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

In light of the following campaign comments made by president-elect Trump -- and these were made after several weeks of thought following the initial NATO comments -- what do you see as the likely changes in the NATO relationship and why?



It was on March 23, during an interview with Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, that Trump, when asked, said he would “certainly look at” getting rid of NATO because it “may be obsolete” (16:12 in the video).

Quote:

---

Halperin, March 23: Should America be the leader of NATO or not necessarily?

Trump: I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was set up a long time ago — many, many years ago when things were different. Things are different now. We were a rich nation then. We had nothing but money. We had nothing but power. And you know, far more than we have today, in a true sense. And I think NATO — you have to really examine NATO. And it doesn’t really help us, it’s helping other countries. And I don’t think those other countries appreciate what we’re doing.

Heilemann: So, just to be clear, you made two slightly different arguments there and I just want to clarify. One of them is that you might want to see the U.S. pay less money into NATO because …

Trump: That one definitely. That one definitely.

Heilemann: But it’s possible that NATO is obsolete and should be gotten rid of?

Trump: It’s possible. It’s possible. I would certainly look at it. And I’d want more help from other people. The one thing definitely — we’re paying too much. As to whether or not it’s obsolete, I’ll make that determination.

---

I know Fragony's BBF Junker is rubbing his hands with glee now Trump has given him the mandate and Europeans the potential appetite for the European Army and Superstate if he enacts half of what he is suggesting, and the potential consequences of these actions.

On another note, it is no secret that NATO is the covert-name of American hegemony over Europe. By pulling back on it, America is no longer in control of it. So it depends on the foreign policy you want enact. American hegemony over Europe, or a stronger more independent Europe.

This is similar to other parts of the world, such as SATO could lead to the constitutional change for the re-armament of Japan, and escalate tensions with North Korea. This is very evident especially when he suggested just to give the Nuke to South Korea and Japan.

Trump administration also has the potential of giving Russia greater free reign in foreign affairs, leading to greater loss of American hegemony, and the fall of the American Empire. The Fall of this Empire will be more accelerated and China may even play a greater role in foreign affairs, expanding their influence even more aggressively than what they are currently doing.

So it boils down to this, What will Trump actually do in office compared to what he said he will do? Smartest thing would be for him to backtrack on almost every remark he made, and actually end up as a half-decent president, especially considering he has both the houses.

To be honest, this is one of the major areas where a Trump presidency concerns me (that and nuclear proliferation). NATO has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy for almost 70 years, no matter who is in office. To think it will be upended by Trump is rather disconcerting. Putin obviously sees this and will probably act accordingly. But the erratic nature of Trump (at least in the election) make it so its hard to tell what he will do. Perhaps he will be a steady supporter of NATO now that hes in office and that hes not the friend of the Kremlin that some in Russia hoped. I really do not know. I just saw his 100-day plan he released, and so far no mention of backing out of NATO. And I dont think he will get rid of NATO, which would require an act of congress anyways, but I can see him using it as a bargaining chip.

He wants you lot to pay a higher share of the freight, I believe, but not to trash the whole thing.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

He wants you lot to pay a higher share of the freight, I believe, but not to trash the whole thing.

---

This is a misnomer unless he is suggesting downsizing the American military. You would still be paying out the money, but your troops would be located elsewhere. Elsewhere would also mean a lot less say in how things are done in Europe, and also greater European militaries as a result of paying 'more into the share' will mean the USA has a lot less influence on NATO. At the moment, NATO is effectively the USA controlled, so getting the rest to pay more, means they will remove this control. As you yanks put it "No taxation without representation".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

He wants you lot to pay a higher share of the freight, I believe, but not to trash the whole thing.

---

Thats true, but higher defense spending is a) not feasible for all allies due to smaller economies and b) large defense budgets doesnt always mean more participation. Look at Greece, they spend well over the 2% defense spending goal and yet they do basically nothing in the alliance. Then you look at Denmark who spends around 1% on defense spending yet are very active in the alliance, in the Libyan campaign they dropped one fifth of all ordnance dropped by the alliance. So just meeting the defense spending goal does not mean they are actually contributing to the alliance.

And I should mention that Estonia pays over the 2%, the other two Baltics are around 1.5%. So not so far off.

Finland isn't in NATO, but it certainly contributes more than many members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

100-day plan

---

A few of those are surprisingly good. But he still has the dumb stuff like building a wall and make Mexico pay for it, within it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

A few of those are surprisingly good. But he still has the dumb stuff like building a wall and make Mexico pay for it, within it.

---

Not to mention the whole "for everyone one new regulation, remove two existing ones." Like how would that even work? But thats off topic.

Good, Trump is the only one to open a dialogue about what actual de-escalation with Russia would involve. He already eluded to:

1) Stop treating it like an ideological war, it's not
2) No double-dealing in counterterrorism, put them all down
3) Rein in NATO, you have a new partner and they will reap what you have sowed with your failures

What worries me the most is his neocon cabinet, which are not exactly consistent with his own views.

Because previous attempts to reset relations have gone so swimmingly. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Because previous attempts to reset relations have gone so swimmingly. :dizzy2:

---

Maybe those three things above your post that distinguish him from all his predecessors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Because previous attempts to reset relations have gone so swimmingly. :dizzy2:

---

Obama was rather successful with Dmitry Medvedev... then Putin returned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

Maybe those three things above your post that distinguish him from all his predecessors?

---

I dont think you have been paying much attention. Post 9/11, the counter-terrorism bonds between the US and Russia were strengthened by intelligence sharing mainly. Obama cut down on NATO presence in Europe due to the sequester, even cancelled a missile defense shield plan in Central Europe that Russia opposed. I think you see it as NATO being the primary aggressor. I think its more about Putin keeping power through an "us versus them" mentality in Russia by constantly ensuring that the populace is mobilized against foreign threats, real or imagined. With the economy in Russia tanking (GDP growth in 2015 was -3.727%) Putin needs a distraction. He needed it in 1999 with the Second Chechen War, he needed it in 2008 with the war in Georgia, he needed it in 2014 with Ukraine, and when Ukraine wasnt going so hot he needed it in 2015 with his show of force in Syria. Dude just wants to keep power, thats why hes been castrating so many human rights groups by labeling them as foreign agents. Last month they labeled Memorial as a foreign agent, a group set up in 1989 to commemorate the victims of Stalinist terror. Dont get me wrong, there is blame to be had on both sides in this issue, but those who think that the Russians dont have a good amount of the blame are naive.

Complete withdrawl from NATO seems contrary to American interests.
Loss of influence in Europe, and the abandonment of "containment" on Russia.
Essentially two linchpins of American strategy since the end of WWII. The radical pivot in strategy would be a huge gamble. The savings might be nice, if they materialize; would Congress actually redirect money from the military?; demobilize or redeploy that part of the Armed Forces? These questions don't even touch on the European reaction.

Let's be honest here - Germany doesn't spend enough on NATO, and I read a few years back that about 25% of the Heer are too fat to pass a basic fitness test.

I don't know if that's still true but the current German Army is around 55,000 men where it should probably be double that - even the British Army is around 85,000 men.

Aside from that, it's actually sensible to point out that the original motivation for creating and maintaining NATO (constant threat of expansion from the USSR) is no longer present. So re-evaluating the purpose and necessity of NATO is reasonable. It should also be pointed out that NATO would still be dominated by the US even if other countries pulled their weight (nobody does).

Now, on the other side of that you have to consider that Trump will now be "Read In" to everything American Intelligence knows, and that may well modify his opinion of Russia.

Also dont forget that just last year, half of the German air force was not operational. The European allies definitely need to spend more/better on defense, no doubt about it. But threatening the very essence of the alliance is not the way to do it.

There was a time when reforming NATO to include Russian interests was possible, and that was in the 90's after the USSR fell. But that time is long gone, as we have seen with Georgia, Ukraine, and the numerous provocations in the Baltics. When the Kremlin states that Russia will use force to protect Russians abroad, can we blame the Baltics, who have large Russian minorities, for being terrified? They saw Western inaction on Ukraine when Russia seized Crimea. If there isnt weight behind NATO, what is stopping a repeat from occurring in the Baltics?

What does contributing to NATO mean exactly?

I have a feeling that many here think it is and should be a defensive alliance and everything will be fine.
If the idea is to make countries spend more to be of more help in offensive wars started by the US, then quite a few people here might think about voluntarily leaving NATO, some actually already do.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What does contributing to NATO mean exactly?

I have a feeling that many here think it is and should be a defensive alliance and everything will be fine.
If the idea is to make countries spend more to be of more help in offensive wars started by the US, then quite a few people here might think about voluntarily leaving NATO, some actually already do.

---

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.

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.

---

To be fair Greece doesn't have enough in the bank to be able to rub two Drachma together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

To be fair Greece doesn't have enough in the bank to be able to rub two Drachma together.

---

This is true, which means that major reform is needed to cut it down. The Greek military is actually rather large, but doesnt seem to do much due to the financial crisis. Still, it brings a good amount of resentment from other allies because of it.

I doubt that anything other than that submarine works in the Greek Navy. Budget is high, because nationalists (that is the majority of the voters) will get a heart attack if conscription is cancelled or if we don't get the newest toys and because every Minister of Defense sees it as his duty to get bribed. We even imprisoned one, which is a record for Greece, no other politician has been imprisoned in recent memory.

Then I don't think that we are the most loyal NATO members. Orthodox solidarity is strong in our Medieval mindset and literally everyone, even the generals, will literally desert, if they have to fight with Russia. Our last interaction with NATO was during Kosovo war, when local officials vandalized road signals, successfully managing to direct the NATO mechanized divisions not to the Greek-Macedonian border, but to the Thessaloniki bazaar instead.

There is an interesting TV show called Occupied which deals with an EU energy crisis after a US withdrawal from NATO. A green party moves into power in Norway and stops all petroleum production. Russia moves in with EU blessing and invades Norway.
I guess some US officials saw that show - and has requested to station a 330 man US marine force in Norway (considered a strike force). As of October this year, the ruling government has said yes to this request. Additionally the US has upgraded their military storage here considerably the last few years. Some concerns considering the unwillingness to leave such "bases" (Guantanamo/Subic Bay) even if asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Perhaps he will be a steady supporter of NATO now that hes in office and that hes not the friend of the Kremlin that some in Russia hoped.

---

They still do:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7406866.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

They still do:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7406866.html

---

Well, his erratic nature might give them more reason to sweat than they might think now. We simply cannot know how Trump will actually govern. He might enter negotiations with Russia to iron things out but once things dont go completely his way will he stay the course? Who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I dont think you have been paying much attention. Post 9/11, the counter-terrorism bonds between the US and Russia were strengthened by intelligence sharing mainly. Obama cut down on NATO presence in Europe due to the sequester, even cancelled a missile defense shield plan in Central Europe that Russia opposed. I think you see it as NATO being the primary aggressor. I think its more about Putin keeping power through an "us versus them" mentality in Russia by constantly ensuring that the populace is mobilized against foreign threats, real or imagined. With the economy in Russia tanking (GDP growth in 2015 was -3.727%) Putin needs a distraction. He needed it in 1999 with the Second Chechen War, he needed it in 2008 with the war in Georgia, he needed it in 2014 with Ukraine, and when Ukraine wasnt going so hot he needed it in 2015 with his show of force in Syria. Dude just wants to keep power, thats why hes been castrating so many human rights groups by labeling them as foreign agents. Last month they labeled Memorial as a foreign agent, a group set up in 1989 to commemorate the victims of Stalinist terror. Dont get me wrong, there is blame to be had on both sides in this issue, but those who think that the Russians dont have a good amount of the blame are naive.

---

No it’s more that the US is overcommitting. Even if they pull back in some areas, Russia only spends about $65bn as opposed to the US’s $600bn. Russia cannot match the US in DoD contracts or even obtain the alliances the US has currently. With the economy in the US not even tanking, there is still an “us vs them” mentality that dictates its policies overseas. Nobody is neglecting Russia’s shadiness but the US has demonstrated imperial overstretch and failure as a world power time and time again. Naturally it’s the active world power that is subjected to most of the blame. Even with minor concessions these linchpins of American strategy pointed out are safe.

That can't change unless America declines to project beyond its coast.

That has never been an option in American strategy, not even during the 1760s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Also dont forget that just last year, half of the German air force was not operational. The European allies definitely need to spend more/better on defense, no doubt about it. But threatening the very essence of the alliance is not the way to do it.

---

Trump is a deal maker. He wants the European partners in NATO to pull a bigger share of the load and to reorganize things to make the NATO force structure and the like more of a fit with it's post USSR mission. So he starts out with an extreme position -- we may have to scrap it -- in order to get your attention and get you moving on negotiation -- it's called anchoring.

And would anything less truly motivate the NATO/EU members to get off the dime and actually make changes? It is not at though the USA hasn't wanted some changes on these issues for, oh, about half of my life as an adult....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

That can't change unless America declines to project beyond its coast.

That has never been an option in American strategy, not even during the 1760s.

---

You don't need to spend $600bn to project beyond the coast. 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.

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.

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.

---

Like the Euro-Leave campaign repudiated its more concrete promises on the day of the result, but then made new demands of the government since. The much reviled New Labour had a timetable to implement many of its manifesto promises in the first 100 days of office, with the rot only coming in once they'd run out of promises to keep, and tried to look for new ones.

On a tangent, today I had the opportunity to meet and speak with retired General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. He's a pretty cool guy. Okay sorry back to the topic at hand, I just wanted to brag a bit. :grin3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

---

If you can't directly base it on religion, you can surely add weight to enough related facets that put them into some "high risk" category which requires extensive vetting.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

On a tangent, today I had the opportunity to meet and speak with retired General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO. He's a pretty cool guy. Okay sorry back to the topic at hand, I just wanted to brag a bit. :grin3:

---

Tautology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Like the Euro-Leave campaign repudiated its more concrete promises on the day of the result, but then made new demands of the government since. The much reviled New Labour had a timetable to implement many of its manifesto promises in the first 100 days of office, with the rot only coming in once they'd run out of promises to keep, and tried to look for new ones.

---

And a curious fact: most polls in both cases (I mean US elections and Brexit) predicted just the opposite of what happened later. Do we still need sociology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And a curious fact: most polls in both cases (I mean US elections and Brexit) predicted just the opposite of what happened later. Do we still need sociology?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes.

---

Even if it is not able to deliver what it is paid for?

Let's say you ordered a weather forecast for the next week since you are going to do some building work outside. They said it would be sunny, so you accepted the deadline of a week and started construction. In two days there came a storm which scattered all the stuff you needed for building about the construction site, ruined what you had already built and prevented you from meeting the deadline. Would you not say that meteorologists took money and didn't cope with the task?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

And a curious fact: most polls in both cases (I mean US elections and Brexit) predicted just the opposite of what happened later. Do we still need sociology?

---

Shy Tories are a known polling tendency. Even in 1997, with the Tories having been in freefall for years and with Labour having a massive polling lead, Blair and co prepared for the polls to drastically understate the Tory position. In the event, the polls only slightly understated the Tory position, but was more than balanced out by tactical voting. And that's as good as Labour's got in my lifetime. Anyone who is prepared to work from evidence rather than impose their dreams on reality will start by assuming that polls will understate the position of the right. Look at what the polls say, and assume that the right's position will be slightly to somewhat better than stated. Just how much better will depend on the figures for key issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Even if it is not able to deliver what it is paid for?

Let's say you ordered a weather forecast for the next week since you are going to do some building work outside. They said it would be sunny, so you accepted the deadline of a week and started construction. In two days there came a storm which scattered all the stuff you needed for building about the construction site, ruined what you had already built and prevented you from meeting the deadline. Would you not say that meteorologists took money and didn't cope with the task?

---

You seem to have a very weird view on science.
Can you show me the weather service that guarantees a result and/or makes a special weather report just for you on request?
What are the results "it" is being paid for and why do you think "it" did not fulfill what "it" was/is paid for?
You sound like sociology around the world was a project with one specific goal and a deadline after which sociology should have been "complete" and shut down. If you took that same approach with physics for example, you might have stopped with the "discovery" of Newtonian physics and shut the whole field down. Or you could complain that he was useless and overpaid because he didn't discover the theory of relativity. :dizzy2:

Better to point out that calling polling services "sociology" is like calling members of Parliament "political scientists". You've got some things confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Better to point out that calling polling services "sociology" is like calling members of Parliament "political scientists". You've got some things confused.

---

Absolutely, forgot to mention that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

---

Apparently the land component US Army Europe has at its use is 2nd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Stryker´s at Germany, 173rd Airborne Brigade at Italy and US Army NATO Brigade with one infantry Battalion at Netherlands and second one at Southern Italy. So basically three Brigade sized formations, so i dont think that is a huge portion of the US military budget.

The problem with most if not all Western militaries is that they all lack boots on the ground. After the cold war most of European conscripted armies were replaced with small professional ones, with emphasis towards light troops. Some countries have a small reserve force, but maybe a solution would be to start training a larger reserve from volunteers and stockpile equipment for those reserves as well? Even more important would be to reserve enough munitions to the current troops, which seem to be seriously lacking in every field, which was shown for example when US had to supply ammunition to European air components during the bombing campaign at Libya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Apparently the land component US Army Europe has at its use is 2nd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Stryker´s at Germany, 173rd Airborne Brigade at Italy and US Army NATO Brigade with one infantry Battalion at Netherlands and second one at Southern Italy. So basically three Brigade sized formations, so i dont think that is a huge portion of the US military budget.

The problem with most if not all Western militaries is that they all lack boots on the ground. After the cold war most of European conscripted armies were replaced with small professional ones, with emphasis towards light troops. Some countries have a small reserve force, but maybe a solution would be to start training a larger reserve from volunteers and stockpile equipment for those reserves as well? Even more important would be to reserve enough munitions to the current troops, which seem to be seriously lacking in every field, which was shown for example when US had to supply ammunition to European air components during the bombing campaign at Libya.

---

If a Labour government is elected, the UK can supply the rest of Europe, as Corbyn favours keeping a military for the job creation purposes, but without equipping it with nasty people-killing ammunition. Our subs can be used to ram enemy vessels, while our missiles can be given to someone else who will actually have the will to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You seem to have a very weird view on science.
Can you show me the weather service that guarantees a result and/or makes a special weather report just for you on request?
What are the results "it" is being paid for and why do you think "it" did not fulfill what "it" was/is paid for?
You sound like sociology around the world was a project with one specific goal and a deadline after which sociology should have been "complete" and shut down. If you took that same approach with physics for example, you might have stopped with the "discovery" of Newtonian physics and shut the whole field down. Or you could complain that he was useless and overpaid because he didn't discover the theory of relativity. :dizzy2:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Better to point out that calling polling services "sociology" is like calling members of Parliament "political scientists". You've got some things confused.

---

I didn't make myself clear, so I apologize. Of course, I didn't mean the whole science, I meant polling services. Yet they ARE a part of sociology, aren't they? They are applied sociology, same as being an MP you are involved into practical application of political science.

Yet it doesn't cancel what I said - doing a crappy job for (I assume) substantial payment. And no punishment? I wonder if one can demand his money back. Especially if one incurred some financial damage.

For example: I was in doubt whether to invest into some British-EU project and wanted to be sure Britain stays in the EU. I ordered a survey the result of which said it would. I invest money and then pop goes Brexit. My investment goes down the drain. Could I sue the services that conducted the survey? If not, it seems like they may not bother to leave their office, just invent the figures and take the payment.

Quote:

---

They are applied sociology, same as being an MP you are involved into practical application of political science.

---

Generally, politicians do not perform in some way following their studies of their profession, or else you might as well call generals historians and landscapers engineers. They could (and often do) study these things, but they are independent; a politician is a politician by virtue of their employment, not by virtue of their readings or their formal education. A member of a profession need not act upon any academic substance to carry out their job, but their job easily lends itself to academic substance.

Notice, for instance, that translation and language teaching are relevant to the field of applied linguistics, but it would be trivial to call a translator or a language teacher an "applied linguist". Translators and language teachers can be applied linguists pursuant to their careers, but their careers do not entail it.

Quote:

---

For example: I was in doubt whether to invest into some British-EU project and wanted to be sure Britain stays in the EU. I ordered a survey the result of which said it would. I invest money and then pop goes Brexit. My investment goes down the drain. Could I sue the services that conducted the survey? If not, it seems like they may not bother to leave their office, just invent the figures and take the payment.

---

That's "risk". A king who would execute all his advisers because they are not soothsayers would be considered by all a foolish tyrant, and here it is no different.

The questions of how to poll effectively and how to interpret the data in an actionable way obviously have many interpretations among differing organizations and theorists, but the fact remains that polling in all forms has been for many years considered indispensable to assessment and decision-making, not because it offers deterministic solutions but because it offers useful insights toward careful questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Generally, politicians do not perform in some way following their studies of their profession, or else you might as well call generals historians and landscapers engineers. They could (and often do) study these things, but they are independent; a politician is a politician by virtue of their employment, not by virtue of their readings or their formal education. A member of a profession need not act upon any academic substance to carry out their job, but their job easily lends itself to academic substance.

Notice, for instance, that translation and language teaching are relevant to the field of applied linguistics, but it would be trivial to call a translator or a language teacher an "applied linguist". Translators and language teachers can be applied linguists pursuant to their careers, but their careers do not entail it.



That's "risk". A king who would execute all his advisers because they are not soothsayers would be considered by all a foolish tyrant, and here it is no different.

The questions of how to poll effectively and how to interpret the data in an actionable way obviously have many interpretations among differing organizations and theorists, but the fact remains that polling in all forms has been for many years considered indispensable to assessment and decision-making, not because it offers deterministic solutions but because it offers useful insights toward careful questions.

---

Politicians in a western liberal democracy are lawyers.

Quote:

---

Politicians in a western liberal democracy are lawyers.

---

Law is a popular field of study for aspiring politicians, but they shouldn't be conflated. At any rate, given the popularity of "lifelong politicians" in America at least, a minority of our legislators have backgrounds in law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Law is a popular field of study for aspiring politicians, but they shouldn't be conflated. At any rate, given the popularity of "lifelong politicians" in America at least, a minority of our legislators have backgrounds in law.

---

40% of legislators in USA are lawyers, actually. By far the most numerous group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

40% of legislators

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

a minority of our legislators

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

A king who would execute all his advisers because they are not soothsayers would be considered by all a foolish tyrant, and here it is no different.

---

Adisers do not give a surety of something happening, while polling pretends it does.

Still there is no answer to the question whether polling agencies are legally/financially responsible for financial losses caused by the poll results.

A related thought: I wonder if financial damage could be a lawsuit issue against a football referee who made a mistake which led to a team losing the game.