NATO should the EU pay it own way

[phil752]

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

 

If it was on a battlefield instead of a office i wouldn't, combat does not lend well to on the job training.

[biotechpete]

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

 

No it's like telling my PGRs, as I do, that if they don't put the hours in, neither will I and making them realise that their fees are a membership ticket, not a guarantee of a degree.

 

My last PGR masters student got 86% by the way.

Edited November 14, 2016 by biotechpete

[tzijlstra]

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.. :/

 

The big issue that these governments (France has a very thriving defence industry as well) is that the modern necessities of a defence force are almost 180 degrees different to that of the cold war era and armies are slow to catch on. Let me illustrate this simply (and I will elucidate some more in response to phil) - I'd rather have a government that is able to respond to crime (including terrorism which I'd class as highest level crime) more efficiently than it is to respond to a Russian tank invasion efficiently. The reason is simple - crime affects us all on a frequent basis, a Russian tank invasion affected Georgia and the Ukraine and their economy is being crushed as a result of that. The Germans spending 70 billion on a traditional standing army is lunacy once you realise they spend significantly (as in maybe a tenth) less than that on their federal police which has a legal mandate to defend democracy. (and yes, that includes a role in case of enemy invasion)

 

If it was on a battlefield instead of a office i wouldn't, combat does not lend well to on the job training.

 

Combat on a battlefield doesn't fare all that well either. The last two decades have shown the ineptitude of traditional defence capabilities. The French spent 35 billion on defence, they still lost a hundred plus to terrorism on home soil in the year that they did. If they'd spent less on the army and part of that on the gendarmerie and ensuring they did not have a dissatisfied underclass of muslims leaning towards extremism they'd have done a better job.

 

In the meantime we don't hear anything anymore about Mali, yet the French have deployed a 1000 troops there (special forces as well as specially trained counter-terrorism soldiers) and 3000 total in the region and are leading the way in modernising on the ground support by working with local governments (Chad, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mauritania) to suppress rising extremist muslim insurgents.

[andyofborg]

Plenty of EU countries have invaded other countries and the EU is looking at expansion, this expansion is one of the reason Russia is uneasy. Didn't the largest EU contributor and the most powerful country in the EU try to dominate the world on 2 separate occasions.

 

and one of the the next most powerful countries and contributors used control 24% of the land area and rule 23% of the population

 

they don't do it anymore and i don't see many people suggesting they try to do so again

[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.

 

No it's like telling my PGRs, as I do, that if they don't put the hours in, neither will I and making them realise that their fees are a membership ticket, not a guarantee of a degree.

 

Is it? Because I understand it NATO had a pretty large non-UK/US presence in Afghanistan. I never heard the British command moan about their efforts and in fact I have heard the contribution of the Dutch praised by numerous big whigs in NATO, but perhaps you can point out where you heard the UK doesn't like to work side by side with NATO partners?

[biotechpete]

Is it? Because I understand it NATO had a pretty large non-UK/US presence in Afghanistan. I never heard the British command moan about their efforts and in fact I have heard the contribution of the Dutch praised by numerous big whigs in NATO, but perhaps you can point out where you heard the UK doesn't like to work side by side with NATO partners?

 

Many UK military and political figures have expressed frustration at our NATO parteners' reluctance to commit any troops to conduct their own combat operations in difficult areas of Afghanistan, preferring instead to deploy troops to safer northern regions. The Germans were particularly criticised for their restrictive rules of engagement and refusal to leave their bases to patrol at night. Spain, France and Italy were similarly criticised.

[andyofborg]

Many UK military and political figures have expressed frustration at our NATO parteners' reluctance to commit any troops to conduct their own combat operations in difficult areas of Afghanistan, preferring instead to deploy troops to safer northern regions. The Germans were particularly criticised for their restrictive rules of engagement and refusal to leave their bases to patrol at night. Spain, France and Italy were similarly criticised.

 

perhaps they didn't want to get drawn into the bush and blair military adventure......

[tzijlstra]

Many UK military and political figures have expressed frustration at our NATO parteners' reluctance to commit any troops to conduct their own combat operations in difficult areas of Afghanistan, preferring instead to deploy troops to safer northern regions. The Germans were particularly criticised for their restrictive rules of engagement and refusal to leave their bases to patrol at night. Spain, France and Italy were similarly criticised.

 

And what did being at the cutting edge bring the UK and US? The US and UK are the ones that demanded NATO countries to get involved through the, in my opinion, ludicrous decision that 9/11 was an attack on a NATO partner in the traditional sense of the word. Future analysis will demonstrate that this decision is one of the reasons for increased muslim terrorism in Europe. It is only sensible to be critical of that path and its consequences.

 

Congrats on the PGR btw, just noticed the edit!

[phil752]

Many UK military and political figures have expressed frustration at our NATO parteners' reluctance to commit any troops to conduct their own combat operations in difficult areas of Afghanistan, preferring instead to deploy troops to safer northern regions. The Germans were particularly criticised for their restrictive rules of engagement and refusal to leave their bases to patrol at night. Spain, France and Italy were similarly criticised.

 

well said i was looking for link to day time warriors, but you got there first , what joke.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2016 at 22:25 ----------

 

Many UK military and political figures have expressed frustration at our NATO parteners' reluctance to commit any troops to conduct their own combat operations in difficult areas of Afghanistan, preferring instead to deploy troops to safer northern regions. The Germans were particularly criticised for their restrictive rules of engagement and refusal to leave their bases to patrol at night. Spain, France and Italy were similarly criticised.

 

well said, i was looking for a link to day time warriors, but you got there first , what a joke.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2016 at 22:26 ----------

 

Many UK military and political figures have expressed frustration at our NATO parteners' reluctance to commit any troops to conduct their own combat operations in difficult areas of Afghanistan, preferring instead to deploy troops to safer northern regions. The Germans were particularly criticised for their restrictive rules of engagement and refusal to leave their bases to patrol at night. Spain, France and Italy were similarly criticised.

 

well said, i was looking for a link to day time warriors, but you got there first , what a joke.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2016 at 22:28 ----------

 

don't know how 3 replies happened lol

Edited November 14, 2016 by phil752

[Berberis]

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.

 

Very true. Many people see Russia as this massive country, but they fail to realise its population is spars by comparison and huddled on Europes boarder.