Who pays for European defence?

[lindsaygii]

The 'time to leave Europe' OP touched on this, but then the thread took another route.

But I'm interested -- is it true that the US is subsidising European defence budgets, or are we actually fine without them?

If the US pulled all its troops out, what would the European countries do to make up the gap, or would they not see the absence as creating a gap?

 

[kato]

1) There is no gap, as the US does not provide any defensive capability to Europe.
2) European countries are subsidizing US Defence instead in a limited respect for the moment*

*- By engaging in Iraq as support to the US, and in AFG (officially) in defense of the US.

 

[Todjaeger]

1) There is no gap, as the US does not provide any defensive capability to Europe.
2) European countries are subsidizing US Defence instead in a limited respect for the moment*

*- By engaging in Iraq as support to the US, and in AFG (officially) in defense of the US.

I have to disagree here somewhat, though the answer does depend to a degree on what/how defensive requirements are considered.

In terms of general combat capabilities, most European countries have sufficient capabilities to meet their respective needs, within their own borders. Where a defence gap begins to appear in IMO is if/when some (most) of the European countries need to transport, project and sustain a force outside of their borders.

Many of the European countries do not have sufficient logistical support in terms of transport aircraft, AAR/MRTT, amphibious lift, etc and have needed to either rely upon allies and/or commercial lift solutions which at times can be expensive, restrictive or just outright unavailable.

However, this trend does appear to be something which has been recognized and steps have been taken to rectify the situation. The Airbus A400M for instance. While I do not necessarily think this will successfully enable the different European users to be able to meet their own organic lift needs, due to the issues with the programme... What appears to me to be the underlying idea, which is that Europe needs their own lift capability, is to my mind, a good one.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

Many of the European countries do not have sufficient logistical support in terms of transport aircraft, AAR/MRTT, amphibious lift, etc and have needed to either rely upon allies and/or commercial lift solutions which at times can be expensive, restrictive or just outright unavailable.

Instances where European countries have ferried troops or logistics through US transport assets - both airborne and seabourne - have been far and far between, and are almost entirely restricted to a number of countries that have been built up by US Forces more recently - most notably the smaller Eastern European NATO members.
I'm not aware of German, French, Italian, Spanish, British troops "booking" any time on US transport assets to move things on a larger scale, at least in the past 25 years.

 

[Grim901]

Instances where European countries have ferried troops or logistics through US transport assets - both airborne and seabourne - have been far and far between, and are almost entirely restricted to a number of countries that have been built up by US Forces more recently - most notably the smaller Eastern European NATO members.
I'm not aware of German, French, Italian, Spanish, British troops "booking" any time on US transport assets to move things on a larger scale, at least in the past 25 years.

Not entirely sure if this is accurate and I know it's not quite the same thing, but didn't the Americans resupply our (British) fleet during the Falklands?

Right now i don't see a problem for Europe with the US withdrawing from Europe, British planning certainly isn't contingent on them being here, especially since they have the ability to airlift in large amounts of troops and equipment from just about anywhere if necessary.

I think that the benefits lie with America at the moment. There wouldn't be so many troops still in Germany (British troops too) if there wasn't some benefit to them being there.

I think the nail's been hit on the head here about the lack of European strategic airlift and the issues with out of area operations, so I won't add more, except that the A400M looks like a step in the right direction, despite my feeling on it with regards to Britain.

 

[citizen578]

In terms of general combat capabilities, most European countries have sufficient capabilities to meet their respective needs, within their own borders. Where a defence gap begins to appear in IMO is if/when some (most) of the European countries need to transport, project and sustain a force outside of their borders.

That is true universally, not just among ''some'' european (which I'll take to mean EU (on this issue)) countries.
The UK for instance has a chronic shortage of both strategic and tactical airlift capabilities, as does every country engaged in major operations atm.

 

[citizen578]

Not entirely sure if this is accurate and I know it's not quite the same thing, but didn't the Americans resupply our (British) fleet during the Falklands?

No.

The US contribution was to divert one of their fleet tankers (filled with AVGAS) to Ascension, with instructions to make it's load available to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF.

They certainly did not resupply the Task Force in any substancial way.

 

[Grim901]

No.

The US contribution was to divert one of their fleet tankers (filled with AVGAS) to Ascension, with instructions to make it's load available to the Fleet Air Arm and RAF.

They certainly did not resupply the Task Force in any substancial way.

That's what I was thinking about, but i'd forgotten the specifics, I'd just remembered an American Tanker was involved and presumed it meant for the fleet. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[swerve]

There was a lot of RAF - and MoD chartered civilian traffic - into & out of Wideawake. Nimrods, the Black Buck raids, Harriers flown down to the Task Force by tanker, & freighters & passenger aircraft flying in troops & extra supplies to meet ships (often vertrep because of harbour limitations - very fuel thirsty), or sometimes, be airdropped, RAF Phantoms for local air defence . . . . With them drawing on the fuel stocks of Wideawake until the British logistics operation was in full swing*, doubtless unscheduled replenishment was needed. Very nice of the Yanks to be so obliging.

BTW, the BBC relay station provided some diesel to the military from the stock it kept to run its generator, & water from its desalination plant. The BBC staff also sold or bartered their knackered old fridges, for enterprising soldiers to repair & use for that most essential of purposes, cooling beer.

*The Royal Engineers put in extra fuel storage & a pipeline from the harbour, & British tankers delivered fuel. They also installed a bigger desalination plant.

 

[lindsaygii]

Not entirely sure if this is accurate and I know it's not quite the same thing, but didn't the Americans resupply our (British) fleet during the Falklands?

But that was a special situation, where we were actually over there, in their backyard (probably for the only time ever).

I mean, we took help from Pinochet in the form of bases during the same conflict, didn't we?

(AFAIR)

 

[swerve]

1. The Falklands are not "their backyard". They're several thousand miles from the USA. If that's "their backyard", then so is Moscow.

2. Some Nimrod recce flights, before the Chileans got cold feet, & information from a long-range air search radar, which gave the Task Force some early warning of attacks - according to Sir Lawrence Freedmans history, compiled from official sources.

 

[kato]

1. The Falklands are not "their backyard".

Depends on the stance towards the Monroe Doctrine. There were people who criticized Reagan for "ignoring" the Monroe Doctrine with regards to this episode.

 

[lindsaygii]

Depends on the stance towards the Monroe Doctrine. There were people who criticized Reagan for "ignoring" the Monroe Doctrine with regards to this episode.

My point was that the Falklands are off the Americas - they are much closer to them than they are to us. If you can't see that then I'd be happy to do without your advice, thanks.

 

[citizen578]

The Monroe Doctrine is only really applicable from a defensive stance. Seeing as it was Argentina who attacked a British territory, one would be clutching at straws to try and apply it.
However, at the recent Americas Summit in Trinidad & Tobago, President Kirchner had the gall to say this to the gathered diplomats:

First by the cold war that divided the world into something and I was bipolar, in an East-West conflict to our region that meant harsh dictatorships, military, and paradoxes such as the expulsion was in the'62 years of the OAS of the sister republic of Cuba. Among the grounds for such expulsion is argued that their adherence to Marxism-Leninism, its accession to the bloc of the Soviet Union, then the other pole of conflict, endangering the hemispheric unity and violated the principle, enshrined in hemispheric Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, the TIAR. I say paradox because 20 years later, in 1982, my country, Argentina was attacked by a country that did not belong to the hemisphere and there was not applied the doctrine of TIAR.

@Lindsaygaii

But that was a special situation, where we were actually over there, in their backyard (probably for the only time ever).

The Falklands are 7000 miles from Washington, so not exactly the USA's backyard. At the time the USA's policy towards Latin America was one of quietly supporting the right-wing dictatorships which kept communist sympathies to a minimum. That was not going to be at the cost of regional stability, or disrupting NATO unity, so their reaction was really no surprise.
Also, it was far from being the first time that Britain was operating in the Americas. Only ten years earlier, a significant operation to prevent the Guatamelans from invading British Honduras (modern-day Belize) was launched - something that sat far less comfortably with the USA's regional policy.

 

[swerve]

My point was that the Falklands are off the Americas - they are much closer to them than they are to us. If you can't see that then I'd be happy to do without your advice, thanks.

I think you need to look at a map. They are off the southern end of South America, a long way south, & a bit east of the USA. They're in a different hemisphere from the USA: closer than to here, but not "much" closer. 7877 miles from London to Stanley, 6288 miles from Washington. Big deal. It's 5615 miles from Washington to Moscow, which I'm sure you'll agree is not the USAs back yard.

If you want to compare the distance between the nearest British & US territories, rather than the capitals, you'll find that it's more in our back yard than theirs. Counting from the nearest part of the mainland increases the margin in favour of the USA, but not hugely.

From what you say, perhaps you think that the USA has some kind of right of jurisdiction over two whole continents. If so, I suggest you move there, as that attitude doesn't go down well outside the USA, & even there, is far from universally held. Personally, I find that kind of kow-towing by a non-American distasteful. You might also visit Argentina or Brazil & start telling the locals what you think. Try the junction of Calle Florida & Calle Lavalle in Buenos Aires, where the ranting loonies gather of an evening. You'd get an appreciative audience, & in my experience they're quite tolerant. Some will mock you, & some will shout angrily, but they won't hurt you.

 

[swerve]

Depends on the stance towards the Monroe Doctrine. There were people who criticized Reagan for "ignoring" the Monroe Doctrine with regards to this episode.

The Monroe doctrine was a policy of a single US president. It is not binding on any other US president. Also, it did not apply to the Falklands. Monroe stated that the USA would oppose any further colonisation by European states of the Americas, but also that the United States would not interfere with existing European colonies. The USA did not oppose British occupation of the Falklands in 1833 (it couldn't, but also, it had no objection - and had just destroyed the Argentinean adminstration & captured the governor, leaving a mess, which the UK tidied up), & subsequently recognised British title. Therefore, the Falklands came under the second provision in 1982, & for the USA to interfere would have been contrary to the Monroe doctrine.

BTW the USA has frequently ignored the other part of the Monroe doctrine, i.e. the undertaking not to intervene in Europe, or in the internal affairs of European countries.

The UK thought the Monroe doctrine amusing in its presumption at the time, but approved of its intent, which was to oppose other European countries taking over newly-independent Spanish colonies - and the UK, not the USA, made the Monroe doctrine effective in its early years, by adopting a similar policy, which the RN could enforce, but did not need to: the policy was enough. The USA should be grateful to us.