USA to remove 9,500 troops from Germany

Zhopa

War Hero
Also true. There seem to be plenty of people saying that even if this really is designed primarily as a wake-up call or threat to the Germans, it "shouldn't be done this way".... but when you bear in mind that everything so far has failed to get Germany to show any interest at all in funding its own defence, you can well understand someone wanting to focus minds.
 
.... but when you bear in mind that everything so far has failed to get Germany to show any interest at all in funding its own defence, you can well understand someone wanting to focus minds.
Really? The new post-COVID world will cause a major rethink in defence budgets everywhere, but back in April ...

'More and more money is going toward the world's militaries, with the US and China leading the way. But no other country has increased its spending as much as Germany. Global military expenditure reached $1.9 trillion (€1.7 trillion) in 2019, the highest annual sum in real terms since 1988. That sum marked an increase of 3.6% over 2018, the largest annual increase since 2010, according to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

'In Germany, spending rose by 10% to $49.3 billion — the largest defense budget increase among the world's top 15 states when it comes to military expenditures. "There's been pressure on Germany to increase its military expenditure since before the Trump administration," said Max Mutschler from the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), a peace and conflict research institute. "The impact of this pressure is now becoming clear. However, one has to say that expenditure is still well below the 2% mark."


www.dw.com

SIPRI: Germany significantly increases military spending | DW | 26.04.2020
More and more money is going toward the world's militaries, with the US and China leading the way. But no other country has increased its spending as much as Germany.
www.dw.com
www.dw.com
 
Really? The new post-COVID world will cause a major rethink in defence budgets everywhere, but back in April ...

'More and more money is going toward the world's militaries, with the US and China leading the way. But no other country has increased its spending as much as Germany. Global military expenditure reached $1.9 trillion (€1.7 trillion) in 2019, the highest annual sum in real terms since 1988. That sum marked an increase of 3.6% over 2018, the largest annual increase since 2010, according to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

'In Germany, spending rose by 10% to $49.3 billion — the largest defense budget increase among the world's top 15 states when it comes to military expenditures. "There's been pressure on Germany to increase its military expenditure since before the Trump administration," said Max Mutschler from the Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC), a peace and conflict research institute. "The impact of this pressure is now becoming clear. However, one has to say that expenditure is still well below the 2% mark."


www.dw.com

SIPRI: Germany significantly increases military spending | DW | 26.04.2020
More and more money is going toward the world's militaries, with the US and China leading the way. But no other country has increased its spending as much as Germany.
www.dw.com
www.dw.com
Does this mean that they now have 10 tanks operational and 8 Typhoons, and they don't need a broomstick in their armored cars instead of an MG and shouting "bang" as they have been replaced by football rattles.
 

Zhopa

War Hero
What he said. Hopelessly inadequate plus 10% is still hopelessly inadequate; and even if they did get near to the amount they have promised NATO they will spend (which, of course, they won't in this decade) most of it would still be spent on anything but readiness.

This is harsh - but not completely unfair: Germany’s military has become a complete joke | The Spectator
 
Apparently someone didn't get the memo (or tweet).

'Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) warned President Trump Tuesday that his reported plan to withdraw 9,500 troops from Germany would damage U.S. national security and benefit Russia.

"We believe that such steps would significantly damage U.S. national security, as well as strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment," Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to Trump.

'Thornberry, the top GOP member on the HASC, which has oversight of the military, urged Trump to reject the U.S. troop withdrawal proposals immediately because the German-based service members are necessary to maintain peace and to keep Russia in check. “In Europe, the threats posed by Russia have not lessened, and we believe that signs of a weakened U.S. commitment to NATO will encourage further Russian aggression and opportunism," Thornberry wrote, along with 21 Republicans on the committee.'


 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
I should really post this in the Trump Presidency thread.

The view from Chatham House:

Real or Not, Trump’s Germany Withdrawal Helps Putin

Colossal strategic failure
If the objective of the leak was to sow alarm or dismay, or to distract from other issues, it has succeeded admirably.

But the fact no US authority has yet found itself willing or able to explain what is happening represents a colossal failure of strategic communication.

Not only to America's friends and allies, not only to adversaries including Russia, but also - and especially - to its own armed forces whose senior leadership is already reeling from accusations of conflict of loyalty between the White House and the US constitution.

Most reports on the potential withdrawal, and reaction to it, assume it is going ahead despite the lack of confirmation or detail. Despite claims the move has been under consideration since September 2019, it is unknown whether this is a firm plan of action, or just a threat from a US administration exasperated - as many before it - by Germany’s apparent unwillingness to take an interest in funding its own defence. It would not be the first time the US has threatened to withdraw troops in order to focus mind


But the biggest challenge posed by the plans so far is the implicit weakening of the US commitment to NATO. This may not necessarily be the intent but, in the absence of any confirmation or clarification, this is how they are being understood in the United States, in Europe, and - crucially - how they will be seen in Russia as well.

Continuing silence by the US also does nothing to dispel widespread suggestions that Donald Trump is ordering a drawdown of US forces in Germany as a favour to Vladimir Putin.

And suggestions the plans were drawn up because the current United States administration values its relationship with Russia more than with NATO will persist until an alternative convincing rationale is provided.



...and there was me thinking it was just me, and ordering in a fresh stock of Bacofoil. Funny old game :scratch:
 
Last edited:
There was a speech by President Trump the other day pointing out that the job of the US military is defence of the USA, not to act as world policeman.

He's a businessman, not a politician, and sees no return on the US basing troops and equipment overseas, so thinks they'll be better employed at home, or, at least, cost less when based at home.
Can't fault him on that, especially in the election run up.
 
This is only one of the Command option for EU Ops, the less likely to be used and has mostly survived because the UK had, until BREXIT, a vested interest in keeping it since DSACEUR is UK flagged.
Uhm the UK vested interest was (and remains) the fact that only the UK could actually guarantee getting the Over The Horizon Rft there within 5 days, was the only Org that regularly turned up for OPREH Level 2 exercise (Stand Fast the Austrians) and when it actually came to (Heaven Forbid) having to conduct Ops at above the current level (i.e. 0), the UK provided around 30% of the total effort. And I mean Inf, not water purification teams, medical support etc. I mean bayonets. Added to which and Op Restraint was that the KOSOVO and EU Bde could only supply troops in Theatre for 30 days.

Add to this the fact that seven or eight years ago France, Germany and Spain actually tried to close ALTHEA. Because BiH was OK.

Our vested interest was making sure to hold on long enough until NATO could reinforce - with proper boots on the ground. By NATO I mean the usual suspects. Guess who those 2 would be?
 
Uhm the UK vested interest was (and remains) the fact that only the UK could actually guarantee getting the Over The Horizon Rft there within 5 days, was the only Org that regularly turned up for OPREH Level 2 exercise (Stand Fast the Austrians) and when it actually came to (Heaven Forbid) having to conduct Ops at above the current level (i.e. 0), the UK provided around 30% of the total effort. And I mean Inf, not water purification teams, medical support etc. I mean bayonets. Added to which and Op Restraint was that the KOSOVO and EU Bde could only supply troops in Theatre for 30 days.

Add to this the fact that seven or eight years ago France, Germany and Spain actually tried to close ALTHEA. Because BiH was OK.

Our vested interest was making sure to hold on long enough until NATO could reinforce - with proper boots on the ground. By NATO I mean the usual suspects. Guess who those 2 would be?
One way of looking at thing. The UK did all of the above because it wanted CSDP to be chained to NATO and because it has never been in favor of an independent CSDP.

France, Germany and Spain want to kill Althea because it is seen as a stone into CSDP's garden.

If France has not been more vocal against Althea it's down to haggling over CSDP Ops in Africa.

Basically, the UK said "we won't block your adventures in Africa with EU money as long as you stop trying to kill our nice little earner in Bosnia and don't try to move Atalanta's HQ out of Northwood since EU Money is, thanks to that, paying for a nice share of PJHQ's budget".

I think it's called diplomacy....

;-)
 
Basically, the UK said "we won't block your adventures in Africa with EU money as long as you stop trying to kill our nice little earner in Bosnia and don't try to move Atalanta's HQ out of Northwood since EU Money is, thanks to that, paying for a nice share of PJHQ's budget".

I think it's called diplomacy....

;-)
Why do you say PJHQ budget is partially funded by the EU? Offset arrangements in ALTHEA have to be paid by Host Nation. Who do you think paid for the extra Sqn/Coy troop deployments in recent times? It came about because DSACEUR was UK.
 
Why do you say PJHQ budget is partially funded by the EU? Offset arrangements in ALTHEA have to be paid by Host Nation. Who do you think paid for the extra Sqn/Coy troop deployments in recent times? It came about because DSACEUR was UK.
Because it was shared costs since PJHQ was used as the OHQ of a CSDP Op.

That's why Italy and Spain fought so hard to be named as the OHQ of Atalanta when the UK left CSDP. Ultimately Spain won.

 
Because it was shared costs since PJHQ was used as the OHQ of a CSDP Op.

That's why Italy and Spain fought so hard to be named as the OHQ of Atalanta when the UK left CSDP. Ultimately Spain won.

Any idea of the amount of the shared cost? Genuine question.
 
Unfortunately no but it must have been substantial enough to warrant a lot of efforts from various members states to bid for the OHQ of Atalanta for example.
Maybe not. The spin-off from a large overseas HQ in boosting the local economy isn't to be sneezed at. I doubt this benefited PJHQ at all in the direct sense. The political clout gained by touting for the OHQ location though isn't to be sneezed at. I would genuinely be interested in what EEAS paid PJHQ.
 

Cyberhacker

Old-Salt
"We believe that such steps would significantly damage U.S. national security, as well as strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment," Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to Trump.
Wow... that's unexpected.

I would have expected a Texan to reply with the usual pork-barrel "We agree with the proposal, and of course Fort Hood and Fort Bliss, in Texas, make the obvious homes for them"
 
Maybe not. The spin-off from a large overseas HQ in boosting the local economy isn't to be sneezed at. I doubt this benefited PJHQ at all in the direct sense. The political clout gained by touting for the OHQ location though isn't to be sneezed at. I would genuinely be interested in what EEAS paid PJHQ.
Regarding the the EUMS it looks like Amiral Bléjean, who had been elected to the position last year, has succeeded to Finnish LTG Pulkkinen. He is the first naval officer to hold the position since the creation of the EUMS.



Vice-Admiral Bléjean is a representative of EU-NATO cooperation with significant experience in joint operations.

Since 2016 he has worked within NATO command structures, first as Deputy Chief of Staff Operation at the Joint Force Headquarters in Naples, and then as Deputy Commander at the Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM) in Northwood, United Kingdom.

Moreover, he maintains a solid knowledge of EU interoperability since his participation as commander of the EU naval force ATALANTA, engaged in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia to fight maritime piracy.

Then, between June 2015 and March 2016, he also served as the First Deputy Commander to EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia, which aimed to combat migrant-traffic in the Mediterranean Sea, this operation was later replaced by operation Irini (see our last article on this operation).
 
There was a speech by President Trump the other day pointing out that the job of the US military is defence of the USA, not to act as world policeman.
While that is true about the US armed forces, that's not how many people see it. As long as Uncle Sam is there to keep the bad guys away then all is well. The idea of having to do the work themselves has not occured to some countries, that or it doesn't bear contemplation. Or as Jonesy put it "Europe is prepared to fight to the last American". That is changing.
 
While that is true about the US armed forces, that's not how many people see it. As long as Uncle Sam is there to keep the bad guys away then all is well. The idea of having to do the work themselves has not occured to some countries, that or it doesn't bear contemplation. Or as Jonesy put it "Europe is prepared to fight to the last American". That is changing.
Which seems increasingly more likely when countries have to adjust to a post COVID financial climate. If Joe public is under the impression foreign governments are prepared to sacrifice their sons and daughters whilst not doing their share. Good luck getting public opinion on Europe’s side. GOP voters are already skeptical of NATO. Failure to meet the 2 percent goal, and buying Russian gas only reinforces that distrust.
 
Top