"NATO is Not a Real Military Actor" Topic

"Without the United States, NATO is hollow — capability-wise and in strategic purpose.

Recently published NATO defense statistics reveal the poor state of European defense capabilities and spending. Only four out of 26 European NATO member-states spend the minimum level needed to train and equip a credible fighting force — namely 2 percent of annual GDP. Faced with the Russian revival and the ongoing crisis over Ukraine, NATO's European member-states are spending too little on defense to even start rebuilding the military capability lost over the last 20 years, during which NATO has focused on military operations of choice out-of-area. Particularly the European member-states of NATO lack the capability to deter a large-scale military attack against one or more member-states. And should such an attack take place, "European NATO" lacks the capability to counter such an attack.

While most (read: European) NATO states have enjoyed cashing in on the post-Cold War "peace dividend" since the early 1990s by divesting of force structure and slashing defense spending, Russia and China have been allocating significant resources to their militaries for more than a decade. And these days, Russian and Chinese investments seem to be bearing fruit: Both states have changed their demeanor in international politics towards more assertive — or aggressive — policies. This is most obvious in the Ukrainian crisis and in the East and South China Seas. In short, while most European states have been disarming themselves in order to focus on multinational military crisis management with mostly symbolic troop contributions, Russia and China have focused on their great-power projects, which have been based on creating real military capability for deterrence, traditional war-fighting and military coercion. Naturally, the Russian great-power project is the one that NATO as an organization and its member-states individually are most fixated on — and influenced by…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Though they are pretending a lot…

Seems you are right my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

Britain, France and Germany collectively spend more annually than Russia

JArroVian
Same error as was done during the cold war:
Not the same way of accounting…+ what are the sources.

Same story when one says most Russians have only 300$ a months… Granted they won't buy an ipad which btw they don't need but they have a house, fuels cost 1/3 or less, taxes are so low as…. Food 1/2 here…. They do live, not grand style..

Same their hardware costs are not calculated or near the same as here, 1/2+ troops are conscripts costing very little( say 1/15 th of an average French soldier?) and all like that.
And international accountancy…. Ask the Greeks , Mario D and Lehman brothers…

Russian and Chinese defense spending goes WAAAY farther than Western spending. Apples and oranges. Without the US, if Russia decided to go full in to take Poland (or heck, let's face it, Poland and Germany) the Europeans would be run over swiftly.the Europeans simply dont have enough firepower or troops.

Always heard that NATO stood for Needs Americans To Operate, and the Europeans sure don't seem to be doing much to discourage that definition.

Yes they are pathetic.
Not sure the Russian army has the logistics nor overall redainess for it, if they 'd had the will.
Lots of self fueled paranoia on each side, Local matters aside ( Ukr etc.).

Maybe if they were genuine threats to actual NATO countries rather than american scare mongering about russias responses to american foreign policy (like anti ballistic missile systems in russias back garden)europeans would be more on board with the hysteria. Since europeans are nearest the "threat" I would take their reactions and assesment as the more accurate.
NATOs function isnt to play along with whatever washington wants.
So find some other ally to sneer at.

Brad Pitt is a real military actor…

Well…admittedly he was the main reason the German breakthrough failed in 1945 but most experts agree the attack would have succeeded if german reinforcements hadnt been diverted to contain Clint Eastwoods advance in the south.

Or indeed if the Soviet Spring offensive had been delayed allowing James Coburn to be deployed to the west for rest and refitting.
Its a fascinating subject – dont get me started on the Pacific Campaign and Waynes drive towards Iwo Jima

… american scare mongering about russias

Tell that to Crimea and the Ukraine …

"NATOs function isnt to play along with whatever washington wants. So find some other ally to sneer at."

Oh, how Churchill begged and scraped for U.S. intervention on the Continent…. And two generations later, this is what we get. Ingratitude, thou art European!

:-)

Without the United States, NATO is hollow

Been that way for some time now … Does not look like it is going to change much either.

Oh, how Churchill begged and scraped for U.S. intervention on the Continent…. And two generations later, this is what we get. Ingratitude, thou art European!

After 2 World Wars, Winny understood … But it appears many others today don't …

You're right there. For all Winstons efforts it took Hitler declaring war to get America involved. Maybe Winston should have concentrated on getting a better deal on interest rates from our selfless ally, but since the loan was finally paid off 5 – 10 years ago I don't suppose it matters, except it does grate when Americans ignore all that kind of thing and take the Hollywood view of history.

except it does grate when Americans ignore all that kind of thing and take the Hollywood view of history.

Very sad but true …