NATO WITHOUT THE USA?

Feb 18, 2024

It is always wise to hope for the best while preparing for the worst. It would seem that the forthcoming Presidential Election in the USA will be fought between an octogenarian on the brink of dementia and a septuagenarian rabble rouser. At this distance the smart money is on Trump who, however apalling he may look to outsiders, may well succeed in regaining the presidency he lost in 2020. Trump’s recent perorations on the subject of European defence where he appeared to disassociate himself, and by extension his administration should he become president, from Article Five of the NATO treaty have caused alarm in European capitals, as well they might. Of course, Trump has frequently made statements that are palpably untrue – he claimed that the turnout of spectators for his inauguration in 2021 was the largest ever, when it was obvious to any observer that it was probably the smallest for many years. He may bluster and threaten to leave NATO, or abandon Article Five, but be dissuaded by wiser counsels around him. We should, however, work on the assumption that Trump means what he said and that in the event of another Trump presidency Russian aggression on a NATO member would not automatically lead to American involvement. Already further funding for Ukraine is held up by Republican politicking and that situation may not improve.

Tsarist and then Soviet Russia’s foreign policy was based on avoiding encirclement. Finland, the Baltic states, Russian Poland and the Ukraine gave Tsarist Russia a buffer against attack from the West, and while the Soviets lost Finland they added the Warsaw Pact of all of Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. Currently Russian aims appear to be to restore the Tsarist empire in the West – there is as yet no sign of possessive intentions towards Central Asia, which would mean that should they succeed against Ukraine then their eyes would turn to Finland and the Baltic States. Finland was occupied by Russia after the Napoleonic Wars but broke away in 1918. The Baltic States became part of the Russian Empire after the Great Northern War (1700 – 1721), broke away in 1918, were annexed by Soviet Russia in 1940 and broke away again in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Neither the populations of Finland nor of the Baltic States were ever ethnic Russian.

As the days when Tsar Alexander III modified his foreign policy to avoid conflict with Britain are long over, Britain could only counter Russian aggression in alliance with other countries. If we assume that the USA was divorced from NATO, or at least from the provisions of Article Five, then the only European countries which can currently wield a credible military response of any strength are the UK, France and Poland. Hungary is an ally of Putin and Croatia has opted out of assistance to Ukraine so those NATO members can be discounted. The armies of Spain, Italy and Greece would be useful to protect the lines of communication, but are probably not up to fighting an intensive war against a first class enemy. The Dutch army is 20,000 strong and that of Belgium 10,000. Turkey, at least under Erdogan, is unlikely to take part. Portugal, England’s oldest ally could be relied upon, but her army is only 13,000 strong. The only non-European NATO member, other than the USA, is Canada, with highly competent armed forces, but her army is only 23,000 strong with another 19,000 in the militia. Finland, a NATO candidate has highly trained soldiers who could hold a Russian invasion of their homeland, but could probably not do very much outside it, and much the same applies to Sweden, although the latter’s arms industry is exceptionally good.

The obvious military leader of Europe is Germany, but the days when from the Great Elector (died 1688) until 1945 the German soldier was the best in Europe are long over. We should not be deluded by thinking that Germany lost the Second World War because the British soldier, or the American soldier or the Russian soldier was better than the German soldier – because he wasn’t. Nor did Germany lose the war because the British army, or American army or Russian army was better than the German army, because it wasn’t. In terms of leadership, training, motivation and in most cases equipment, the German army was by far the most competent of the combatants. Germany lost the war because you cannot take on the British Empire, the USSR and the USA all at the same time, and that is a factor of geography, population and industrial base. Now the German people have been so brainwashed after the war that the spirit of militarism has been all but eliminated. There are very few ‘vons’ in the officer ranks, the army has little status and much of its equipment has been mothballed or simply does not work. One of the few sensible things that Trump said about NATO was that Europe does not pay enough for its own defence. The agreed NATO defence expenditure is a minimum of two percent of GDP. At present of the twenty-nine NATO members only ten do pay that or more. Of the major providers of troops for NATO apart from the US (3.49%), only Poland (3.9%) and the UK (2.07%) do. The others are Finland (2.45%), Estonia (2.73%). Latvia (2.3 %), Lithuania (2.5%), Slovakia (2.03%), Hungary (2.4%), Romania (2.4%) and Greece (3.1%). France and Germany spend only 1.9% and 1.6% respectively on defence.

Very recently German politicians appear to have woken up to the possibility of war on the horizon and have promulgated increased defence spending. This, however, will take years to become effective in the shape of more tanks, artillery pieces and aircraft, to say nothing of attuning the national mindset to acceptance of military action. In the UK, although British forces are highly capable, they are far too small to be able to sustain any campaign longer than a few months. Her 82,000 strong army is in the process of being reduced to 70,000 and the Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the army, has been effectively sacked for saying that the decision to do so is ‘perverse’.

On the assumption that NATO will have to fight Russia without the US then if on land each participating nation could field one third of their army at any one time, and that one quarter of that would be combat arms with the remainder logistic support troops, then an initial line-up of teeth arms might be:

France: 10,000 + 130 tanks (Le Clerc)

Germany: 6,000 + 160 tanks (Leopard 2)

Poland: 6,000 + 542 tanks (Leopard 2, Abrams, Korean Black Panther)

UK: 6,000 + 95 tanks (Challenger 2)

Other European 6,000 + 190 tanks[*] (Leopard 2)

The figures of tanks assumes that those in storage are deployable and that all current orders are met.

A force of 34,000 combat arms and 1,117 tanks plus the necessary logistic backup would be incapable of deterring or of holding off a Russian assault for long – Russian soldiers are not trained to anything like the capabilities of NATO troops, but there are a great many of them and while many of the 14,667 tanks that she had deployed and in storage prior to 2022 are antiquated T62 and T64, even after her losses so far she still has well over 4,000 T80 and T90 deployed and in storage. The effectiveness of the much trumpeted T14 Armata has yet to be discovered and none have so far been deployed in Ukraine, nor do we know exactly how many have been produced so far.

Given that before embarking on further adventures Russia would have to win the Ukraine war first, then the way to stall Russian expansionism is to ensure that she loses, and that means ensuring that Ukraine is given all the training and equipment that she needs. Should support from the USA not be forthcoming then the burden must fall on Europe. While up to now the USA has been the largest donor, it was the UK that first delivered anti-tank weapons, the first to supply tanks and the first to begin training Ukrainian pilots on the F16. The downside is that the UK’s own stocks have been run down and the armaments industry has not yet been geared up to replacing UK stocks and replenishing those of Ukraine. The combined armaments industries of Europe are more than capable of replacing American aid but only if governments spend the money to ensure vastly increased production.

The suggested line up of a non-USA NATO above reflects what might be available now, and does not take into account reinforcement from Canada and Australia and New Zealand[†]. In a worst case scenario of Russia forcing a negotiated end to the Ukraine war with the retention of Crimea and part of the Donbas, we have probably got three years to prepare for further Russian adventures. That means that we must produce armed forces that are big enough to either deter Russia or to defeat her if necessary. As the UK and France have credible strategic nuclear weapons, the Cold War principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) would still hold, although either side might be tempted to use them if the very existence of their state was at risk. While cyber and drone warfare are attractive to politicians because they are relatively cheap, mass still matters. To achieve European forces sufficiently large and sufficiently capable of deterring or defeating Russia the main player has to be Germany. Germany must be given back her military dignity. During the Cold War West Germany alone fielded an army of 250,000, now she could easily create an army of 300,00 but that takes will and it takes money. The UK should expand her army to at least 100,000 and the French could probably increase their army from its present strength of 118,000 to 120,000. Whether countries achieve this increase by conscription or by the preferred method of more pay and better facilities would be a matter for national governments.

In the air European air forces are probably capable of achieving at least air parity while at sea the Royal and French navies could cover the Iceland Gap with the Canadians replacing the US in the Greenland Gap.

In summary, it seems to me that given the money and given the will (very big ‘ifs’ I acknowledge) NATO can deal with Russia without the USA. We have perhaps three years to prepare. If we do not, then start learning Russian and prepare to watch goose stepping victory parades down Whitehall.

[*] Finland 239 tanks, Sweden 170, Norway 106, Portugal 37 and the Netherlands 20, all Leopard 2.

[†] Australia and New Zealand are not NATO members but they share a king with the UK, their populations are largely British in origin and it is inconceivable that they would not declare war on Britain’s side.