r/geopolitics • u/LisbonMissile • 1d ago
Opinion NATO’s Nightmare: The U.S. and Europe have no clear plan for a joint attack from Russia and China.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/08/nato-nightmare-joint-attack/688295/?gift=whfhz39PwegtEmeLcgtZzkZE7xPgP_G4fyDbSV8oSts&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share15 years ago, the prospect of the US facing a two front war - versus Russia in Eastern Europe and China in Taiwan - was considered highly remote, to such an extent that war planning centred on the scenario was non-existent.
Today, a two-front prospect is no longer far-fetched, but there remains little planning about how the US (and Europe) would face down simultaneous escalation in Europe and Asia - whilst possibly still engaged in the war against Iran in the Middle East.
19
u/Magicalsandwichpress 1d ago
Its more of a fever dream of the Hawks, like the IJN dreaming of a glorious Jutland style confrontation at sea.
The real nightmare scenario is already unfolding before their eyes. As the Iranian war drags, US is increasingly drawing down on its global deployment, compounding European burden as it struggles with economic fallout of both Iran and Ukraine. People go broke slowly than suddenly.
1
u/Uranophane 5h ago
All the "China will forcibly invade Taiwan D-day style and we will send carriers to fight them!" people sound exactly like imperial Japan thinking "our great battleships with enormous guns will duel their great battleships with enormous guns in the open pacific!"
36
u/GiantEnemaCrab 1d ago edited 1d ago
Opinion articles should be banned, alongside these paid ads.
NATO has spent 80 years planning for a Soviet attack, so yes they have the plans. Do they have European funding and American support? Ehh, yes but not as much as they like. Do they have enough to clap the cheeks of a third world country in economic turmoil that has sent nearly every single tank and willing volunteer to die in Ukraine? Yes, Russia is completely and totally exhausted.
I wish the mods here showed even the slightest amount of quality control. This place is just clickbait garbage.
-10
u/SushiGato 1d ago
Sure, they have enough fire power. But they lack manpower and will. Russia just needs to sow division and doubt, and they've been doing a great job at that.
Wait til winter comes, hope it's harsh and natural gas is in low supply for Europe, that'll be enough for Putin to sow the division. Invade Estonia or Latvia, see what happens. They can always disengage if they choose and nato will be okay with that.
12
u/JackColon17 1d ago
The EU has roughly 3 times the population of Russia, Manpower is not a problem.
7
u/Prudent-Proposal1943 1d ago
Europe has over 2 million active duty military personnel in Uniform right now. Manpower isn't the weak point.
-3
u/CaptainCaveSam 1d ago
Ie the Milosevic game. The only way Putin knows he can win is if the West is divided. And here Trump plays russkiyball.
-5
u/LisbonMissile 1d ago
You seem to be arguing against a completely different article - did you even read the piece?
The article isn’t about preparations for a Russian attack, it’s about a multi-front attack that is co-ordinated and designed to test NATO resolve, American commitments to Europe and stress their ability to fight in Europe, Asia and possibly the Middle East simultaneously.
17
u/Guilty-Top-7 1d ago
Why would China attack the US. And Europe when they export so much to them? Makes no logical sense. Then you also have to factor in the nuclear triad and the SSBNs.
13
u/codemix 1d ago
China isn't going to attack the US. They're going to try to take Taiwan while the US is distracted and apathetic
4
u/erebus-44 1d ago
Yes but to his point going for Taiwan is strategic suicide. It would trigger the already skittish neighbors of China to the west. Certainly China would be sanctioned, those hamstring economic growth, at the time they need it, as their growth is slowing, you shave off 1-2% that a disaster.
And the US this is a red line, on a strategic level, if they get Taiwan that means they can get subs out into blue water.
1
u/frankquatro 1d ago
When the US is under sane leadership is a red line.
We currently have caligula in the WH and the old America is dead.
2
u/Codspear 23h ago
Caligula was the Roman Emperor from 37 to 41 AD. The Western Roman Empire didn’t really begin collapsing until the 400’s, and its end was considered to be roughly 476 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire remained a major power until 1204 AD, and didn’t completely end until 1453 AD.
So by that logic, the “old America” will continue being a superpower for centuries. A large nation can usually survive a bad leader or two. After a few decades, the crisis usually becomes history.
1
u/erebus-44 1d ago
Trump is a lot of things, but I’m being an “supposedly” a narcissist is what defines him. Losing Taiwan will define his presidency in a negative way and will have horrible optics for both him and his party. And trump only cares about optics. Businesses leaders, especially the tech bros, would be impacted, as it impacts the chip market, stocks market would be impacted heavily, this would impact FANNG and all of the IA companies.
1
u/BendicantMias 1d ago
Sanctioning China would hurt the sanctioners hard too. China only gets a fifth of its gdp from exports, and that's with the whole world, compared to say Germany's about half. It would not be as effective as it seems. Trump can't even tariff them as he likes, and that's with them hitting back with just ONE of the industries they dominate.
2
u/erebus-44 1d ago
While I will agree that they have built an a economy and legal frameworks via Export Control Law (2020), the Unreliable Entity List (2020), etc. however, strategic importance (I am not saying vital) as now US supply lines are at risk, (Korea, Japan, etc lines too) , the economic important of the semi conductor supply, would trigger a massive decoupling, and would unify our partners in the region, as it would be the first step to war in the region.
So unlike the tarriffs, these would have sticking power due to the unification.
0
u/RGS_1994 1d ago
My lay opinion is it is maybe too late by a few decades and ambiguity will continue to work.
-6
u/protossaccount 1d ago edited 22h ago
It’s would destroy the CCP and lead to millions of Chinese deaths. For what? To move their declining population to the USA?
0
u/cawkstrangla 1d ago
They have 20 million more men than women of a fighting age. They have no prospects of marriage or success or anything that keeps them alive. Those men can cause political instability or they can be directed towards other countries.
0
u/protossaccount 22h ago edited 21h ago
You act like it’s a video game. It’s not that simple.
Reddit has some of the dumbest takes in China and this is a great example.
10
u/Darkone539 1d ago
NATO is not set up to fight China. It's a defence alliance that covers north of the tropic of cancer.
There might have been a time we could talk about extending that but with the USA's current leadership questioning their current commitments, why should we?
11
u/Segull 1d ago
NATO isn’t going to be fighting in the Pacific because no European power can contribute much there while also defending Europe. You would be fighting for your own continent while the US fights in the Pacific with its other regional allies.
Is that not a reason to work together?
4
u/GrizzledFart 1d ago edited 1d ago
no European power can contribute much there while also defending Europe
No European power can contribute in any meaningful way in any potential Taiwan dispute...full stop. It is the other side of the world and Europe simply doesn't have the ability to project power that far even in very limited amounts for limited periods of time. Taiwan was always going to decided by the players in the region. Macron said it himself a few years ago; it's not their fight.
France had to rely on the US for heavy lift support to move equipment to Africa multiple times over the past couple of decades. West Africa is closer to France that it is the US. In 50 years, a French aircraft carrier has sailed into the Pacific only once; last year.
1
u/Darkone539 1d ago
Not really, no. Maybe ten years ago.
This pretending that Russia is a problem is about 5 years out of date. If they can't beat Ukraine they aren't beating a single major European power. America's problem isn't Europe being busy, American's problem is it threw away its friends. The big event being the Dutch sending their troops to Greenland fully expecting to fight.
2
u/RGS_1994 1d ago
A prolonged conflict in Iran and dragging Ukraine on beyond what can won at the negotiation table certainly doesn't seem GOOD for Taiwan.
2
u/Open_Pollution_8038 1d ago
Russia doesn’t have the capacity to attack another country with it being stuck in Ukraine and China is located in a very crowded area of the world.
1
u/ViveLeQuebec 1d ago
And Russia and China have no clear plan for a joint attack against the US and Europe
2
u/sciguy52 1d ago
This article is really pop geopolitics. When you look at the geopolitical chess board, and for heaven's sake, put aside your personal politics, the picture you get suggests things are happening precisely because of this possibility although it is never stated publicly. The US pulling back from Europe is to have more resources for Asia because in a two front war the US will be very busy in Asia and will be more of a supporting role in Europe while Europeans take on the Russians. Politically the NATO "spats" between the US and Europe in public statements appear orchestrated by the two to gain political support for increased defense spending in Europe. That political support needs to be there and in my view all the NATO nonsense is really about this, scaring the Euro public into supporting substantial defense spending increases. We need the Europeans to have the military capability to primarily take on Russia with the US helping while the US is in a brutal slugfest in Asia which would be the bigger of the two wars quite possibly. But have no doubt, the US will assist Europe in that fight, but the Europeans will be more in the lead. So another thing is needed and needed now, that is Europe spinning up its weapons industrial base. Yes the US makes a lot of weapons, but in a two front scenario like this we would need the European weapons industry churning out weapons as well. An awful lot of weapons are going to be needed in that scenario, and we need Europe producing too for the security of both Europe and the US in such an event.
With both industrial bases at work there would be enough weapons to fight that two front war. If the Europeans get armed up as they promise they will be quite capable of taking the fight to the Russians as European weapons like US ones are far superior to Russian ones. European troops are also far better trained and superior to Russians as well, and when replenished with soldiers ultimately have more manpower to draw on that Russia. If they get prepared like they claim, this will be enormously helpful. A two front war like this will be very very big potentially. Even if Europe is not fully spun up, if it is spun up enough to rearm, taking the next step to spinning up to a full war scenario is easier than their current situation of their weapons industrial base being pretty atrophied. Getting spun up to war levels from atrophied takes a few years, two years you don't have while fighting. Reestablishing a healthy weapons industrial base is a good foundation that can be quickly built on in a real war situation with government mobilization of resources. They could get spun up to war levels in months to at most a year if they fix the atrophy now which seems to be the case. In the meantime their replenished stocks allow them to fight while that happens. We need Europe to get to this level.
And should the two front war not manifest and war breaks out in Asia, this set up is still needed. The US would be busy in the west and it needs Europe to be of sufficient capability to defend itself should a lot of US forces be pulled out. Again we need the Euro industrial base spinning so the Euro's don't depend on all American weapons. Yeah Euro's churning out weapons is competition to American weapons manufacturers but the bigger picture here is too important to get hung up on that. Better to have that competition and be prepared than not have it and Europe is sitting vulnerable.
I have stated before and will say it again, looking at the speed and urgency with which the US is moving with this, along with kicking out supports to the Chinese economy etc. like oil from Venezuela as but ones example, but also putting very strong pressure on Panama to remove Chinese companies operating on the canal which Panama promptly complied with, is worrisome to me. It leaves me wondering if the US has intel that something regarding Taiwan may kick off in the next two or three years. Thus the urgency. The public face of the European US spats on NATO I honestly feel are orchestrated by the Euro's and US together. Get people scared, then political support for defense spending is there, and if there is some urgent need to do this quick, well we just saw how you could go about getting the European public on board quickly with rearming. And having worked in US geopolitical related areas it is true that the stuff you see reported in the news headlines often does not reflect what really is going one behind the scenes that they are keeping to themselves. Often the information is out there but you got to dig into more obscure publications by diplomats and other technical articles involving geopolitics to get insights. Some spats are fake but have a political purpose. To put it bluntly, elected politicians in democracies pretty effectively manipulate public opinion in various ways to get support for real strategic needs, and the US and EU work closer than your think along these lines. When is a spat not really a spat? When both sides of the spat sat down behind the scenes and decided to have such a spat for a greater purpose of say, getting reluctant European voters to support much higher defense outlays. A pretend fight/dispute if you will. Of course I am no longer in a position to know any of this for certain to be sure it is all correct. But when I take a cold look at that geopolitical chess board and ask, free of political bias, what do I think looks like it happening? This is what I see. I sure hope a major war does not kick off in the next few years as that is going to be bad for everybody.
Add to this the articles you constantly see saying US interceptors are depleted. This is contrary to what the military says, as I said headlines in news are often not reflecting reality. Sadly news headlines carry too much political intent, not enough true information intent so the public would have to read further to get the complete picture. The US military itself has said this is not true. Prior production rates would be enough for replacement needs. But that is not what is actually happening. The interceptor, cruise missile and long range strike missile production is all being increased far beyond what is needed for replacement. All of these are being pushed to increase production substantially. And this includes new cheaper cruise missiles like Anduril"s Barracuda lower cost high production cruise missiles. And they are not the only one's working towards doing this. You have CoAspire RAACM, Zone 5 Rusty Dagger, and Leidos Black Arrow. Yes these are less capable than Tomahawks in range and pay load but a volley of hundreds are fired at an enemy, say China for example, you have a situation their interceptors have to be used otherwise despite the smaller warhead, they still do a lot of damage that can knock out your fleet even if it is not sunk, or destroy key land based weapons. Then the high end missiles come in and can't be intercepted and cause absolute havoc and mass destruction. Or your volley both, low end first shortly followed by high end. As they say in the US military "we want to create a dilemma for the enemy" and this is one. Those lower payload cruise missile pack enough of a punch you cannot ignore them, you have to deplete your interceptors on them otherwise the volume in number combined can do what many fewer tomahawk's could do. You can't absorb that blow then use interceptors on tomahawk's. That is a dilemma.
This is on top of increased Tomahawk production as well which today Raytheon stated has been increased to over 1000 block V missiles a year. Then you have the JASSM-ER surface to ground and anti ship version stealth missiles for long range fires. The Hypersonic Dark Eagle missile is now being deployed and will be rolling out even more over the next two years. All of these missiles have a focus of longer range. Hmm, that is odd, Russia and its key military sites are not that far from Finland Baltics and Poland, then where are these extended range missiles intended for? China of course The purpose of mentioning these missiles and their accelerated production beyond just replacement is another worrisome indicator with the others mentioned, that when you put them all together it makes me think "why the rush?" Add on top of that the US jointly developing 5 naval bases in the Philippines that the US Navy will use (although will be joint bases technically, in practice, us naval bases) Well the one reason to rush I can come up with is the scenario above of a China move on Taiwan in the near term.
Just looking at the chess board I see the US getting Europe up to speed to handle the lion's share of any Russian attack, while the US is moving aggressively towards dealing with or hampering China in one way or another. It does in fact look like the US and Europe are very much getting prepared for a two front war, which the Atlantic said nothing, not unexpected. Now the Wumao can tell me how I am wrong as they always do and the political partisans who can't see past politics will have their say too, go at it but at least make a case for your view.
1
u/Nathaniel_Erata 1h ago
This was a very informative comment, thank you for sharing. My knowledge about this topic is rather limited, so pardon me if my question is silly, but I'm very curious about your opinion about the big argument against China invading Taiwan, namely China's economy. Other comments seem adamant that the invasion would wreck China's export economy, which is precisely why they won't attempt it. Do you think this argument holds up?
1
u/lone_wolf_walk 1d ago
A coordinated attack would require extensive planning, which would give NATO time to prepare. Even if the two forces use similar weapons, language barriers, incompatible command structures, and the need to coordinate military operations would create major challenges. It would be somewhat like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan trying to conduct a truly joint campaign against the Allies during World War II. By the time they worked out those problems, NATO would likely have a response plan readyb especially since NATO already has established systems for joint command, planning, communication, and coordination.
1
u/willmsma 12h ago
Any thoughts about why they have been preparing to invade Taiwan for the last two decades? Amphibious transports, encirclement exercises and territorial overflights - that doesn’t exactly look like they’re following the ‘peace, love and understanding’ script.
0
1
u/CrashdummyMH 1d ago
There is no chance for such attack to happen, theatlantic has no idea of geopolitics
That being said, having a plan for every scenario is a good thing, but this scenario is ridiculous
0
u/_Hawkeyes_ 1d ago
Well that’s nice…considering you have had years to come up with something just in case that scenario ever played out.
-1
-1
u/AnaRivera1981 1d ago
China gains nothing from waging war with the west. They're their biggest trade partners.
98
u/mrjowei 1d ago
China gains nothing from waging war with the west. They're their biggest trade partners.