Europe keeping the Red Sea open?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The US wants Europe to join in wars against Iran and China. Telling Europe that it needs to spend more on defence against Russia (currently relying on motorcycles and donkeys in Ukraine) is just a ruse to get Europe to waste more lives and money on US-led wars.
Remember Iraq and Afghanistan.
This thread is highly political. Of course the US wants Europe to continue wasting time on the so called war on terror. So far the Houthis like the Talaban and Shiite groups are beating the best the US can throw at them.
 
uk 75 said:
This thread is highly political.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the intention.

I'd hoped it could look at what forces Europe could bring to bear, how long they could be sustained and if that would be enough. Of course none of these things is as sexy as air to air combat or moral arguments and conspiracy theories.

This is why 'professionals study logistics', because otherwise discussion would bog down into moral arguments and drawing big dotted lines on small maps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
Rule of cool said:
That wasn't the intention.

I'd hoped it could look at what forces Europe could bring to bear, how long they could be sustained and if that would be enough. Of course none of these things is as sexy as air to air combat or moral arguments and conspiracy theories.

This is why 'professionals study logistics', because otherwise discussion would bog down into moral arguments and drawing big dotted lines on small maps.
Click to expand...
Fine but this is a real time problem today not an alternative might have been involving projects. So it is political.
 
Big_Zukini said:
And how stable and peaceful you think Africa is? Not long til some tribes there get their hands on some drones or helicopters and start doing more serious piracy, forcing ships to steer away from land and ports along the way?
Click to expand...
It's not.

But South Africa is relatively stable and unlikely to allow pirates in their waters, and a modern cargo ship can happily cruise halfway between Africa and South America to avoid pirates in dhows et sim.

Libya or Tunisia are a non-issue for ships going through the Atlantic.

Morocco would be of concern, but also within French slap-down range.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's not.

But South Africa is relatively stable and unlikely to allow pirates in their waters, and a modern cargo ship can happily cruise halfway between Africa and South America to avoid pirates in dhows et sim.

Libya or Tunisia are a non-issue for ships going through the Atlantic.

Morocco would be of concern, but also within French slap-down range.
Click to expand...
The point is them being able to threaten Gibraltar, and that disengaging or withdrawing from a conflict just brings the conflict closer to you.
 
To be fair to the pre
Big_Zukini said:
The point is them being able to threaten Gibraltar, and that disengaging or withdrawing from a conflict just brings the conflict closer to you.
Click to expand...
The US has form on selling wars in faraway countries to its allies

Domino theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
But at least in those days they did not threaten to invade their allies!
 
uk 75 said:
To be fair to the pre

The US has form on selling wars in faraway countries to its allies

Domino theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
But at least in those days they did not threaten to invade their allies!
Click to expand...
Just because you live on an island doesn't mean you don't have enemies.
There are ways to cross oceans today. I'm sure crossing a pond isn't too difficult.
 
Rule of cool said:
That wasn't the intention.

I'd hoped it could look at what forces Europe could bring to bear, how long they could be sustained and if that would be enough. Of course none of these things is as sexy as air to air combat or moral arguments and conspiracy theories.

This is why 'professionals study logistics', because otherwise discussion would bog down into moral arguments and drawing big dotted lines on small maps.
Click to expand...
That question was answered. If you didn't find the answers agreeable, why did you not engage?
 
Big_Zukini said:
Just because you live on an island doesn't mean you don't have enemies.
There are ways to cross oceans today. I'm sure crossing a pond isn't too difficult.
Click to expand...
Very true. Canada who stood loyally by us at the start of two World Wars unlike its neighbour is a member of both NATO and the Commonwealth as well as sharing the same Constitutional Monarch. I would certainly hope British forces training in Canada would immediately join in its defence.
 
uk 75 said:
Very true. Canada who stood loyally by us at the start of two World Wars unlike its neighbour is a member of both NATO and the Commonwealth as well as sharing the same Constitutional Monarch. I would certainly hope British forces training in Canada would immediately join in its defence.
Click to expand...
The US practically carried the alliance against the Axis.
First industrially keeping everyone fighting afloat, then by delivering the mass onto western Europe.
After that as the sole guarantor of European security pretty much until today, included.

I know Europeans might feel a little hurt when the US starts demanding to stop trading with an adversary and to create some armed forces for self defense, but this process started decades ago, and the US is not the one at fault here.

You know what happens when someone complains about an issue and others don't take him seriously? He radicalizes and takes more drastic measures.
We're over a decade into a European war and European armies are even more atrophied than they were when it started.

Now, EuroNATO can say they don't want to help with Iran. Fine. They can say they don't want to help with the Houthis. Fine. They can say they don't want to help with Russia in Ukraine. Fine. Then when Russia is in the small baltics. Fine. Then when Russia is in Germany. Fine. But don't be dragging the US into some British adventure when the UK gets attacked more kinetically.
 
I think you need to look closely at how the US involved NATO in Afghanistan which was a role never covered by the original Treaty.
It is also worth remembering that it was the US not Europe who pressed NATO to accept as members the Baltic States when all European Defence experts said they could not be defended.
This was fine while the US carried the burden you described above.
But if the US not only wants to sell out Ukraine to Russia and threatens Canada and Denmark there will be a response from Europe to American concerns which it may not share.
 
uk 75 said:
I think you need to look closely at how the US involved NATO in Afghanistan which was a role never covered by the original Treaty.
It is also worth remembering that it was the US not Europe who pressed NATO to accept as members the Baltic States when all European Defence experts said they could not be defended.
This was fine while the US carried the burden you described above.
But if the US not only wants to sell out Ukraine to Russia and threatens Canada and Denmark there will be a response from Europe to American concerns which it may not share.
Click to expand...
So response against the US but not a response against Russia?
 
Sigh, Russia is NOT a threat to the former Baltic States, nor to Germany nor to the UK.
Iran is NOT a threat to W. Europe
China is NOT a threat to W. Europe

I can not foresee any scenario in which the so called 'belligerant' states would want to start the sort of conflict hoped for by many commentators on here
 
Last edited:
TsrJoe said:
Sigh, Russia is NOT a threat to the former Baltic States, nor Germany nor to the UK.
Iran is NOT a threat to W. Europe
China is NOT a threat to W. Europe

I can not foresee any scenario in which the so called 'belligerant' states would want to start the sort of conflict hoped for by many commentators on here
Click to expand...
You confuse reality with hope. I have no such hopes.
Europe is the only place I can visit as a tourist outside of North America.
Ukraine is where most of my family is. I obviously want these places safe for my own and my loved ones sake.
Saying that I witness military confrontations in the present and forsee future ones is not hope for conflict. To the contrary. It is a call to take the necessary measures to protect oneself.

For a fact:
1. Former Baltic states are also Current Baltic states. They still exist.

2. I didn't say Germany was a threat to the UK, but it would be wrong to dismiss the possibility of a threat to the UK appearing within Germany-distance. Yes, seas included. Hybrid warfare too.

3. Iran is not a threat to W. Europe yet, true, but its development of 3,000km range ballistic missiles leaves little doubt about the next target. If not for anything kinetic, then at least for deterrence and threats. Though if Russia decides to rush through the Baltics, then Iranian weapons will suddenly be a much more immediate threat to central and western Europe.

4. China as a conventional military invasion force? No. China as a destabilizing force and sponsor of conventional threats? Definitely.
 
Having personally been involved in one NATO. proxy war (resulting in the breakup of a country along ostensibly sectarian lines just because we didnt like the successor regime)
I think we can agree to differ as to which states we consider as potentially destabilising forces
As for the US. backed 'Colour Revolutions' well we can all see where those have led us
 
Last edited:
Big_Zukini said:
Just because you live on an island doesn't mean you don't have enemies.
There are ways to cross oceans today. I'm sure crossing a pond isn't too difficult.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse the question of whether you could with the question of whether you should.
 
Big_Zukini said:
The US practically carried the alliance against the Axis.
First industrially keeping everyone fighting afloat, then by delivering the mass onto western Europe.
After that as the sole guarantor of European security pretty much until today, included.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that until the USA and UK decided to invade France it was the USSR that was carrying the fight against the Axis by keeping them engaged along the Eastern front. At the cost of more Russians slaughtered than the rest of the belligerents combined. In the UK we brag that we won the war, as does the USA, but the Soviets ground them down until we nipped across The Channel and took them from behind (so to speak).

Also, the USA didn't have to spend many decades rebuilding their continent, and so could afford to build their military up to cold war levels whilst playing the game of whose dick was biggest with the Soviets.

It appears to me that since their hasn't been a war of utter devastation on American soil it is seen as a game played on other nations' land. Whereas memory is still relatively fresh in Europe, so another repeat of the recent past is to be avoided. Hence the general lack of desire for a large military when life is actually pretty good. And the general lack of interest in yet another American war designed to train troops, sell weapons and expand American hegemony.
 
Big_Zukini said:
You confuse reality with hope. I have no such hopes.
Europe is the only place I can visit as a tourist outside of North America.
Ukraine is where most of my family is. I obviously want these places safe for my own and my loved ones sake.
Saying that I witness military confrontations in the present and forsee future ones is not hope for conflict. To the contrary. It is a call to take the necessary measures to protect oneself.

For a fact:
1. Former Baltic states are also Current Baltic states. They still exist.

2. I didn't say Germany was a threat to the UK, but it would be wrong to dismiss the possibility of a threat to the UK appearing within Germany-distance. Yes, seas included. Hybrid warfare too.

3. Iran is not a threat to W. Europe yet, true, but its development of 3,000km range ballistic missiles leaves little doubt about the next target. If not for anything kinetic, then at least for deterrence and threats. Though if Russia decides to rush through the Baltics, then Iranian weapons will suddenly be a much more immediate threat to central and western Europe.

4. China as a conventional military invasion force? No. China as a destabilizing force and sponsor of conventional threats? Definitely.
Click to expand...
This is one of those instances where I wish there was some more neutral or even negative alternative to the "thumb up" "Like" button - my use above means I completely agree with the analysis and statements made by Big_Zukini, but I most certainly don't *Like* his logical conclusions.
 
Big_Zukini said:
That question was answered. If you didn't find the answers agreeable, why did you not engage?
Click to expand...

As soon as someone mentioned Djibouti the question was answered for the number of aircraft, as I was thinking about carriers. There is still a question as to how many munitions the Europeans make, therefore how long they could sustain an air campaign, but I think that might be less of an issue in 2025 than it would have been in 2022. On a bit of a tangent I've heard that Europeans will produce 1 million artillery shells in 2025, exceeding the US' 850k but still far short of Russia's 4 million, and I'm guessing they've ramped up bomb production as well.
 
scautomoton said:
I think you'll find that until the USA and UK decided to invade France it was the USSR that was carrying the fight against the Axis by keeping them engaged along the Eastern front. At the cost of more Russians slaughtered than the rest of the belligerents combined. In the UK we brag that we won the war, as does the USA, but the Soviets ground them down until we nipped across The Channel and took them from behind (so to speak).

Also, the USA didn't have to spend many decades rebuilding their continent, and so could afford to build their military up to cold war levels whilst playing the game of whose dick was biggest with the Soviets.

It appears to me that since their hasn't been a war of utter devastation on American soil it is seen as a game played on other nations' land. Whereas memory is still relatively fresh in Europe, so another repeat of the recent past is to be avoided. Hence the general lack of desire for a large military when life is actually pretty good. And the general lack of interest in yet another American war designed to train troops, sell weapons and expand American hegemony.
Click to expand...
Are we to disregard all the US did to protect western civilization just because their territory wasn't as invaded and bombed?
Maybe they were less physically affected, but in WW2 they put their industry into overdrive to pump war materiel to all allies, including massive support for that same Soviet army.
1745524526776.jpeg

Having them invade and liberate western Europe was also nothing to dismiss because we saw how the Warsaw Pact and new Soviet republics loved Russia. If it wasn't them, the USSR would probably keep as far west as it could.

Post WW2 it was precisely the US's outsized military capability and nuclear deterrent that kept the USSR at bay.

So when you talk about American adventures and pulling allies into them, remember that Europe is America's biggest adventure.
 
Rule of cool said:
As soon as someone mentioned Djibouti the question was answered for the number of aircraft, as I was thinking about carriers. There is still a question as to how many munitions the Europeans make, therefore how long they could sustain an air campaign, but I think that might be less of an issue in 2025 than it would have been in 2022. On a bit of a tangent I've heard that Europeans will produce 1 million artillery shells in 2025, exceeding the US' 850k but still far short of Russia's 4 million, and I'm guessing they've ramped up bomb production as well.
Click to expand...
Rheinmetall is really pushing forward with artillery and tank shells production, but I'm not at all certain about naval AA munitions.
European ships are also very light in the munitions capacity department to begin with, so even if they can fully stock up their ships, they'll need to aggressively hunt launchers and munitions. Maybe even delegate intercepts to CAP, like the USN does, except with less comfortable basing.
 
Big_Zukini said:
The point is them being able to threaten Gibraltar, and that disengaging or withdrawing from a conflict just brings the conflict closer to you.
Click to expand...
Threaten Gibraltar and now you're getting a smack-down from the UK as well.

I'm going to be really blunt and say that Europe has not learned that it's a lot better to have a war in someone else's country.
 
Rule of cool said:
As soon as someone mentioned Djibouti the question was answered for the number of aircraft, as I was thinking about carriers. There is still a question as to how many munitions the Europeans make, therefore how long they could sustain an air campaign, but I think that might be less of an issue in 2025 than it would have been in 2022. On a bit of a tangent I've heard that Europeans will produce 1 million artillery shells in 2025, exceeding the US' 850k but still far short of Russia's 4 million, and I'm guessing they've ramped up bomb production as well.
Click to expand...

France has re-opened a gunpowder manufacturing plant closed 15 years ago.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Threaten Gibraltar and now you're getting a smack-down from the UK as well.

I'm going to be really blunt and say that Europe has not learned that it's a lot better to have a war in someone else's country.
Click to expand...
Is the UK really going to do something about it?
These 2 paragraphs seem mutually exclusive to me.
The primary setback to any European security program is lack of will.
 
I don't usually respond to these kinds of political tit-for-tats, but let's not forget that the UK has been trying to keep the Red Sea open since 1839, some 20 years before de Lesseps had his big idea for the Suez Canal.

Usurping the local power structures, setting tribe against tribe, bribery, corruption, military power, aerial bombing et al have been tried during that time. Oddly the locals still don't like us. They don't even like each other. We could go on usurping the local power structures, setting tribe against tribe, bribery, corruption, military power, aerial bombing et al for another 186 years, but I doubt that the end results will be any more beneficial.
 
Hood said:
I don't usually respond to these kinds of political tit-for-tats, but let's not forget that the UK has been trying to keep the Red Sea open since 1839, some 20 years before de Lesseps had his big idea for the Suez Canal.

Usurping the local power structures, setting tribe against tribe, bribery, corruption, military power, aerial bombing et al have been tried during that time. Oddly the locals still don't like us. They don't even like each other. We could go on usurping the local power structures, setting tribe against tribe, bribery, corruption, military power, aerial bombing et al for another 186 years, but I doubt that the end results will be any more beneficial.
Click to expand...
Completely lacks nuance. The current war isn't some freedom seeking locals fighting colonialist powers. It's drug lords harassing traders in one area, and raping and pillaging in another.

The Suez canal benefits first and foremost Europe.
From the RN website:
Patrolling the seas to protect global trade and eliminate threats

Is Red Sea trade now excluded from "global trade"?
 
It will never happen as too many regional and global interests deliberately keeping the region destabilised via proxys too invested in their own short term goals to notice of care they are being played. But since this is the 'alternate' bs. wet dream wishful thinking section of the forum, here's something different, maybe promoting peace and prosperity might be worth a try ? carrot instead of the stick for a change

Personally I would love to see a global UN. with actual teeth, sorting out trouble spots by actually stamping hard on the aggressor side. Again nice as a theoretical construct but unworkable as a reality (although a nice tactical sized nuke would be a good persuader and would only ensure a couple of uses, eg. Sanaa, Riyadh, TelAviv, etc. before the rest would fall into line)
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
... and the Asian and East African nations that trade with Europe.
Click to expand...
Very true, however if, say, China started actively policing the red sea I'm sure most nations would assume far more nefarious reasons for doing so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom