NATO during a Trump Presidency: Stay, Pay, or why don't you all just f-f-fade away?

Quote:

---

Begs the question why China isn't demonized in the same manner when it spends about $200bn and projects its influence more than Russia does, with North Korea in its backyard.

---

It is. It is feared and mistrusted from Perth to Abadan.

Hmm, thanks to Sarkolland's policy, France is now part of NATO. Hopefully, France will withdraw for an Alliance where a Commander in Chief doesn't see the problem to use nuclear weapons.
If Trump want other countries to participate, what he really means is he want "allies" to buy very expensive US material.
So I think that it could be good for each nations to take their own defence and pay for it.

i love nato.

which is why i support trump circa Nov16: "collective defense requires trustworthy partners, pay your dues!"

2.0%ftw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This is so the Baltic states and Finland will pay the 2% and not point to the current freeloaders. This is all about NATO expansion. This has national review play all over it.

---

not finland and the baltics; 80% of the population and wealth of continental europe!

poland and the baltics are just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Hmm, thanks to Sarkolland's policy, France is now part of NATO. Hopefully, France will withdraw for an Alliance where a Commander in Chief doesn't see the problem to use nuclear weapons.
If Trump want other countries to participate, what he really means is he want "allies" to buy very expensive US material.
So I think that it could be good for each nations to take their own defence and pay for it.

---

Sure, go back to pretending to to be part of NATO, ready to re-integrate 5 minutes before they start shooting at you.

For France not to be part of NATO is absurd, you have the same geopolitical concerns as the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Sure, go back to pretending to to be part of NATO, ready to re-integrate 5 minutes before they start shooting at you.

For France not to be part of NATO is absurd, you have the same geopolitical concerns as the rest of us.

---

maybe, maybe not. Of a certainty, the French are far less willing to allow the USA a say in their defense policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

Begs the question why China isn't demonized in the same manner when it spends about $200bn and projects its influence more than Russia does, with North Korea in its backyard.

---

Perhaps because Russia demonizes itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Thats why Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) was not invoked for Iraq since it was an offensive war. It was invoked for the only time ever after the 9/11 attacks. Then the alliance went into Afghanistan, where half of the current NATO force is European (other half is American). Call it an offensive war if you want, but within the NATO treaty it is explicitly stated that if Article 5 is called, allies can respond how they want. Which is why some allies sent a token force to Afghanistan and some went as far as sending tanks. Its up to the political will of the government. Which is why Germany didnt contribute to the Libyan air campaign. That being said, if you are under protection of not just Article 5 but also the nuclear umbrella of NATO, some contribution is expected, at the very least in joint readiness exercises and local operations. For example, NATO just launched Operation Sea Guardian to help combat human trafficking in the Aegean and Greece begrudgingly sent a submarine. One would expect an eagerness to contribute to an operation that pertains so much to a local situation but the political will doesnt seem to be there.

---

Yes, and people complained that we didn't go to Iraq to support that failure. We did support the Libyan campaign in terms of there having been German AWACS crews and higher NATO staff involved IIRC. We basically just didn't abandon our allies but did not actively throw bombs. And to make us even worse, we took the bulk of the refugeess that these wars sent to Europe in the end, but I guess that doesn't count, instead we're being called idiots for that, too. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

In the case of Germany it means a 100,000 man army and your tanks in the former Eastern Bloc nations to act as a shield against Russian aggression - not in Germany being mothballed while your soldiers get fat.

In the case of the UK it should probably mean ordering enough Frigates and Destroyers to protect our new CVA's and committing to having a proper air-wing onboard, which means a minimum of 24 jets during peacetime. It should have also meant fitting cats and traps and buying F-18's.

Again, lack of political will.

---

While I somewhat get the UK needing an abaility to leave its island, I don't see what parading around a border would do at this point other than waste money and give Putin more excuses to do what he does. If we had sent tanks upon request by the Ukrainian government to defend their territory, I'd understand that more than useless gestures that merely waste resources and increase the propaganda value on both sides.
The US are an ocean away, it's just their way to show they still care about Europe, but we are still here and included them into the EU, would we do that if we wanted to abandon them?

You're right though that the readiness could be better, I just doubt that anyone would care much.

And since I just mentioned the EU, the UK just decided that it is sick and tired of giving Polish people jobs and paying a tiny amount of money so Poland can be supported financially. And here all the people who supported that wholeheartedly suddenly complain that other countries aren't supporting Poland enough....
One could conclude that you just like military saber rattling and proving some cultural superiority (the "Western Empire"?), but don't really care about the people of Poland...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And since I just mentioned the EU, the UK just decided that it is sick and tired of giving Polish people jobs and paying a tiny amount of money so Poland can be supported financially. And here all the people who supported that wholeheartedly suddenly complain that other countries aren't supporting Poland enough....
One could conclude that you just like military saber rattling and proving some cultural superiority (the "Western Empire"?), but don't really care about the people of Poland...

---

lol, i like poland plenty, including its people whether here or in poland.

that has zilch to do with my vote.

The price of being the dominant player in a wider hegemony is that you have to pay. If the US doesn't want to pay more, then accept a lesser input into the direction of the alliance.

"Sure, go back to pretending to to be part of NATO, ready to re-integrate 5 minutes before they start shooting at you." Before Zarkolland, we were associated to NATO. With an independent Nuclear deterrent.
And no, France and US don't have similar interest. Not always. I had no problem with training with US soldiers and in fact did. No problem to have the same ammunition caliber. I have a problem when all high ranks in the hierarchy are reserved to US. I have problem when it leads to total subordination to US command. I have problem when France is just able to organise a operation like in Mali.
And I have deep problem that when France having refused to participate in an war which was illegitimate and ill prepared, France was insulted by our "allies".
You might have forgotten, I didn't.

I am bit confused. Total combined military expenditure of NATO countries is bit less then 905 billion dollars. Global annual military spending is 1.7 trillion.

NATO is spending more then 1/2 of annual world wide military spending. US spending alone is 595,472 billion $, which leaves Euros, Turkey and Canada spending together 309,441 billion $. In comparison Russia is spending 66,4 billion $ and China 215 billion $

Convince me that there is a real budgetary problem in the military spending of European NATO countries. I am rather thinking there is organisational problem, namely the money not being used at anything useful. Does Europe really need to put additional 50-100 billions to defense in order to deal with Russian armed forces with their 66,4 billion spending and will Canada be kicked off from NATO because of their 1% of GDP spending?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I have a problem when all high ranks in the hierarchy are reserved to US. I have problem when it leads to total subordination to US command.

---

I need to reply to everything said in this thread at some point but for now Ill just respond to this: the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) is always American, the deputy SACEUR has always been British or German. The Secretary-General is always a European, and the chairman of the military committee in NATO is almost always a non-American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

While I somewhat get the UK needing an abaility to leave its island, I don't see what parading around a border would do at this point other than waste money and give Putin more excuses to do what he does. If we had sent tanks upon request by the Ukrainian government to defend their territory, I'd understand that more than useless gestures that merely waste resources and increase the propaganda value on both sides.

The US are an ocean away, it's just their way to show they still care about Europe, but we are still here and included them into the EU, would we do that if we wanted to abandon them?

You're right though that the readiness could be better, I just doubt that anyone would care much.

And since I just mentioned the EU, the UK just decided that it is sick and tired of giving Polish people jobs and paying a tiny amount of money so Poland can be supported financially. And here all the people who supported that wholeheartedly suddenly complain that other countries aren't supporting Poland enough....
One could conclude that you just like military saber rattling and proving some cultural superiority (the "Western Empire"?), but don't really care about the people of Poland...

---

NATO is a military alliance, the EU is a nascent state being erected against the wishes of its people.

Germany's army in particular is an embarrassment, given your industrial capacity, your wealth and your population to have a standing army smaller than the UK is just silly.

As to where your troops should be stationed, the answer is "On NATO's border", during the Cold War that was West Germany, now NATO has moved further east but German troops have not (British troops now are, belatedly.)

Germany has drawn down its forces because it no longer feels threatened by the Warsaw Pact, but it has downsized to the point at which it is not longer an effective force for stopping the Russians, it was 360,000 men-strong in 1990 after unification, it is now 55,000 men-strong.

By contrast the British army was 153,000 men-strong in 1990 and is now 84,760, apparently.

Despite this, your economy is larger than ours:

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/c...jected-gdp.php

We also have to maintain a larger Navy where, realistically, you don't.

To summarise - we aren't pulling our weight in NATO, but you aren't even trying.

It you were to ask me how large the British Army should be I would say probably around 120,000 trained strength, or roughly four combat divisions. The Germany army should probably be 20-25% larger than the British one.

Now, the French army is over 111,000 men which is at least respectable.

By Contract, the Russian army is roughly 400,000 men, including conscripts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

I have a problem when all high ranks in the hierarchy are reserved to US. I have problem when it leads to total subordination to US command. I have problem when France is just able to organise a operation like in Mali.

---

That could also be seen as one of the key features: centralization of the authority to go to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

By Contract, the Russian army is roughly 400,000 men, including conscripts.

---

A wee bit more than that I am afraid.

https://i.imgur.com/F2n53us.jpg

The above numbers are showing numbers of military personnel, not just Army so that's also Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard etc...

Trump's attitude toward NATO is certainly one of the most troubling things about him. I can only hope that the very pro-defense Republican establishment and his military advisers can strongly advise him against any weakening of NATO. Would be nice if our allies contributed more but forward basing etc.. is a lot help already. Glad our wounded in Iraq/Afghanistan didn't have to go all the way to the states for top level medical help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

A wee bit more than that I am afraid.

https://i.imgur.com/F2n53us.jpg

---

As noted, that's all military personnel, but I was pointing out that Germany lacks even a convincing land army.

I would reckon on us beating the Ruskies with them having a 2:1 advantage in numbers of tanks and other hardware and a 3:1 advantage in manpower. The current worry is the large number of modern tanks and Jets they have.

You also need to ask how countries like Britain can spend so much and have so little whilst Russia can spend so little and have so much.

Then you have the fact that we've virtually given up on tank development in the West having all caught "America's Disease" in that regard of trying to upgrade the same vehicles for decades. We have ceased to plan for conventional warfare whilst simultanously not spending enough on the one resource that is hardest to come by - men.

Well the worrying aspect about Russia isnt so much their infantry or even their planes. Its their very strong anti-air systems like the S-400 and the BUK of MH17 fame which can totally negate NATO airpower plus their nuclear weapons. NATO has nukes obviously but they have a lot more. Last figure I remember reading was that of all the nuclear bombs that NATO has, only about ~200 of those are actually in Europe.

Quote:

---

You also need to ask how countries like Britain can spend so much and have so little whilst Russia can spend so little and have so much.

---

Are you kidding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Are you kidding?

---

No.

I might also ask how France can spend less than the UK and have more.

Well in general, the Russian military pays their soldiers waaaaay less than most western armies. Last I recall it was about $6-12,000 USD a year for your average soldier. They also have a massive issue with maintenance, like their only aircraft carrier breaks down a lot. Needs to be accompanied by tugboats constantly because of how often its boilers break down. But at the same time the Russians build their equipment to be hardier than their western counterparts. I recall watching a video which said that Russian fighter jets can take off and land on whats basically dirt airfields while western planes cant otherwise their engines break.

Quote:

---

No.

I might also ask how France can spend less than the UK and have more.

---

By this sort of reasoning, Thatcher should have been marveling at how comparably more powerful Saddam Hussein's military was.


France is one of the most militarily active countries in the world, and has been for decades. Their military budget has been continually growing. By comparison, the UK military is in 'maintenance' mode.

Rather than making arcade assumptions, compare the structures and doctrines (and procurements of the past generation) of the two countries and see what they are in fact spending money on. "War power" is not some generic resource with monotonic relationship to currency units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I am bit confused. Total combined military expenditure of NATO countries is bit less then 905 billion dollars. Global annual military spending is 1.7 trillion.

NATO is spending more then 1/2 of annual world wide military spending. US spending alone is 595,472 billion $, which leaves Euros, Turkey and Canada spending together 309,441 billion $. In comparison Russia is spending 66,4 billion $ and China 215 billion $

Convince me that there is a real budgetary problem in the military spending of European NATO countries. I am rather thinking there is organisational problem, namely the money not being used at anything useful. Does Europe really need to put additional 50-100 billions to defense in order to deal with Russian armed forces with their 66,4 billion spending and will Canada be kicked off from NATO because of their 1% of GDP spending?

---

Interesting point. Maybe the "revamping" is more important than the monies per se. Though a fairer share of the new target figure would probably need to be part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

https://i.imgur.com/F2n53us.jpg

---

Sometimes it is not the figures that are symptomatic of a country's military potential, but the quality of the units. How can you be sure that all Russian tanks are up to the task and not just obsolete buckets of bolts and nuts prone to malfunctioning at the most unappropriate moment - as it was the case with Armata at the parade (https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/...hearsals-46384)?
Russian planes have also crashed a number of times over the last copule of years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tary_accidents

2010 - a MiG-31 crashed in the Perm region, no one was injured.
6 September 2011 - a MiG-31 on a training mission crashed in the Perm region, killing the two pilots. The whole fleet of 370 fighters was grounded while an investigation into the cause was carried out.
13 March 2012 - a new Ka-52 attack helicopter crashed near Torzhok, killing both pilots.
23 May 2012 - a Russian-made An-30 military plane crashed while landing in Caslav, the Czech Republic. 23 were on board at the time, 6 of whom suffered burns, one being left in a critical condition. The plane's front landing gear collapsed as it touched down, causing it to leave the runway and break in two, catching fire. The passengers were made up of 14 Russians and 9 Czechs, all on an Open Sky treaty mission, for conducting surveillance flights over the territory of participant nations (NATO members, Russia and other countries).
29 October 2013 - a Ka-52 helicopter crashed in the south-east of Moscow. Both pilots ejected safely.
11 February 2014 - a Su-24 bomber crashed in Volgogradskaja oblast', just after take-off. Both pilots died. Pilot or mechanical error are suspected.
4 June 2015 - a MiG-29 fighter crashed and was completely destroyed in the Astrakhan oblast'. Both pilots parachuted to safety.
4 June 2015 - the same day an unarmed Su-34 bomber in Voronezh oblast' overshot the runway when its parachute failed to open on landing. It overturned, severely damaging the plane.
8 June 2015 - a Tu-95s ran off a runway at the Ukrainka bomber base and caught fire during take-off in the far eastern Amur region. As a result, one crew member was killed and another badly burned.
5 July 2015 - a MiG-29 crashed near Krasnodarsk reportedly due to a fire onboard. The pilot ejected and survived.
6 July 2015 - a Sukhoi Su-24M "Fencer" frontal strike-bomber crashed in the Khabarovskiy region soon after takeoff. Both pilots died.
14 July 2015 - a Tupolev Tu-95MS Bear strategic bomber crashed during a training flight 80km from Khabarovsk, killing two of seven pilots.
9 June 2016 - a Sukhoi SU-27 fighter plane crashed 30km from Moscow. The pilot died. All flights were SU-27s were suspended following the crash.

Note the upward tendency of crashes.

As for the navy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

They also have a massive issue with maintenance, like their only aircraft carrier breaks down a lot. Needs to be accompanied by tugboats constantly because of how often its boilers break down.

---

I think you have seen pictures of "Admiral Kuznetsov" passing through the English channel (and farther into the Mediterranean) belching forth black smokes. They say it happens either when the engines are started after a long shutdown (and it lasts as long as it takes for the engines to warm up) or when the engines have serious problems.

So simple mathematics may not paint an objective picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

By this sort of reasoning, Thatcher should have been marveling at how comparably more powerful Saddam Hussein's military was.


France is one of the most militarily active countries in the world, and has been for decades. Their military budget has been continually growing. By comparison, the UK military is in 'maintenance' mode.

Rather than making arcade assumptions, compare the structures and doctrines (and procurements of the past generation) of the two countries and see what they are in fact spending money on. "War power" is not some generic resource with monotonic relationship to currency units.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

Wee spend significantly more than France, but they have more full-time soldiers, a working Aircraft Carrier, more tanks, more jets etc. etc.

I was asking a rhetorical question.

We all know why the British military is a shitshow - we waste huge amounts of money on pointless projects - like huge aircraft carriers that will only carry 12 jump jet, despite being big enough to launch Super Hornets.

I'm pro-NATO, and as far as my own country is concerned I think we should meet the 2% goal.

I don't buy that Trump intended his statements to be a mere bargaining tactic, though, even though it could very well end up being put to that use. He has said and done countless of stupid things, often with no conceivable benefit, so I think it's probably just a case of him pandering to those who think that the USA is doing too much for the world and everybody else is ungrateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

maybe, maybe not. Of a certainty, the French are far less willing to allow the USA a say in their defense policies.

---

To be fair, they're also less willing than others to be dependent on the USA.

He has said many things that appear to garner him different groups of votes, in some cases at the risk of alienating voters who were unlikely to vote for him anyway - an utterly no holds barred, "post-truth" win at all costs with no baggage of principles. Stupid? No. Sociopathic? Yes.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

He has said many things that appear to garner him different groups of votes, in some cases at the risk of alienating voters who were unlikely to vote for him anyway - an utterly no holds barred, "post-truth" win at all costs with no baggage of principles. Stupid? No. Sociopathic? Yes.

~:smoking:

---

Saying things during the election campaign (aka promising) and implementing those things after one has been elected are often two different things. I heard that Trump's site has removed his promises not to let muslims in. Perhaps the same is in store for his other outrageous promises (for the example, the Wall financed by Mexicans). Hopefully, his surrounding and Congress won't allow him move beyond ordinary Republican agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Saying things during the election campaign (aka promising) and implementing those things after one has been elected are often two different things. I heard that Trump's site has removed his promises not to let muslims in. Perhaps the same is in store for his other outrageous promises (for the example, the Wall financed by Mexicans). Hopefully, his surrounding and Congress won't allow him move beyond ordinary Republican agenda.

---

Our system will not let him use religion as a reason for additional screening prior to coming here. He will probably be able to get additional screening for those arriving from or connected to areas of concern internationally -- but that is about it.