"Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania & NATO's Eastern Flank" Topic

Nine lbs. +1

Here's a snapshot from 2017:

Good link for your purposes. Military operations were winding down across the board in 2017, but it backs up your view that NATO (and I suppose the other Allied forces) were only there in token numbers.

Why not look at a time when there was maximum Allied participation, such as 2009? 1,500+ Australian troops were in Afghanistan, then, including my old battalion (Australia is not a NATO member). Some other numbers, after a quick search:

More than 150,000 German troops served in Afghanistan between the beginning of 2002 and their final withdrawal.

At the peak of the campaign in Helmand alone, there were 137 UK bases and about 9,500 UK troops were stationed there.

Sweden was in Afghanistan since 2002 and had 900 soldiers there (February 2012). (Sweden was not then a NATO member.)

Since 2002 the number of ground forces committed by the Danish army has been steadily increased from 50 to 750 soldiers and support staff.

France deployed over 4,000 personnel including the Marine Nationale (one CVBG, comprising the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, frigates La Motte-Picquet, Jean de Vienne and Jean Bart, the nuclear attack submarine Rubis, the tanker Meuse and the aviso Commandant Ducuing) and 3,200 ground troops to Afghanistan.

Georgia deployed 174 troops to Afghanistan, and deployed 1,900 peacekeepers in 2010 for peacekeeping and counter-terrorism operations.

You can look up the numbers here, should you want to: link

Sometimes the US returning to isolationist polices doesn't look too bad to non-Americans, either, even with the threats of the PRC and Russia.

Sometimes the US returning to isolationist polices doesn't look too bad to non-Americans, either, even with the threats of the PRC and Russia.

Until some of the non-Americans Nations may need help … yes ? But again, highly unlikely the US will become isolationists. And will still stay in NATO.

I did. Looking at the NATO ISAF page from 2009, about half the troops were American. Deduct those, and the 8,300 British troops; that leaves about a division plus a slice; and it took forty-one countries to generate that.

The picture changes, but the story doesn't.

Until some of the non-Americans Nations may need help … yes ?

Like we did in Rwanda, West Morooco, Timor? Legion, most people prefer to have the US in the pre-eminent place it holds today. But when Americans start pissing on the efforts of their allies then don't be surprised when you start being resented.

Looking at the NATO ISAF page from 2009, about half the troops were American……The picture changes, but the story doesn't.

Your story never will, 9PR. It was the US' war, commanded by the US and a strategy (of a sort) developed by the US. Yet 41 nations, many not bound to the US by any treaties, turned up to help. What proportion do you think those nations should have contributed? 60%? 75%? 95%?

100%?

The US is the third most populous nation in the world, with a population four times larger than Germany's- the next most populous NATO nation. I think that their effort wasn't too bad, based on populations. Some could have done more, but perhaps they didn't like being called "cheese eating surrender monkeys" or the "coalition of the billing", especially those who haven't "billed" the US at all.

It's not going to change, because it's based on a hard, uncomfortable fact: even in 2009, the NATO nations were punching below their weight class. At that point, NATO was allegedly committed to being able to project a corps-sized formation for contingencies, but was hard-pressed to generate even a division. Over the past two decades, that capability has probably eroded further, as national militaries in Western Europe have continued to shrink.

And yes, while Afghanistan was the "US war," it was also a war that flowed in one way or another from our efforts to win the Cold War. Those were certainly justified, but I remain much more skeptical of subsequent engagements- and wary of the hostility and problems that flow from them. Too often this war or that is sold as a "moral imperative," when in fact, we're picking one side or another for largely irrelevant political reasons that don't matter very much to the average American. We simply don't have that much of an inherent interest in the Balkans or Timor or Rwanda: the nations whose interests are involved ought to be the ones who intervene- but not us. I don't at a great deal of store by the idea of the US being "preeminent" in the sense you seem to mean. I don't want my country to necessarily be an empire or a great power: I want it to be free, strong, secure and peaceful, and I don't think constant intervention overseas is a route to that.

Like we did in Rwanda, West Morooco, Timor? Legion, most people prefer to have the US in the pre-eminent place it holds today. But when Americans start pissing on the efforts of their allies then don't be surprised when you start being resented.

Well with new US leadership some of that may change ? But in some cases, it is just not in the USA's interests, etc. to get involved, etc. Nine Pound Round's post above covers this pretty well.

Nine Pound Round +1

Thanks for explaining, 9PR. I was misunderstanding your viewpoint to a certain extent. As for "pre-eminent position", what I meant is that the US is in a position of strength that can challenge other countries' attempts to dominate other nations, either by damaging their neighbours' economies or- as Russia has done and various dictatorships threaten to do- by overt and covert military action.

As for self interest, all nations act in their own interest- or at least what the current party that is in power sees as as "national" (usually = personal) interest. If they don't coincide with an ally's interest then that's not betrayal by that ally, it's a matter for diplomatic discussion. As for NATO (and other treaty and bilateral agreements), they got used to being able to take advantage of the US' national interest, so spent more money on votes than forces. That suited a lot of big US corporations, too. MacDonalds isn't found throughout Europe and Oceania because of the quality of their food, for example.

The US wasn't alone in the Cold War. It wasn't even present at all the proxy wars that were fought as part of the Cold War. But it did shoulder the biggest individual burden.

Too often this war or that is sold as a "moral imperative," when in fact, we're picking one side or another for largely irrelevant political reasons that don't matter very much to the average American.

Well with new US leadership some of that may change?

The US political leadership isn't the only one where that sort of decision is made. I fear it's the norm in modern democracies. Decisions are made based on personal or party interests, and spin applied by the truckload to dress it up as being in the best interest of the nation.

Terry Pratchett had the right idea. As soon as someone is elected then put them in gaol, because if they haven't already done anything illegal or unethical, now they've been elected they will. Parliament/Congress/whatever could meet in the exercise yard.

We will have to see if new US leadership will fix the many poor decisions being made currently.

Yeah, we'll see. I'm not super hopeful; right now, the thing that gives me the most hope is the state of the Russian military, which has repeatedly underperformed, at times catastrophically. Even if they eke out a victory in Ukraine, will their army be in any condition to take on another serious fight in the short term? It's a possibility, I suppose, but I suspect it will buy NATO some time to rearm.

Yes, the Russian Military has proven to be marginal at best. And they have taken many, many losses with little gains.

It may buy NATO some time … but NATO and the US better get their together. It is great to spend $ on social welfare programs, entitlements, free this & free that, etc., etc. But the priority should be having a very strong military. As protecting the border and citizens of that country should come first.

Analysis: Russia Secretly Trains 120,000 Soldiers for New Offensive Operations in Ukraine Myth or Reality ?

link

Armand

Today Sweden government formally decided to send a MBT reinforced mech inf bat to the Baltic states. Since Sweden is now a member of NATO, Sweden believes it is their duty to deploy troops. There have been a question about what new members bring to the alliance. This batallion Hopefully shows Sweden puts their money where the mouth is.

Under the circumstances, a symbolic commitment.

After Finns and Sweden are joined and the Baltics Sea becomes NATO's internal sea, the Baltic States are no more vulnerability but strong leading positions that guarantee the relative safety of sea traffic.

Potentially a strong situation, but only if the forces are in place to control it. The key to a stronger alliance is a stronger force structure. My concern has always been that commitments have outpaced the force structure that's needed to give them reality.