NATO should the EU pay it own way

[Guest]

 

Those former Soviet Bloc countries are now NATO members.

 

Indeed. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin wall came down, Ronald Reagan assured Russia they'd be no more NATO expansion and encroachment; Since then its done nothing but encroach and expand.

 

Russia has no beef at all with Europe but NATO and the US military industrial complex need the big bad bogey man Russia to justify their existence.

[LeMaquis]

Indeed. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin wall came down, Ronald Reagan assured Russia they'd be no more NATO expansion and encroachment; Since then its done nothing but encroach and expand.

 

Russia would have been stupid to listen to Reagan at the time as he was no longer US president.

[Berberis]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-much-every-nato-member-spends-on-military-in-2014-2015-2

 

Angel1.

 

And your point is? You do know its against the rules to just post a link.

 

To put some context to your link.

 

Here is the percentage of GDP spent by the top 4 the the bottom member of Nato.

 

United States: 3.14% of GDP

Germany 1.27% of GDP

United Kingdom 2.08% of GDP

France 1.64% of GDP

Latvia 0.89% of GDP

 

So when you start to look at it, the USA's massive spending on defence is not so huge compared to other nations. Then you have to think about who starts most of the wars these days or who is responsible for the current instability in the middle east.

 

The Baltic states for example are tiny by comparison and if they did spend the advised 2% (not a requirement), their contribution would be 10000 times smaller than that of the USA. So the argument that these nations needs to spend more (which they have pledged to do so by 2020), is a side note as they could never defend themselves against the Russian army. Only a considerable armed force could deter Russia.

 

The US military is larger than the entire population of Latvia.

[Harrystottle]

It's not just Trump, Obama had the same opinion. NATO was formed as a defensive alliance but Tjilstra is right, it has become much more hawkish. The US did force the 7.62 round on Nato, because it equates to their .308 cartridge. Mind you, he who pays the piper calls the tune I suppose. I just hope Trump gets better relations with Russia.

[Santo]

It's not just Trump, Obama had the same opinion. NATO was formed as a defensive alliance but Tjilstra is right, it has become much more hawkish. The US did force the 7.62 round on Nato, because it equates to their .308 cartridge. Mind you, he who pays the piper calls the tune I suppose. I just hope Trump gets better relations with Russia.

 

Are you not thinking of the 5.56?

 

The 7.62 was first used by the US in the M14 but the replacement M16 is 5.56 as are most NATO assault rifles. The 7.62 is used in sniper rifles and GPMGs usually these days.

[tzijlstra]

And your point is? You do know its against the rules to just post a link.

 

To put some context to your link.

 

Here is the percentage of GDP spent by the top 4 the the bottom member of Nato.

 

United States: 3.14% of GDP

Germany 1.27% of GDP

United Kingdom 2.08% of GDP

France 1.64% of GDP

Latvia 0.89% of GDP

 

So when you start to look at it, the USA's massive spending on defence is not so huge compared to other nations. Then you have to think about who starts most of the wars these days or who is responsible for the current instability in the middle east.

 

The Baltic states for example are tiny by comparison and if they did spend the advised 2% (not a requirement), their contribution would be 10000 times smaller than that of the USA. So the argument that these nations needs to spend more (which they have pledged to do so by 2020), is a side note as they could never defend themselves against the Russian army. Only a considerable armed force could deter Russia.

 

The US military is larger than the entire population of Latvia.

 

Once you take out the cost of maintaining nuclear capability the numbers get closer to each other very rapidly. Take Trident - that is just one platform, the US have multiple different launch platforms to maintain.

 

Also - regarding Russia, we are at risk of bigging them up way too much (through the NATO...). Russian GDP is smaller than that of Italy. Sure they have a lot of enlisted soldiers in theory, but in practice it is more of a - 'you need a job? Join the army' kind of army than it is a practical and war capable force. The EU reservist forces are usually not counted in number of active soldiers but are likely to fight at an equal level to a standard Russian soldier and are probably better equipped.

[phil752]

It's not just Trump, Obama had the same opinion. NATO was formed as a defensive alliance but Tjilstra is right, it has become much more hawkish. The US did force the 7.62 round on Nato, because it equates to their .308 cartridge. Mind you, he who pays the piper calls the tune I suppose. I just hope Trump gets better relations with Russia.

 

That is a while ago it the 5.56 now. sorry already answered

Edited November 14, 2016 by phil752

[biotechpete]

The EU doesn't need the US to tell it what to do and not do, the biggest problem with the NATO is the lack of integrated command structures, a problem very familiar to the EU... the solution is further integration, not spending more. It isn't rocket science, yet the UK in particular is vehemently against this idea, good news - it won't be the UKs problem for much longer and the rest of the EU can get on with doing what it should have done 20 years ago. Set up an integrated defence and security policy.

 

 

 

What is so wrong with the idea of Europe as a superstate precisely? Surely the Brits and Americans should cheer the idea of a strong and united ally to help control global affairs?

 

As I hear it, the reason the UK opposes armed integration is because commanders don't want to put troops under the command or side by side with forces that they have experienced to be unreliable in the field.

[tzijlstra]

As I hear it, the reason the UK opposes armed integration is because commanders don't want to put troops under the command or side by side with forces that they have experienced to be unreliable in the field.

 

That's a bit like saying: I don't like working with PGRs because they don't understand my work.

[the_bloke]

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.

 

The French PM has his own view regarding the EU Army:

 

'Each country should increase its defence spending to at least 2% of GDP. That is not a ritual amount; it is a necessity if we are to respond to all the types of threats and to carry weight on the world stage. When it comes to defence, there can be no more free riders; we are all in the same boat'

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/12/paris-terror-jihadist-islamic-terror-europe-defeat

 

'Every citizen should contribute to security, by learning first aid, by knowing how to react in the event of a terrorist attack, or by devoting some of their spare time to the security and defence forces. We are developing these policies in France, and I am pleased to say my compatriots have responded with enthusiasm.'

 

Sounds lovely. Sounds like volunteers in wartime.. :/