NATO should the EU pay it own way

[Guest]

It is mainly because of American foreign policy, ie its sabre rattling at Russia, that there is a necessity for a continued NATO military presence in Europe.

[mickey finn]

That's something that's rumoured to already be happening, the EU is looking at merging all it's members armed forces to create a mass EU military..

 

It wouldnt be enought.

 

---------- Post added 13-11-2016 at 22:35 ----------

 

It is mainly because of American foreign policy that there is a necessity for a continued NATO military presence in Europe.

 

^^this^^

[tinfoilhat]

It is mainly because of American foreign policy, ie its sabre rattling at Russia, that there is a necessity for a continued NATO military presence in Europe.

 

I think that's a fair comment. But now we are leaving the EU are we more likely to be beholden to US foreign policy - whatever that's going to in the next 4 years is anyone's guess!

[phil752]

It is mainly because of American foreign policy, ie its sabre rattling at Russia, that there is a necessity for a continued NATO military presence in Europe.

 

How is that, don't understand, what rattling ?

Edited November 13, 2016 by phil752

[tzijlstra]

Why arent the other Nato members meeting their spending commitments?

Should the EU pay its way?

Why should they be allowed to enjoy the protection of those who are honouring their obligations.

 

NATO is a crude instrument that is no longer suitable, it certainly isn't about protection any more. It is driven by two very hawkish nations in global politics and over the past twenty years has demonstrated not to be fit for purpose. The ridiculous 2% of GDP spending requirement is well out of date at a time when incisive precision capability is far more useful than a mass armed response. The reason that 2% isn't met by most members is because the political and electoral will to spend more on defence is non existent.

 

People across Europe are fed up investing in the perceived arms race. Take the Eurofighter and F35 as examples.

 

If the EU sets up its own defence capability, then you think it wuld be better off outside Nato? Would it be a good idea for the US to stop selling them equipment and force them to make their own or buy from other markets?

 

The US is forcing equipment on NATO partners as is, the defence industry in most EU countries has been forced to work in NATO standards, might as well work to those standards but develop capabilities based on our own needs instead of that considered prevalent 60 years ago.

Edited November 14, 2016 by tzijlstra

[apelike]

 

The US is forcing equipment on NATO partners as is, the defence industry in most EU countries has been forced to work in NATO standards, might as well work to those standards but develop capabilities based on our own needs instead of that considered prevalent 60 years ago.

 

The US is forcing equipment on no one. The problem here is that there are no other alternatives around at the moment regarding defence so the EU are happy to let that happen. The problem with the EU approach is that they will then have to develop capabilities to their own needs at an exceedingly great cost to the people of those EU countries, and as you put it: "People across Europe are fed up investing in the perceived arms race." Also by doing that the EU will then be creating a large arms industry of their own and will become an arms superpower in their own right. The EU will then have the armaments and powers to go to war without having to consult NATO or the USA.

 

Its a bit like the Boston Tea Party in that you get rid of a monopoly you don't like and then create one of your own which costs more.

 

Its a very slippery slope going down that road.

[tzijlstra]

The US is forcing equipment on no one. The problem here is that there are no other alternatives around at the moment regarding defence so the EU are happy to let that happen. The problem with the EU approach is that they will then have to develop capabilities to their own needs at an exceedingly great cost to the people of those EU countries, and as you put it: "People across Europe are fed up investing in the perceived arms race." Also by doing that the EU will then be creating a large arms industry of their own and will become an arms superpower in their own right. The EU will then have the armaments and powers to go to war without having to consult NATO or the USA.

 

Its a bit like the Boston Tea Party in that you get rid of a monopoly you don't like and then create one of your own which costs more.

 

Its a very slippery slope going down that road.

 

Hah, that's rich coming from a staunch Brexiteer

[ez8004]

No need to change anything. Just getting all the alliance countries to pay the agreed 2% of GDP on defence will be enough.

 

The number of jobs sustained by the F35 and Eurofighter programmes in this country has been huge.

[LeMaquis]

With the election of Trump should Europe be paying more to the cost of Nato

 

The EU isn't a NATO member. If you think Europe should pay more you mean the UK and other member states in Europe should pay more.

[Petminder]

Why arent the other Nato members meeting their spending commitments?

Should the EU pay its way?

Why should they be allowed to enjoy the protection of those who are honouring their obligations.

 

If the EU sets up its own defence capability, then you think it wuld be better off outside Nato? Would it be a good idea for the US to stop selling them equipment and force them to make their own or buy from other markets?

 

Once they have this capability they will use it to expand their empire with force.