"What Is NATO Good For?" Topic

"What is NATO good for? This is a question that gets asked a lot these days, and there is an increasing tendency among many to mimic 1960s rocker Edwin Starr and shout, "Nothing!" Indeed, the run-up to the alliance's 70th anniversary was accompanied by an outpouring of doubts about NATO's future and usefulness. At War on the Rocks, the alliance was said to be both endangering American lives and overflowing with strategic liabilities as a result of expansion.[1] The Wall Street Journal asserted that the alliance was effectively deceased.[2] Writing in The National Review, Douglas MacGregor found "dead" insufficient, instead declaring NATO to be a zombie, while Gil Barndollar merely called for the alliance to retire at 70.[3] MIT's Barry Posen beat everyone to the punch with his OpEd in The New York Times in March calling for a major reassessment of America's role in the alliance…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Despite the somewhat clickbaity title, that actually looks like a very good read … and a very "long" read, which I'm not really up to atm as it's 3am and I can't sleep.

Bookmarked for tomorrow. Thanks, Armand :)

A votre service mon cher ami!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I have always heard the answer that as long as "we are talking we are not shooting?"
It does seem though that we have not stopped the shooting with all the talking ?

Russ Dunaway

Personally I think NATOs biggest contribution in last two decades is allowing the virtual disarmament of many European states in favour of using the US as a defence guarantee.

Most NATO states (even ex-Warsaw Pact ones) were far more capable in the 1980s than they are now.

The average Eastern European airforce has 14 combat jets and 30-ish MBTs, not all of which are operational.

The Western European forces are also extremely truncated. Eg Belgium acquired 160 F-16s but is now down to under 60 which will be replaced by a mere 34 F-35s. The German military is in dire state with procurement and staff recruitment and retention woes, massive shortages in key equipment and a lot of existing equipment simply no longer serviceable.

Even the Poles have dropped the ball – instead of 70 transport/multipurpose helos and dozens of attack helos, they are buying 8 helicopters (4 maritime and 4 for special forces)! Their navy is mostly ready for the scrap yard with most programs for replacement curtailed or in limbo. Army procurement is proceeding at glacial speeds.

Not on the same scale but New Zealand defaulted to Australian protection and now no longer even bothers to field ANY RNZAF fighter planes. I think the US should reassess it's alliance with my country, Australia, unless we pull our weight more and I think Australia should reassess its alliance with New Zealand unless they do likewise..

I believe NATO itself is passed its prime. The alliance now is so big that I seriously doubt many countries will live up to its promises.

If push comes to shove I do not think all members will help out. It was much easier in the -70s, -80s and -90s with the "Red Menace" but now? I doubt many countries will act if another country is under attack, why would Spain go to war if Estonia is attacked? Would Greece act if Norway is attacked?

When it comes to equipment, it has become very expensive. What could buy you a fighter 25 ys ago will hardly get you a fighter today. Coupling this with a long period of peace and many other areas needing money I fully understand why countries decide to skip on buying military hardware.

Take Belgium and the Netherlands for example. With the risk of their country being invaded as virtually zero why should they have a large military? During the Cold War there was a serious threat but today there is no threat. So they skip on upgrading their military. This might also reflect on their willingness to help others. If they hardly can defend their own territory how can they help others?

Note, I do not say those countries are worse than others, I just use them as an example. Almost all European countries think this way.

Yep, they'd probably be lucky to have 50% serviceable, and probably more realistically, 33% or less available for combat ops.