safe Europe, and as I suggested in a previous post our defence budget would need to be 10% for 10 years to match (but shouted down once more) which no Government will ever do in the UK!
Various European nations do have strengths in some areas, but overall I do believe that no way could a European NATO stand against a peer conflict against Russia at this time! Yes Russia is struggling in Ukraine and god bless the Ukrainian people who are using our kit, for its original intention of killing russkies on our behalf, but would European countries be prepared to continue a major war with such a casualty rate of its people and destruction of its infrastructure and kit, more likely no.
He’s obviously saying this to try keep NATO together and the US onside, for the benefit of the Danes and Greenland no doubt, he can’t seriously believe what he says.
Russia failed in Ukraine, failed to gain air superiority despite numerical and tech advantage. Soviet era doctrines with piss poor training and leadership, I’d back Finland alone on a war economy to wipe them.
To even think that Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Finland & Ukraine would struggle to defend itself from Russia is just delusional, and that’s just a handful, the rest while being smaller, are all exceptionally trained potent forces. I still don’t get why people think this would be a peer conflict and Russia is a superpower, Italy has a larger GDP than Russia, Europe is more or less a superpower, it certainly would be if it fought together, and it’s only peers are the US and China, once you accept that fact then all the US rhetoric towards Europe makes a lot more sense.
Maybe they mean can’t defend itself from the US, a lot of the reform roundabout painters have been openly calling for Trump to invade the UK to overthrow our democratically elected government, very patriotic of them.
I think it depends on what a War with Russia looks like. A 2014 Mashkriovka that is deniable and requires rapid and united responses and has limited objectives such as the occupation of Narva? I think Russia can pull that off, and win that sort of war before Europe can respond.
A full 2022 style invasion? A special military operation to take Berlin and change the government of Germany? No. It might get ground but something that unambigious would spur the European powers to work together in a very concrete way, and the Russian Army, even facing disjointed opposition wouldn’t advance fast enough to outpace the European Powers coming together.
I don’t think a 2014 scenario would work in the Baltic states they have a very fortified border and are policed in the air by multiple allies, I can’t see Russia getting forces in and claiming they’re Estonia’s like in Crimea, the baltic states have security architecture in place to not allow a deniable hybrid takeover like that, Ukraine never had any of that in Crimea, they sure got it in place for Kiev though and look how that turned out for the Russians.
Even if they invaded the Baltic’s proper the build up will be telegraphed, Poland alone would have 20 combat brigades ready for them, probably a lot more by the time this happens, any early gains they might make would be quickly reversed.