How Europe is Trump-proofing NATO - it can defend itself from Russia and ALSO support Ukraine without the USA - Biden is helping Europe transition to a Trump term where the US no longer leads NATO
THIS ARTICLE IS MID EDIT
The basic message is that Russia is incredibly weak in Ukraine. If Ukraine had access to the
Tomahawk cruise missiles
Grey eagle observation drones
F-35 fighter jets
those alone would tip the war so that Russia would leave occupied Ukraine aright away - the NATO equipment is THAT superior to what Russia has.
Any NATO country would have those and far more on day 1. Ukraine however is unlikely to get ANY of those until after the war is over because its allies worry that they would make it too powerful.
This is why Russia invaded Ukraine instead of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which don’t have a single tank or fighter jet between them.
What those Baltic states do have is that they are members of NATO. On day 1 of any invasion, as soon as they call article 5 and it’s accepted, they have immediate access to a rapid response force of up to 40,000 soldiers equipped with the most advanced equipment NATO has, it’s just a matter of how long it takes to get there. The first ones get there in a few days to hold the fort while NATO member countries decide what to send next.
After the war is over, NATO plans to ramp that rapid response force up from 40,000 to 300,000
NATO does NOT depend on the US for either that 40,000 or that 300,000 figure or the other equipment. Some of it is bought from the US yes, like the F-35s. But it is just like the way that the US supplies them to other foreign countries. NATO countries will NOT have to give US equipment back to the US if it withdraws from NATO.
And Europe has a huge military industrial base over many countries that is far larger and technologically more advanced than anything Russia has.
Europe is also already providing half the funding for the Ukraine war. Also many don’t realize, Ukraine has a large defence industrial base itself. It build all of the Soviet Union’s ICBMs and all it’s aircraft carriers and also built many of its tanks and serviced its nukes.
Ukraine has no interest in nukes now and it no longer builds tanks or ICBMs or aircraft carriers. But it has a lot of military engineering expertise stilil. Before the war started Ukraine was one of the big military exporters of the world and after the war is over it will be a major industrial base for military technology. It is rapidly innovating and is developing many new missile systems, drones, infantry fighting vehicles etc of its own.
Need to go through this and divide it into sections and make it easier to read, and copy over some graphics into it etc.
First on Ukraine:
Trump’s peace plan won't work. But Zelensky's Victory Plan will work
Trump may well come around and support Ukraine once he fails to achieve peace in 24 hours but Europe is taking no chances and is ramping up to support Ukraine without help from the USA
Ukraine’s allies (apart from Trump) say that the way to get Putin to start thinking about peace is to achieve battlefield successes. He has shown throughout this war that for as long as Russia is advancing he has no interest in peace and he only developed an interest in negotiations that were possibly genuine, for a short while, after his biggest and most serious setback, after he lost the battle of Kyiv.
My debunk here is mainly to do with preparing to take over the managing of the Ukraine war from within NATO.
NATO is also preparing for after the war is over with plans to ramp up to 300,000 in the rapid response force instead of 40,000. Just to make it absolutely clear to Putin he can't invade anywhere in NATO ever.
Trump will try to achieve peace in 24 hours but Putin from all the things he says is not interested at present making impossible demands on Ukraine.
If Ukraine was a NATO country, Putin would never have tried this. He attacked Ukraine instead of the far weaker LIthunaia, Latvia or Estonia which don't even have any fighter jets or tanks because they are in NATO.
The things Ukraine wants that could end the war quickly by making it impossible for Putin to keep on attacking - they are things any NATO country would have had on day 1 on 22nd Feb 2022.
Ukraine won't get those things from its allies but they are fine with it developing them itself and are helping it to do that.
When it was in the Soviet Union, Ukraine built all of Russia's current ICBMs and even had the maintenance contract for them until the invasion started.
Meanwhile Putin is very risk averse
The risk is for Ukraine and any Ukrainian friends not any NATO country.
He only invaded Ukraine originally because he thought he could take over Kyiv in 2 days and all of Ukraine in 2 weeks.
So there is no way he even thinks of attacking NATO in reality.
And once he starts to lose in Ukraine in a big way his thoughts will turn to peace. The only time that happened in the war so far was briefly after his defeat in the battle of Kyiv but then he rallied his troops in East and South Ukraine and dropped the peace negotiations once he realized he could retain half of the land he quickly occupied in the first few weeks of the war.
Once Trump is president and is able to talk to Zelensky more and find out more about what is going on he is sure to agree on this.
Trump leads a very divided Republican party. Many of them are strongly in support of the Ukraine war, to defend Ukraine.
Trump sadly doesn't have much idea of what is going on, he has a very skewed idea of the situation in Ukraine. Trump needs to talk to Zelensky.
Putin is NEVER going to attack NATO. The reason he attacked Ukraine instead of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia who don't even have one fighter jet between them is because they are part of NATO and Ukraine isn't.
He is ALREADY escalating in Ukraine to the max. It already IS escalation to the Ukrainians that he drops glide bombs that have a payload of 3 tons of explosive that can demolish an entire apartment block on cities. And that coming into winter they have NO FOSSIL FUEL POWER STATIONS because Putin destroyed them all with hypersonic missiles and other long range missiles.
Putin also requires Zelensky to remove his soldiers from all the oblasts that he is fighting for and cede them to Russia and to promise never to join NATO as a precondition for talking to Zelensky.
This is his "Peace plan" that Trump sees as a basis for a negotiated settlement with Zelensky but there is no way Zelensky or Ukraine pays any attention to it at all for obvious reasons.
If Trump gets Putin to stop destroying Ukrainian power stations and substations and to stop dropping glide bombs on civilians and to drop those preconditions and to change the Russian constitution to de-annex those four oblasts then it means he is making some progress.
The Russian constitution has a clause in it saying any new territory that Russia annexes can't be ceded back again - even if that territory is actually not in the possession of Russia but is part of Ukraine.
It is a bizarre situation. If Trump can get Putin to promise to change the Russian constitution and de-annex those four oblasts that would be huge progress and a signal to Zelensky that Putin is genuinely beginning to move in his views.
If he can get Putin to return the thousands of Ukrainian children he forcefully adopted into Russia back to occupied Ukraine he has made huge progesss.
If he can get Russia to pay for restoration of the damage it caused to Ukrainian infrastructure, to pay to rebuild all the power stations Putin destroyed to start with so that their civilians can have a winter with adequate electricity that again would be huge progress.
But these things are not likely to happen any time soon.
The allies of Ukraine and Ukraine itself say that Ukraine needs some battlefield successes first.
But Ukraine is confident of winning, of battlefield successes with the help of its allies.
The background here is that if Ukraine's allies gave Ukraine just the equipment available to any NATO country on day 1, not the soldiers, just the equipment, then Russia would no longer be able to stay in Ukraine. The war would be over in a few days.
The Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 2,400 km alone would make the war almost impossible for Russia to fight. Add the Grey Eagle observation drones that Ukraine has been asking for for two years and the F-35 fighter jets which Ukrainian pilots can't fly - but there are numerous retired F-35 pilots from the many countries the US sells them to that could join the Ukrainian army as voluntey fighters. Also add the JASSMER extended range missiles. All just used by Ukrainian soldiers and volunteer fighters that join the Ukrainian army from other countries.
The war would be over tomorrow. Ukraine could sink all the ships in the Black sea in hours, also destroy all radar systems and artillery systems over occupied Ukraine in short order and would soon have control over the airspace of occupied Ukraine.
We now know that the NATO equipment is that superior to the Russian equipment.
So why don't Ukraine’s allies just give Ukraine what it need to win this war tomorrow?
They worry that it would make Ukraine too strong. They worry about Putin's bluffs. Which is precisely why Putin bluffs.
There is nothing here in the UN charter or the law of armed conduct that prevents them helping Ukraine.
It’s basically just Putin's words that prevent Ukraine from defending itself like a NATO country and nothing more.
There is nothing Putin would be able to do in return. If Ukraine had these capabilities that any NATO country has available just for asking on day 1 - he would surely just end the war.
But Biden is ultra-cautions and seen by many as a bit timid as US leader. It may be because of his experience of the Cuban Missile Crisis as a young man even though there is no possibility of anything like that here today.
Meanwhile though Ukraine has the capability to make its own version of the Tomahawk.
It has its own cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with a range of 700 km, a a third of the range of the Tomahawk but will increase them as time goes on, has 100 so far and is going to build up in production leading into 2025. By this time next year wouldn't be surprised if they are up to close to Tomahawk capability after all it is only 1980s technology and Ukraine is good at technology and will have lots of help from its allies.
So that is likely Biden's calculation that he doesn't want the US to supply them. But so long as Ukraine builds its equivalent that's fine.
So Ukraine has to develop these capabilities itself. Everyone agrees so long as it develops its own missiles it is very clear, no problem at all.
And it does have that capability as the country that when in the Soviet union built all of Russia's ICBMs. It also built all of Russia's aircraft carriers (Russia now doesn't have any active functioning aircraft carriers) and many of its tanks. And it hasn't forgotten how to do it and is rapidly building up its own capabilities.
Ukraine has an impressive defense industrial base. Once this war is over it will be a major defence hub for Europe similarly to East Germany. It also has far more combat experience than any other European country now too of course.
I know that it doesn't seem like it but I explain here why their victory plan is plausible.
And see also my section NATO’s vast superiority over Russia - F-35 fighter jets with radar cross-section of a supersonic potato - high altitude stealth Gray Eagle drone able to drop ATACMS and Tomahawk cruise missiles with range of 2,400 km - Ukraine gets none of these
And see also
Any resolution of the war has to involve talking to Zelensky.
Trump can’t solve this by only talking to Putin.
If you hear that Trump has talked to both Putin AND Zelensky and found a solution that both agree on then that is progress but this si not likely until Putin starts to lose in Ukraine.
That's been the conclusion of Ukraine and its allies throughout this war. Putin only does genuine peace negotiations if he is losing big-time.
NATO is vastly superior to Russia and Putin can't attack NATO with or without the US involvement.
Europe has done already to prepare to Trump-proof Europe's support of Ukraine. First, aid from the USA wouldn't vanish overnight because Biden has billions of of dollars funding still. He has promised to allocate it to Ukraine by the end of his term.
QUOTE STARTS
I have directed the Department of Defense to allocate all of its remaining security assistance funding that has been appropriated for Ukraine by the end of my term in office. As part of this effort, the Department of Defense will allocate the remaining Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds by the end of this year. I also have authorized $5.5 billion in Presidential Drawdown Authority to ensure this authority does not expire, so that my Administration can fully utilize the funding appropriated by Congress to support the drawdown of U.S. equipment for Ukraine and then replenish U.S. stockpiles.
. Statement from President Joe Biden on U.S. Support for Ukraine | The White House
So, if Trump is elected in the next few days, Europe will immediately know it has to increase its funding in case he cuts off aid to Ukraine, unless Trump does an about turn and says he will fund Ukraine.
If it is very close they will also know they need to ramp up in case Trump wins. Only if Harris wins will they continue "as is".
Then when it gets to Jan 20th as one of the last things he does Biden will surely give a very big package of aid to Ukraine.
NATO say Biden will "empty out his funds" before the end of his office if Trump is the next president.
NATO will also set up a new special mission: NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU), based in Germany. So the assistance for Ukraine will be coordinated from within Germany instead of the US if Trump becomes president.
The EU has also got together a $50 billion long-term loan to Ukraine against the interest on the Russian frozen assets.
QUOTE STARTS
Trump has reportedly vowed not to “give a penny” to Ukraine if he wins and will instead seek a “peace deal” by negotiating with Putin. But any such deal would likely force Ukraine to make some very painful concessions – including ceding parts of its eastern territory – and it is feared such acquiescence would only increase the Russian threat hanging over Europe.
To off-set this possibility, steps have been taken on both sides of the Atlantic to "Trump-proof" support for Ukraine, providing it with enough financial and military assistance so it can continue to resist Russian encroachment in the long term.
NATO this summer announced it was establishing a special mission, known as the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU), which would be headquartered in Germany. Its creation essentially means that from now on it will be NATO itself, rather than its biggest contributor the United States, that will coordinate training Ukrainian troops and providing military equipment.
The Group of 7 – which unites the United States, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Canada and Japan – finalised a $50 billion long-term loan to Ukraine that would be funded largely by the interest on frozen Russian assets in Europe.
Outgoing US President Joe Biden has backed up his European allies by pre-empting the potential risk of a US withdrawal from the deal should Trump be re-elected by making sure the $20 billion US contribution will start becoming available by the end of the year. Congress has approved five bills on Ukraine assistance since the start of the war worth $175 billion, with $106 billion going directly to the government of Ukraine. At a news conference in Riga in mid-October, James O’Brien, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, said that Biden will be “emptying out” the funds the US Congress has earmarked for Ukraine before the end of his term.
. 'The guardrails are gone': Full throttle as Europe tries to Trump-proof itself
So that's mainly what they have decided so far. With Trump elected president they will surely step up and do more.
Then - many individual countries have long term commitments. The biggest military supporters in Europe in order of the amount of finance are Germany, UK, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden and France. But many others also.
In total finance Europe is now providing more than the US. €118.2 billion for Europe, €84.7 billion for the USA.
When it comes to military funding it's roughly equal. I make it €10.63+9.42+2.48+6.47+5.14+4.27+3.18+3.23+1.53+1.4+1.73+1.24+0.57+0.82+0.73+0.69+0.57+0.46 down to Latvia or €54.56 billion which compares to €56.8 billion for the USA.
,. Ukraine Support Tracker - A Database of Military, Financial and Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Other countries can step up
- already at over USA: €56.8 billion
Everyone else: over €54.56 billion
[chart continues]
So - it would be different from 2023/4 when the US suddenly pulled the plug and Biden hadn't got that much left to help Ukraine with over the winter. This time he has a lot to allocate and Europe is supporting Ukraien with more. Also the US had vastly greater capability to support Ukraine with shells especially in 2023-4. But now Europe has built up its capability.
Also Ukraine's defense industry and capabilities are growing fast too.
They are especially capable in drones (no other country is as strong on the smaller first person view military drones of many kinds including aerial and sea drones as Ukraine - it is surely the world leader now).
it's just produced its own ballistic missile similar to the ATACMS and its cruise missile similar to the stormshadow and will ramp up to produce lots by summer 2025.
it also produces howitzers, produces shells itself, and is working on many other things
It relies on funding from its allies for social spending which is how it can find so much for military spending.
QUOTE Ukraine spends most of its state revenues on funding the national defense effort, and relies on financial aid from its Western partners to be able to fund pensions, public sector wages and other social spending. Ukraine amends 2024 budget to channel more funds for defense
So - Europe will continue to fund it both militarily and in social spending.
There is no way that Ukraine is forced to stop fighting.
It used to be that the US was very much the senior partner.
But now the defence industry in Europe is as advanced as the US defence industry and its military systems are as good. Some of them would be better for ukraine than the ones US can provide for instance the Swiss Grippen will be a better fighter jet once it gets to Ukraine for Ukrainian conditions than the F-16 (which is old technology for the USA).
The biggest issue was filling the shell gap in winter 2023-4 but this year Europe has ramped up and can produce far more shells than last year and there's also the possibility of finding more shells abroad. Plus US has funding now through to Jan 20th and the last batch from Biden in January will surely keep Ukraine going through to spring 2025.
So - I think Ukraine will be fine through to spring 2025. Then if needs be Europe has time to ramp up to support it indefinitely if the US pulls out.
The amount of funding is well within the capabilities for Europe to find if the will is there which it is in many countries. The industrial capacity is there too. The main issue was stockpiles at the start of the war and Europe is gradually catching up with increasing capacity to produce new things.
US continues to have far larger stockpiles than Europe but Europe will be able to take over. And likely with less of an issue switching over than for 2023-4.
Then Ukraine itself has a lot of capability to support itself.
Not many seem to know that before Russia invaded, Ukraine was a major military exporter and global defence hub. When in the Soviet Union it was the manufacturer of Russia's ICBMS. All except its newest ICBMs were made in Ukraine and were serviced by Ukraine until the day of the invasion.
Though Ukraine doesn't make new ICBMs any more it has the know-how and the talent to make them. It's intermediate range HRIM-2 is ready to use, field tested in the war and able to launch ballistic and cruise missiles from the same HiMARS - like shoot and scoot launcher. But with a range of 700 km for the ballistic missile which they should soon increase to over 1000 km.
Ukraine's own military budget for 2024 was $90 billion of which about a third goes on wages for its soldiers. So it can do a fair bit with that much every year combined with what Europe provides. Ukraine amends 2024 budget to channel more funds for defense
Meanwhile Russia is running into problems, if the war continues through 2025 then Russia may well run out of tanks. It is not able to keep up with producing new tanks to replace losses on the battlefield. It is also very reliant on North Korea for shells - but how many shells can NK continue to provide if the war continues for another year?
Russia is heavily dependent on the glide bombs, shells and missiles to keep going in this war. If it can't supply them any more then it likely has to withdraw from Ukraine.
As for protecting itself, NATO is well able to withstand Russia.
Trump can't withdraw the US completely but could just not keep the US commitments during his presidency.
The only automatic commitment of NATO is the rapid reaction force. But the US contingent of 12,000 gets to Europe too late for the initial fast response on the ground. So if this is taken up by European countries it actually leads to faster response.
The center of NATO is in Brussels and the US only pays half a billion dollars a year to NATO an amount other member countries can easily find.
USA doesn't support Ukraine under NATO but independently with a special commitment from the 1994 Budapest memorandum.
If a NATO country did ask for help under article 5, there is nothing to stop the USA from responding voluntarily along with all the voluntary NATO contributions.
Actually, if Trump is elected president he CAN'T really withdraw from NATO because of a recent law in Congress requiring senate approval but he CAN withdraw US soldiers from Europe and CAN just ignore the NATO requests for US to help and CAN stop paying USA's half billion dollars a year fee to NATO.
But as you can see that would make little difference.
Yes the US is very important for its NATO allies, but NATO wouldn't fall apart without the USA.
Short summary
1. The only automatic commitment of NATO is the rapid reaction force. But the US contingent of 12,000 gets to Europe too late for the initial fast response on the ground. So if this is taken up by European countries it actually leads to faster response.
2. The center of NATO is in Brussels and the US only pays half a billion dollars a year to NATO an amount other member countries can easily find.
3. USA doesn't support Ukraine under NATO but independently with a special commitment from the 1994 Budapest memorandum.
4. If a NATO country did ask for help under article 5, there is nothing to stop the USA from responding voluntarily along with all the voluntary NATO contributions.
Longer summary
most of the US commitment to NATO is voluntary, and would likely continue anyway.
the US does NOT support Ukraine under NATO, as Ukraine is not a member country of NATO.
If you look at what would happen if, say, Estonia or Lithuania used article 5 to call for help - the US would make little difference to the automatic response
the US is so far away it only commits to the slower response on the ground, 12,000 out of 40,000 - other European countries can find those extra soldiers if necessary and they would get there faster
everything else is voluntary - and even if not part of NATO, the US as an ally might well send some of its own soldiers and fighter jets to help when Lithuania sends out the article 5 call for help to the rest of the NATO alliance
Lithuania is not going to refuse help from the USA if it is no longer part of NATO.
So - in the modern world - actually the USA is far less important to NATO than it was during the cold war.
As for the nuclear umbrella - then UK and France also have nukes and Trump isn't talking about withdrawing it anyway.
Then when it comes to Ukraine although NATO countries try to coordinate their responses, the response is nothing to do with the treaty, as Ukraine is not a NATO country.
The US actually committed to help Ukraine as part of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 when Ukraine gave up its nukes to the Soviet Union in return for guarantees of help if it was invaded by anyone. By that agreement, Russia should also support Ukraine to protect itself from Russia but of course is not honouring it. But the UK and the US honour it. They are the other two co-signatories of it.
Details here:
So little would happen except that more decision making in NATO would move to Europe and the US would then be less involved in decisions they make though still consulted with shared intelligence, sharing weapons technology, trade etc as before.
Europe can take over supply to Ukraine if the US drops out - will have six months notice this time unlike fall 2023-4
If needs be Europe will be able to take over supply to Ukraine if the US drops out as it already did in winter 2023-4 - it was difficult then because Europe had almost no notice of the bill sstalling in Congress. It has ramped up hugely since then and will have six months notice if it has to ramp up this time since Biden has plenty of funding to give a final package to Ukraine at the end of his administration to last it well into the spring.
Phases of the war - US support vital in 2022, important in 2023-4 but Europe can take over if needed in 2025 after a major ramp up in production capabilities
In 2022, through to 2023, Biden's lead and the US support was vital for Ukraine. Through to spring 2024 Ukraine found it hard to keep going with just support from Europe. Europe was rising to the challenge but might have taken through to summer to stabilize.
So getting the Ukraine bill through in 2024 made a big difference
But if the US does pull out in 2025 it can pass the baton on to Europe as by then they will be ready to take over supplies to Ukraine if needs be.
There were three phases,
Spring 2022: Soviet gear with a few dozen shoulder-mounted Javelin anti-tank systems from the US and a few from Estonia, and a few dozen shoulder-mounted stinger anti-air systems for low flying helicopters and jets from LIthuania and Latvia. Nobody else sent any military gear at this stage, just reporters and TV crews.
Even then the NATO systems made a big difference against tthe tanks and low flying airpower.
After that the US help made a huge difference. Ukraine couldn't have done those counteroffensives in Kharkiv oblast and in Kherson oblast without HiMARS and the M777s as well as the humvees - lightly armoured but the Russian army wasn't well trained and found it almost impossible to hit them. So the Ukrainians dashed through falling shells and most got through okay.
The US was almost matched by Europe by spring to summer of 2023. By then Ukraine had all sorts of equipment. The Bradley infantry fighting vehicles were far safer than humvees. Patriot air defences. Many tanks including the leopard II and UK challenger and later in the year a small number of US ABrams tanks and lots of other gear.
Over winter 2023-4 the US aid dropped to almost nothing and Europe stepped up.
By now, fall 2024, the aid is roughly half in half Europe and US after the Ukraine bill.
By 2025 Europe will have ramped up enough to keep going with supporting Ukraine by itself if needs be.
So the surprise is:
1. Europe now pays around half the funding for the Ukraine war.
2. By the start of 2025, Europe will be able to supply almost all the shells itself due to increasing its shell production capacity - which has a lead time of up to 2 years.
BLOG: Europe is actually the top supporter of Ukraine not the USA - and how European manufacturers are stepping up to support Ukraine with air defence, munitions etc to take the place of the USA Europe is actually the top supporter of Ukraine not the USA - and how European manufacturers are stepping up to support Ukraine with air defence, munitions etc to take the place of the USA
So from that you can see that the US will not have much leverage over Ukraine by January 2025. If the US withdraws, Ukraine will just continue supported by Europe.
In reality when Trump finds he can't achieve peace in 24 hours he likely would support Ukraine. After all he was persuaded to support the Ukraine bill possibly by Boris Johnson, who often talks to Trump and is quite close to him, former UK prime minister.
Boris Johnson certainly thinks that when it comes to it, that under Trump, the US would rise to the occasion and continue to support the US. That is his basis for supporting Trump, one of the few UK politicians to endorse him.
I go into details here with quotes from Boris Johnson and Zelensky.
Why nothing changes of any significance if Trump withdraws US soldiers and funding from NATO
Suppose Trump does in reality try to withdraw from NATO.
Congress passed a bill making it impossible for a president to leave NATO without support of Congress
. https://thehill.com/homenews/4360407-congress-approves-bill-barring-president-withdrawing-nato/
He could do a lot to reduce US participation in NATO.
CNN have an article speculating about that Analysis: Congress acted to protect NATO. But it might not be enough to stop Trump | CNN Politics
All those things would be reversible. Of course actually leaving NATO could also be reversed.
It's a bit like leaving the Paris Agreement or leaving the WHO. I don't think the rest of the world would hold it against a future president that rejoined/restored ties but just be relieved. Rubio dismisses concerns about Trump’s NATO remarks as backlash mounts | CNN Politics
1. NATO headquarters is in Brussels and its US funding is only half a billion dollars a year
The headquarters of NATO is in Brussels - it wouldn't need to be moved if the US played a less active part.
The US pays about half a billion dollars a year into NATO funding, about the same as Germany or 16% of the the $3.3 billion a year. That is not hard for Europe to find.
2. Because it is too far away for a fast response, US only contributes to the slowest responding part of the rapid response force, the only automatic military commitment
The only automatic military commitment under article 5 is for the rapid response force. The US provides 12,000 to the rapid reaction force of 40,000.
The US is too far away from Europe to ever contribute to the VJTF, the ones to get there fastest. The VJTF arrive within a few days of a request under article 5.
In more detail:
Even if the US withdrew from NATO it would make hardly any difference to the rapid reaction force. NATO plans to increase these numbers to a rapid reaction force of 300,000 once the Ukraine war is over, again doesn't need the US.
In 2024 the UK leads the VJTF providing 4,200 out of a total of 6,000 with the contributions from other countries. https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2024/01/desert-rats-leading-nato-s-first-line-of-defence-in-2024/ (https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2024/01/desert-rats-leading-nato-s-first-line-of-defence-in-2024/)
We have a figure here for the US contribution. 12,000 With Activation of NATO Response Force, U.S. Military Ready to Provide Forces (With Activation of NATO Response Force, U.S. Military Ready to Provide Forces)
Those would be slightly slower in response than the VjRF. Because they have to be flown across the Atlantic to get to Europe.
The US 12,000 out of 40,000 is 30%. More details here:
BLOG: No way that UK needs conscription to fight Russia - NATO has 3.5 million military (troops and civilians) and a new conscript takes six months training to be a basic soldier
No way that UK needs conscription to fight Russia - NATO has 3.5 million military (troops and civilians) and a new conscript takes six months training to be a basic soldier (No way that UK needs conscription to fight Russia - NATO has 3.5 million military (troops and civilians) and a new conscript takes six months training to be a basic soldier)
So the rapid response force clearly does NOT require the US to be in NATO on the remote possibility that the US withdrew from NATO. And anything additional to it is voluntary anyway under article 5.
It would be short by 12,000 soldiers approx on the day the US withdraws but that's a number that other NATO countries can find to bring it back up to 40,000
Details of the rapid reaction force towards the end of my blog post here:
3. The 2% of GDP is NOT for funding NATO only for national defence forces - and many NATO countries already reached the target
The 2% of GDP commitment is NOT for funding the NATO organization. That is why NATO can continue just fine without the US.
The 2% funding is for each nation's own national defence forces. E.g. the UK spends 2% of its GDP and it plans to increase it slowly to 2.5%. That 2% is used to fund the UK military, its fighter jets, bombers, destroyers, its nuclear subs etc.
None of those soldiers, ships, planes or tanks are under the command of NATO, they are all under the command of the UK minister of defence and they are normally used for the defence of the UK and in joint exercises with other countries - some also for peace-keeping missions abroad, things like protecting UK tankers etc. But all under the command of Admiral Radakin who in turn is under the command of our prime minister.
Also now out of 31 NATO countries, only 8 are less than 2% and the lowest is 1.28%
In 2014 it was only UK and USA above 2% and USA was top.
Now USA is third after Poland and Estonia.
And in 2014, eight of them were below 1%, now none of them are.
. Which countries in the Nato alliance are paying their fair share on defence?
5. It was never a requirement to instantly increase their defence spending to 2%. It was always intended as a slow process over a decade or two and more and more of the NATO countries have now achieved that goal. So nobody owes anyone anything for not reaching 2% quite yet.
6. NATO without the US still has major defence industrial bases and GDP far more than Russia, especially in Germany - but other countries like the UK, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc - they all make their own equipment. For instance France and the UK collaborate to build the stormshadow / Scalp missiles that Ukraine uses against targets in Crimea such as that diesel sub it destroyed in Sevastopol harbour in 2023, and forced the Russian black see command out of its headquarters. in Sevastopol. Back then before the ATACMS, the only missiles Ukraine had that could get that far were the stormshadow / scalp cruise missiles, and some native Ukrainian capabilities (land to land version of the Neptune mainly). Similarly the Swedish make their own fighter jets, so does France, another brand of jet. UK and France each have their own independently developed nuclear submarines. Germany has its Taurus cruise missile. Many other capabilities. And if the US played a less active part in NATO - well the more developed NATO countries in Europe have all bought F-35 fighter jets from US. They also have their own tanks the Leopard 2 from Germany mainly, the UK's Challenger and so on.
= East Germany formed a major part of the defence industrial base of the Soviet Union and is now in NATO. Ukraine is an ally and it was a significant part of the defense industrial base of the Soviet Union too.
The GDP of NATO without the US is far far higher than Russia. Their technology is hugely advanced relative to NATO.
Trump can't leave NATO by a new Congress bill. He could reduce that half billion dollars contribution, he could withdraw US soldiers from Europe. But NATO would continue just fine and US recommit under the next president.
Just to put in perspective for those who get scared by this talk. There is NO risk of NATO collapsing. It will remain strong whoever is elected in 2024. This is not intended to influence US voters in any way, just to help the many scared people worrying NATO might cease to exist.
NATO is vastly superior to Russia in technology =
I go into many more details here about how NATO has turned out to be vastly superior to Russia as most of us only discovered as a result of the Ukraine war
[by lose quickly, Admiral Radakin means pushed right out of NATO territory, and any missile systems firing at NATO destroyed - NATO wouldn't try to defeat Russia as it is purely defensive]
So, no. Putin would not even attempt to attack any NATO country. It's the same now as it was in 2022. Putin knows full well and even more so after his failure in Ukraine that he can't do this.
And in practice the US likely would come to the help of Europe if it needed it. No matter how much Trump disengaged. The main thing would happen if the uS left NATO is that it wouldn't have access to that rapid response force any more and wouldn't contribute to it. Everything else is voluntary and if NATO countries asked for help under Article 5 they surely wouldn't turn down an offer from the USA. And in practice they would likely surely continue to share intelligence.
So it might not make much difference in reality.
He can't withdraw from NATO - at least it raises novel constitutional issues about whether Congress had the authority to stop him withdrawing but it is likely now impossible - but he CAN stay within NATO but simply not fulfill any of its NATO commitments.
If Trump does disengage from NATO then it can manage fine without. The European countries in NATO are now far more than a match for Russia which has GDP similar
to Germany.
This is very unlikely though.
Stoltenberg in an interview with the BBC said that Trump's objection wasn't to NATO in his first term but to NATO countries not fulfilling Obama's requirement to spend 2% of their budget on defence. Now the average spend is above 2% and most of them spend more than 2%. He also says that the US under Trump was first to give Ukraine lethal aid in the form of the Javelin anti-tank missiles which made quite a difference in the first few days of the war.
However, he thinks it is possible that Trump may be a better bet for Ukraine.
You can listen to Stoltenberg here
QUOTE STARTS (2:33)
So is Donald Trump a better bet for Ukraine?
Is it true that the Democrats' strategy was not working?
2:33
I will be very careful comparing and also predicting exactly what will happen.
What I can say is that I expect also the new US administration to support Ukraine because it is in the security interest of the United states to ensure that President Putin doesn't succeed in Ukraine.
And last time I worked with him, back the last time he was president, you had to remember that back then after Putin had annexed Crimea and gone into EAstern Donbas, the line, the policy from NATO allies including United States, was not to deliver lethal aid, not to deliver weapons to Ukraine.
It was President Trump who changed that policy and started to deliver weapons to Ukraine including the javelin, the anti tank weapons that proved so decisive, so important, especially at the beginning of the war.
Q. And people forget that don't they?
A. Yes. So I cannot promise or predict exactly what will happen. But I'm only saying that last time actually the Trump administration stepped up their support for Ukraine.
Until then many allies were a bit afraid that delivering weapons to Ukraine was too provocative to Russia, and that we need to, in a way, to try to prevent Russia from being provoked and go further.
The reality is I think that if we had given more weapons to Ukraine earlier we may have prevented the full-scale invasion. because then the cost for Russia to invade would be much higher.
And the other thing I would say, is that President Trump is a man that likes to make deals. He is very open about that.
And of course, to make a deal on Ukraine, there has to be some kind of leverage, and leverage is military support to Ukraine.
WE all want this war to end. Teh problem is that we know that the quickest way to end the war is to lose the war but that will not bring peace. It will bring occupation of Ukraine.
If we want a lasting and a just peace we need to convince Putin that he will not win on the battlefield. He has to sit down and accept a solution where ukraine prevails as a soverign and indpeendent nation.
How do you do that?
By supporting Ukraine militarily.
So we have to increase the cost for Russia. It's for Ukrainians to decide whta is an acceptable solution, what are the conditions for negotiations, and what can be an end game.
It is our responsibility to maximize the likelihood for an outcome where Ukraine continues to be a sovereign, independent state in Europe.
I don't think we can change Putin's mind. His mind, his aim is to control Ukraine.
But I think we can change his calculus.
If the price he has to pay fo rgetting to control Ukraine is too high, then he may be willing to settle for something less, for something where Ukraine prevails.
. Jens Stoltenberg on Uraine and NATO
So he is one of those along with Boris Johnson who expect Trump to go the other way and be fully behind Zelensky after he fails to achieve peace in 24 hours.