Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
U.S. direction and leadership by example led to European countries joining the United States and increasing the size and strength of their military forces. Without U.S. engagement in this area it, never would have happened. The Europeans have always failed when it comes to security over the last century without the aid and support of the United States.
In 2013, the United States withdrew its last tank Units from Europe. It was the first time in over 70 years that there were no U.S. tank units in Europe. Then Russian invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. Since, then the United States has moved an entire Armored Brigade back to Europe and also positioned all the equipment for a second armored Brigade in Europe. So your wrong, there have been new U.S. troop deployments too Europe and more deployments are being studied and envisioned at the moment.
Bush never damaged NATO's unity. He in fact increased it with the Alliance performing its first out of Europe operations in its history which continue to this day.
There has NEVER been nor is there any such thing now, as an American Empire. The only people in the world to look at NATO as a threat are the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and non-state terrorist groups around the world. NATO threatens their ability to harass and take over various parts of the world and create havoc and instability everywhere.
The United States military and NATO military have been far more effective than any other military forces or other entities in solving the worlds problems and saving lives. Keeping the peace in Europe, preventing and deterring a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion, preventing World War III, saving Bosnia and Kosovo from genocide, giving Afghanistan its best government and highest standard of living in its history are just a few of the things they have accomplished.
I found you quite regularly to propose positions that are reasonable, at least defensible. The above, however, are the musings of a militaristic subject of empire - sorry to say.
Just in short to correct your misstatement on U.S. troops in Europe. I spoke about "additional troops", which would obviously mean rising troop numbers. Here's what happened during the last three decades or so:
Pointing to an armored brigade rotated in to replace other kinds of troops doesn't counter my point. Whatever, at a time when isolationism is on the rise in the U.S., and all eyes are on Europeans buckling up, expectations rise they provide for their own defense, expecting rising U.S. troop numbers in Europe would be illogical. At most, I see some legislators hinting at countering further draw-downs.
Its not about bean counting the number of military personal in Europe, but RELEVANT combat troops. The United States Armored Brigade that was sent to Europe following the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea was not sent to replace other troops. It moved into Eastern Europe with most of its elements stationed in Poland. It was significant in that it marked the return of the first U.S. armored force to Europe since the last tank unit was foolishly withdrawn in 2013. There were only two U.S. combat brigades left in Europe at the end of 2013. A medium weight brigade with Stryker armored vehicles considered too light for heavy armored combat, stationed in southern Germany. The only other combat brigade was a light infantry airborne combat brigade stationed at Vicenza Italy. Another Armored Brigade's equipment has been pre-positioned in Eastern Europe so its troops can be moved from the United States and ready for combat on the ground in Europe within days. An armored battalion has been deployed to the Baltic States and another armored battalion has been deployed to Romania. So the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe has nearly doubled since the end of 2013, and more than doubled if you include the Brigade that has its pre-positioned equipment stored in Eastern Europe.
As stated before, it has been estimated that there needs to be at least 7 Brigades, most of them armored, in addition to Polish forces, to counter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. This is NOT a time of retreat from Europe as it was prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reversed everything. Failure to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, which since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has become more likely, would lead to World War III. That is why it is imperative to increase the number of U.S. ground combat troops in Europe, in positions, where they could quickly respond to Russian aggression. The only way an adequate force will be deployed to defend the Baltic states is if the United States increases the number of ground combat brigades it has stationed in Europe. What has been done since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 is a start, but it is not enough.
The Russian threat is not at all being deemphasized in congress. There is far more support in congress today for increasing the number of ground combat brigades in Europe than at any time in the last five years.
Its far easier to defeat the Russian military if we keep the sanctions on Russia instead of helping them re-build and develop new classes of weapons, such as hyper-sonic missiles. Don't fight the last war. A quick first strike can eliminate a lot of ground forces (Maginot Line Redux?). Retaliation is always the name of the game with Russia. What part of "we can't afford to keep troops in the EU don't you understand?" The EU needs to step up, 70 years of the US paying to protect the EU is over.
An ‘Arms Race in Speed’: Hypersonic Weapons and the Changing Calculus of Battle | Arms Control Association
What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening. There are no short cuts, or super weapons that will do that. Trumps stupid tax cut for the rich would have been more than enough to pay for U.S. defense spending related to Europe. The fucking rich don't need a trillion dollar tax cut. Those taxes can and should be used to deploy more U.S. combat Brigades to Europe.
Of whose money?What the United States cannot afford to have happen is World War III. Every last dime must be spent preventing that from happening.
If WWIII breaks out, who stands to lose the most?
It won't be the U.S. So, why the FUCK do we have to spend even ONE SINGLE DIME???
NOBODY would DARE fuck with the U.S. on our soil, unless they plan on bringing a 10 million man army. One of the many benefits to having an armed citizenry.
.