"What Is The Role Of NATO Today?" Topic

"The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or nato, the largest and most powerful military alliance in history, is not usually fodder for election-year politicking. But in an interview with the Times earlier this week, Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump said that the United States should not automatically honor nato's core principle of mutual defense, specifically if Russia invaded several newer members of the alliance, the three strategic Baltic states and former Soviet republics—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. In a sharp rebuke, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the principle of mutual defense is "ironclad." He told reporters, "There should be no mistake or miscalculation made about this country's commitment to the transatlantic alliance."

nato's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned, "We defend one another. . . . Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for the security of the United States." Solidarity among allies is "a key value for nato," he said, in a statement. Trump's comments came under fire from fellow-Republicans, too. "Statements like these make the world more dangerous and the United States less safe," Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, tweeted…"

link

More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I don't think OUR commitment is in question.

It is the commitment of those in Europe, who've failed to meet their financial obligations to their own defense, for years and/or decades, and to NATO that are in question.

to spent taxpayer money helping ennemies of the same taxpayer money (Lybia, Syria)

'I don't think OUR commitment is in question.

It is the commitment of those in Europe, who've failed to meet their financial obligations to their own defense, for years and/or decades, and to NATO that are in question.'

I refer you to my previous posts on that one…

'But in an interview with the Times earlier this week, Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump said that the United States should not automatically honor nato's core principle of mutual defense, specifically if Russia invaded several newer members of the alliance, the three strategic Baltic states and former Soviet republics—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. '

Is he, or is he not, one of two candidates for the President? If he is, then your commitment is seriously in question…

Judging from NATO's response to the Urkranian incurison, if European countries of NATO are not honoring core principals, why should the USA that lays thousands of miles away? While NATO countires that have not lived up to their committment of spending X% of their GNP on defense are beginning to now do so, I think Trump's comment essentially addresses the lack of committment of NATO to this real world situation, even if they are now honoring the GDP committment.

Indeed, GM, he is one of two major candidates for the office. While not a major issue for the typical US voter deciding who is best suited to be president, it does show that this issue has been a subject of some deep thought as to how to motivate other member nations to "belly up to the bar" and reaffirm committment all around, by this candidate.

The USA can no longer afford to play the role of World Police on it's own. The USA has provided security to Western Europe since 1945, so economies could revive themselves and thrive. Many in the USA think that after 71 years and trillions of dollars pumped into European (including UK) economies that maybe it's time we left them to their own defense? His statement seems to play to this faction yet would not immediately de-commit our obligation to NATO. But if the member nations continue to default on their agreements to NATO, threatening to remove the security blanket may be just the act that wakes up those uncooperating NATO countries to live up to their fair share of mutual defense.

Heck, look at how many joint ventures that were stared to have a common tank, aircraft, munitions, etc. where millions of Euros (or equivilant) have been spent only to discover the participating countries could not agree when their joint designers put forth their designs? See, each nation should have a say (they did) but it's easier to play to the locals if the political head of state decided it's better to support nationalism than to support NATOs larger aims. (Plays better at home….)

NATO is far from being neutralized, but political factors used so far have not produced the required results to keep it a viable defense against aggression. (Again, see the Ukrainian Affair.) Do you really think the other candidate did better to address this issue when she was Secretary of stste? Why wasn't it addressed back then? Todays SITREP can be traced back to many ex-Sec/State's inaction and allowing the status-quo to the detriment of the American people beyond reason.

Mako and Dye4 are dead on.

+2

Cooperation in Europe is alive and well on big projects (aircraft like Jaguar, Tornado and Typhoon).

Cooperation across the Atlantic is far rarer.

Martin B57/Canberra?. Harriers? Then I'm out…

What there has been is an awful lot of is US planes sold to NATO members (shed loads of 104s, F16s etc). That's gotta help the US economy, right?

There's advantageous fall out for both Europe and the US with the current NATO arrangements and I know some people always want to hark back to 'tax payers' and being 'short changed' but – like I said – both 'continents' benefit from the current arrangement.

IMHO

John T

My guess is Trump would knuckle under, and reluctantly provide support.

I presume he's trying to prod the EU into contributing more to their own defense, since it should be a higher priority for them.

As mentioned, we're broke, so others may need to start picking up some of the slack for their own defense, or learn a new language and culture.

Dye4 – kindly inform me when Ukraine joined NATO?

Given it didn't, why should NATO respond at all?

John Treadaway is right – the US is more interested in NATO countries buying US weaponry than actually co-operating.

the US is more interested in NATO countries buying US weaponry than actually co-operating.

All the more reason to question what the role of NATO is.

Well it depends.

The Europeans think it is a means of getting the Americans to help defend them from the Russians.

In the past the Americans have regarded it as a source of cannon fodder for dubious overseas adventures.

"he USA can no longer afford to play the role of World Police on it's own"

The UK did it in the 19th century (to the great benefit of US trade), The US took on the job from the 1940s. Perhaps the should let someone else take a turn. Fancy letting China do it?

If nothing else NATO does provide a command structure for those in its membership. You already have a command & control entity inplace if need be. And if you have ever operated with other countries militaries interoperability is a good capability to have.

Even if many of the older NATO members have downsized and many of the newer members militaries are small to start out with. IMO it's a good idea to be able to work together with little to no problems.

Of course as always no matter what nation, when it deals with the military is comes down to "Guns or Butter" … It's all about the $$$$ … Verses building new infrastructure, social improvement programs, the top leadership getting new curtains for their dwelling, etc., etc., …

UK pays it's way and always has done. US is very much choosy about the support it gives – mainly, it sells what it wants to sell, keeps a tight hold on it's technology (F22?) and what help it does give is very much slanted towards it's own views, not the views of it's allies.

The Ukraine is not part of NATO, why should the NATO nations in Europe rush to it's defence?

I find your posts all very amusing. While I too think Europe should bear more of its own defense burden, the GOP would NEVER have taken this position but for Trump making the statement. And, supporters of the GOP ticket, absent Trump, would have been heartily denouncing anyone even suggesting a withdrawl from NATO. that person or organization would have been shouted down as "soft on defense" or a "Putin supporter".
But- Trump is the GOP nominee, so……

Don't any of you see that he's a danger? Part of my family is still in Poland. I certainly think so.

denouncing anyone even suggesting a withdrawl from NATO

I would be on the "don't withdraw from NATO" side …

NATO Europe military expenditure 2015 $253 USDbn.
Russian military expenditure 2015 $66.4 USDbn.

link link

So Europe, without the US, spends about 4 times as much as Russia.

Seems Europe does spend a fair bit to defend itself.

Pan Marek: Part of my family is in Europe and many Americans have relatives in other countries…even Russia. That is not a reason to take sides in a European, Asiatic, African or any other dispute.

We have had troops scattered all over the world since WWII and they have not always been welcome. The nations in question have had 60 plus years to prepare for defense against the bogeyman of their choice. The "Communist threat",such as it was, is gone. Russia is just another country with an axe to grind now.

Like him or not Trump has raised valid points that many independents have been considering despite lack of interest from either major party.

We don't have the money to support other nations.

Bring our people home.

As someone else has brought it up, the sale of American weapons sadly only monetarily benefits the stockholders/employees of those companies, their lobbyists and politicians in their pockets

And for DM: Yes, let China take up the "White Man's Burden" now. It's time for a changing of the guard! :)

BTW If anyone here has not read Kipling's "White Man's Burden", go do so now. It's more a complaint about being the world's super power than it is about racism or jingoism, although one must see through the causal racism of his era.

Greetings all. I would like to hear from our cousins across the Atlantic about this EU army I've seen mentioned a couple of times, minus the Brits of course. Any info?

I don't think Trump's NATO stance is for European consumption all though it does put them on notice. I think he's aiming at that large but fairly quiet voting block who's tired of the US being so involved over seas. There are whole blocks of Americans who grew up during the age of isolationism. Folks like my dad who loved this part of Trump's platform. This stance is meant to fire them up and get them to the polls. I think it's having the desired effect. Many seniors I know support this line.

For what it's worth, I think selling Starfighters all over Europe benefits more than just shareholders and bosses at Lockheed.

On the positive side it gave many airforces in Europe access to a superb (if difficult to fly) mach 2 aircraft and – to be honest – one of the greatest contributions to aviation Kelly Johnson ever made.

It also gave salaries and security to Lockheed employees and added enormously to US GDP. Not to be sniffed at.

On the negative side the shenanigans with governments being 'persuaded' to buy 104s meant local aircraft production became stymied and – in some cases – almost destroyed.

But where's the issue? I think that US and European interests often run in lockstep and – after all – most US policies have spent (certainly since WW2 and, arguably since before WW1) a lot of time, effort (and cash) making sure any conflict with 'The Ruskies' does not take place on US soil.

To ne completely clear, surely, one of the fundamental approaches/requirements in the cold war was for the US to ensure that the Soviets were stopped in Germany. Or France. Maybe Belgium but, to be frank, anywhere other than on US soil.

That's not an accusation or me being snide. It just makes sense, does it not, from a US perspective?

If that is the objective – as I believe it probably was/is – then that requires active US support in Europe, I would suggest.

The cost of that to the US government and tax payer – offset by sales of military equipment, maybe – is probably just the required cost to achieve all of that.

And it's worked (successfully) for 70 years, after all!

John T

Only 4 of 28 NATO nations are contributing the required 2% of their budgets to defense spending, if today's news report is accurate.

Much of that probably goes to salaries and administration, as opposed to weapons and ammo.

When Ukraine was invaded (yes, correct terminology), NATO did not respond to protect their borders. They are now, but please learn just how much the US is now involved. Not saying we are alone, just that one should see how long it took to devise an agreeable defense strategy, rally the players and just how long it took the players to get involved. If the Russians had been a bit more agressive, what could have been accomplished?

Spending 4 times as much than Russia means nothing when there are so many weapons systems that require supporting. Honestly, if the baloon went up overnight (heaven forbid), how many European NATO countries would send their troops into the fray and away from home? Resolve and purpose makes the expendature of those funds work…not Euros by themselves.

Straying from the topic,I, for one, have been watching China try to get their feet wet in the business of projecting military power across the world (see Africa in this). They do have armed troops protecting some key investments they have made with some countries. "I" think they are realizing just how much it really costs to be a world "super power" and to own a power projection capability. Their claims in the South China Sea/ Western Pacific may not be sustainable…..right now.

I think I would rather have an executive branch that at least will listen to foreign relatyions experts on a subject than have one that has a consistant track record of doing it all their way regardless of the laws. (Just claim mea culpa and it will all go away!) I suppose that approach comes from running businesses. Even when one fails, lessons are learned and efforts made to keep them from happening again.

Now if we can only get citizens (of the world- not just USA) to accept responsibility for their actions…..

'Spending 4 times as much than Russia means nothing when there are so many weapons systems that require supporting. .

Russia seems to have more weapons systems to support…

Two main points as far as I'm concerned:

How much are we overestimating Russia's capacity to wage war.

The US comments are all about Europe not paying their way – I would contend that they are, though perhaps not apparently getting good value for their money.

On countries willing to'fight', at the moment I would say UK, France and Poland certainly, doubts about everyone else.

And there is no EU army – just NATO and National armies. Some countries in the EU are not even in NATO. However, link

'The combined component strength of the naval forces of member states is some 563 commissioned warships. Of those in service, 3 are fleet carriers, the largest of which is the 42,000 tonne Charles de Gaulle. However two 70,600 tonne Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are projected to enter service in the Royal Navy starting 2017. The EU also has 5 amphibious assault ships and 13 amphibious support ships in service. Of the EU's 58 submarines, 21 are nuclear-powered submarines (11 British and 10 French) while 37 are conventional attack submarines.'

'As of 2014, it is estimated that the European Union had around 2,000 serviceable combat aircraft (fighter aircraft and ground-attack aircraft).[56]'

Etc.

I stated: "'Spending 4 times as much than Russia means nothing when there are so many weapons systems that require supporting. .

GM stated: "Russia seems to have more weapons systems to support…"

Correct me if I am wrong here- USSR-operates what, 5 models of tanks based upon the T-80 series? Most of them use the same calibre rounds? Same logistical support system to maintain and supply them. The west, each country fields different tanks (le Clerc for France; Leo 4 in Germany; Challenger/Chieftan in UK, Leo 2's in Italy etc? Each nation has their own policies and procedures of supporting and sustaining their armies at war. View each as continue trying to reinvent the wheel. The debate could go on and on with ships, planes, trains, etc.

Each country has their own maintainers and logistical support systems. How well do they intigrate into combined Brigades with other nations? When was the last time the Germans, British and French, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweeden conducted a joint exercise together?

We all in the west are supposed to operate together under UN ROE and procedures, but again, when have we recently exercised those series of training objectives with all at the same time? We discover what does and does not work when we conduct such joint exercsies and nobody gets killed in angerand find solutions to problems we didn't even know we had!

Sometimes the stats put forward cannot be taken at face value because they really do not reflect the whole cost of related military expenses. No doubt about it; keeping a nation's readiness at a high state is expensive! Until we see more standardization between us, it will get more costly to maintain existing readiness than if we had more in common.

MC Donkey- If you are advocating for a complete withdrawl from all other nations, indeed the world, then you are an old style Lindberg isolationist.

And frankly, the "West" has made promises to Poland before, then renegged. I'm perfectly aware that does not bother many Americans.
I find your position dishonorable.

And frankly, the "West" has made promises to Poland before, then renegged. I'm perfectly aware that does not bother many Americans.

Some Americans are bothered by that. I'm glad Poland is in NATO. They don't like the Russians for a number of reasons. For things that happened in WWII. As well as before and After.

Most Americans can't find Poland on a Map. Or know even what NATO is. So to say it does not bother many Americans is not really an accurate statement. A lot of things that happen in the world does not bother most of my countrymen. Not because they are being mean spirited, etc., … they basically don't give a . That has been my experience …

Russia still has 7 different tanks – T54/55, T62, T64, T72, T80, T90 and now the T14 Armata. Granted most are in storage, but they are still part of the inventory and will be used when needed. There appear to be 6 T80 variants alone. link I have no idea how many variants of the others are around… but if you consider Leo 2 and 4 as really diferent, then we're talking at least 12 Russian tank variants in use or storage.

The Russian air force seems to have about 43 different arcraft and helicopters. The navy operates 20, though some of these are the same as the air force ones. Now the RAF seems to have 24 different types, but most ofthem are Chinooks, Hawks, Typhoons and Tornados. France has 26, Germany 16, so lots of different types there I grant you – but the main ones are again in reasonable numbers. Realistically, most non-French major aircraft tend to be Typhoons and Tornados, with a lot of US F16s thrown in.

OK, some spec differences, but how major?

Lots of standardisation in things like ammunition, etc.

So, really, I'm inclined to stick with the idea that Russia tends to support more weapons systems – partly because they tend to hang on to obsolete equipment longer than the west.

Re training together – another issue/question. Also, note my comment 'I would contend that they are, though perhaps not apparently getting good value for their money.'

Pan Filly I am advocating for a return to the Monroe
Doctrine. Muddliling in Europe's seemingly endless internicine and essentially fratracidal conflicts is not something we should ever have gotten involved in. On this the Centenary of WWI, its,a good time to look where Wilson got us.

Our Constitution was not built for foreign adventures despite the machinations of the bankers and industrialists.

I would not want Russia meddling in Mexoco's affairs just as they don't like us mucking about on their border.

Of course if you'd like to send your children and money to fight for Country X, by all means do so but leave the rest of us out of it.

A reasonable philosophy, not followed by the Americans themselves when they demanded help from NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq…

Or indeed elsewhere.

The Americans NEVER listen to me.

B. I will take it one step further, and while this might not be applicable to miniatures wargaming it is very much applicable to wargaming multiplayer games just to point out its relevance to this board.

Back in the 90's, a number of my friends from Oz and UK would complain "The US should do more…" about the Balkans, about Indonesia, about China, about the African crisis du jour.

My reply: "be careful what you wish for" because of course by "The US should do *more*" what they really meant was that the US should do what *the speaker wanted* the US to do.

Now here we are. The US has done more. A lot more.

Always be careful when invoking powers one does not control because those powers have their own agendas.

And so I would like to see the US do a lot less especially overseas and that means the ME as well as Europe and the Pacific.

A reasonable point – I think perhaps we could say the US should do more to clean up other people's messes, such as the Balkans, for fear of things getting worse.

We could do without the US creating its own messes…

that said there was no reason why the EU couldn't have bitch-slapped Serbia into behaving reasonably, it just lacked the will to do so.

It's noticeable that when the USA and Uk DID start making serious noises about ground action, about the time of Kosovo, things improved markedly…

Fair point.

"A reasonable philosophy, not followed by the Americans themselves when they demanded help from NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq"…

Bangor, only fair old boy, after us bailing you chaps out of both WWI AND WWII.

How quickly they forget.

Only the US has the financial, economic and military might to 'intervene' anywhere in the world. As it has successfully in WW1 and WW2.

Both of those wars were so destructive that any sane leader would do whatever it took to prevent it from happening again.

It is far, far better to spend a few trillion dollars to "guarantee peace by preparing for war" than to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars fighting a war and then cleaning up the mess.

Every country has an agenda, some less palatable than others. Better by far to 'patrol the neighborhood' than to call the police after the fact.

Voters who think we can turn back the clock to a golden age (which probably never existed) are fools.

Right back atcha!Voters who do not are Imperialist Warmongers so long as inflammatory terms are now in play. :)

We could do without the US creating its own messes…

To blame all the "messes" on just the US is again, not accurate. Many times it is a well intentioned action, etc., … Like getting rid of Saddam a bloody tyrant/dictator. Who was declaring he had and would use WMDs. As he had done before on his own people … the Kurds.

Or to prevent AQ a safe haven, etc., after 9/11. 3000 Americans and other nationals were killed in that attack. No one could let that terrorist act go unchallenged. Plus could not let it happen again. And in many case other Allied nations and others agreed. In both conflicts. And joined a the US lead Coalition.

The US's problem was they expected the Iraqis and Afghanis to be happy in their new found freedom. But as we see continually. In both regions, their age old, religious, ethnic, tribal, etc., hatreds and differences over road any of the US's intentions.

The weak corrupt factionalized self serving gov'ts and leadership there did nothing but to go back to "old ways". And create their own versions of Hell on Earth. No matter how much the West spent with so much blood and treasure, etc., etc., … To move them into the 20th let alone 21st Century. They chose to remain backward in their beliefs, actions, etc., …

So we know now in hindsight, which is 20/20 the errors the US made:

1)Supporting the Muj vs. the USSR.
2) GWII

And add #3 … allowing the Iranians to get nucs which they will have much sooner than later. I think we all know how the US played a huge part in their quest for the Persians to get nucs … This will be seen as a big mistake … IMO …

"Many times it is a well intentioned action, etc.," and that is the crux of my argument against foreign adventures.

The government is not set up for those kinds of shenanigans and the Constitution was not written to allow for it.

Government changes direction every 4 to 16 years around here and there is no consistency in policy, especially when the "Leader of the Free World" is pandering to the electorate to make sure he wins the popularity contest.

A friend of mine did point out that both major parties managed to keep the Cold War going until the fall of the Soviet Union…but I say that was a bumpy ride at best.

As for patrolling the neighborhood…most of the planet is not our neighborhood and various residents should be allowed to patrol their own patch.

Before WWI and again before WWII we were well prepared for continental defense, even the B17 was meant for coastal defense, not murdering German civilians in the name of Liberty.

So yes spending to keep a strong military to avoid war is sound policy for all entities, and NOT a reason for the US to patrol and "control" the world.

Wow! A fair bit of opinion….

NATO's core principle is article 5 of the treaty which only states that an attack on one or more is an attack on all. See….

link

There is no specific commitment of national forces to any specific theatre. Such commitments are usually agreed according to specific contingency operational plans. Probably what Trump meant was there'd not necessarily be any deployment of US forces but it came out as the US potentially reneging on Article 5. If the latter was meant then it effectively means the US withdraws from NATO. Whatever else it does it would sure please Putin.

NATO exercises….are done all the time.

link

The Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, so it is by definition an out of area issue. Article 5 doesn't come into play….and believe me that is treated very differently by member states. As for what to do about the Ukraine the options are very limited…keeping in mind that whatever else Russia is still a major nuclear power. So beyond posturing how far do people want to go with confronting Russia?

The Baltics? A tricky defensive problem for sure. It has easily interdicted supply lines, few natural defensive features, and hardly any tactical depth never mind operational or strategic depth. The only plausible defence is deterrence via the invoking of Article 5. Let's hope it's not tested as the outcome regardless of what it might be will be unpalatable for all NATO countries including the US. Keep in mind that the US was a key political force for accepting the Baltics into NATO – probably because the US never recognized their being annexed by the Soviet Union.

Global policeman? Point for debate…but what isn't in question is that the US has global interests and has for some time. The S&P 500 generate 50% of their revenue from outside the US. The US has been the major advocate of freedom of navigation. Isolationism however attractive it might seem to some isn't a option that can come without a lot of pain.

Tangible benefits of NATO – a common command structure, common doctrine, multi-national exercises, etc. A good example would be US and UK inter-operability despite different kit versus poor inter-operability between the US and some non-NATO allies with US kit.

My take..it's election rhetoric. Candidates won't be knowledgeable on all the nuances. Presumably military and diplomatic staff need to do their job with whomever is elected. Besides I would think the US Senate would have something to say.

Anyway…carry on. :-)

Leghion – I think we can squarely blame the mess Iraq is in on the USA.

I'm not blaming the USA for getting rid of him. I'm blaming them for the total lack of any post-conflict planning.

If a job is worth doing…

Back to the OP. What is the role of NATO today? There are "official" and "unofficial" answers.

The official line: To act as deterrence to a "resurgent" Russia bent on domination of her weak and helpless neighbors and to provide a mechanism for ensuring peace and stability around the world.

The unofficial line: To contain Russia's sphere-of-influence within her own borders (by continuing to push for Georgian and Ukrainian membership) and to further Pax Americana as well as to provide a mechanism by which the US, as the de facto leader of the western "Free World," can get her allies in NATO to help bear the costs and burden of her ill-conceived miltary adventurism abroad.

Legion – I think we can squarely blame the mess Iraq is in on the USA.

I'm not blaming the USA for getting rid of him. I'm blaming them for the total lack of any post-conflict planning.

stu, we know in hindsight it was an error. But the weak, corrupt, factionalized, Iranian supported Iraqi Shia dominated gov't certainly didn't help. And only added to mess.

You are going with, "Success has many fathers, but failure in an orphan." … ?

It's too frakk'd up to blame just the US. But no doubt, there were mistakes made by the US elected leadership during GWII, and certainly afterwards. After new elected leadership was left in charge. It was inevitable …

It was already discussed several times:

TMP link

TMP link

No doubt to be discussed again and again. However, when it comes to the topic of allies I always think Churchill should have the last word…

"there is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them."

Well to roll over and let Russia take over most of Europe.

Yes, Umpapa … The same guys including me … say the same things over and over again. And nothing and no one changes. And So it goes in the virtual world of TMP …

28mm Fanatik has described it in a nutshell. So, next topic?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Turkey's new direction?