Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

NATO was formed to stop Soviet encroachment upon or invasion of Europe. For 20 years now, there has been no Soviet Union. For all of his efforts, Putin appears to be doing no more than consolidating the Russian sphere of interest -- and making a mint for himself and his pals selling stuff to Europe.

In that context, is it finally time for NATO to fold, allowing the European Union to develop a unified command to replace it -- a command that is structured and focused on furthering the agenda of a united Europe.

The USA would, in all probability, maintain a close working relationship with this new European defense entity, but would no longer be forward deployed in Europe or exert pressure on Europe to support US strategic interests because of the ties imposed by NATO.

This would also allow the USA to draw down forces further for budgetary reasons and focus on relationships and strategic partnering with the other states in the Americas.

Quick Poll included, and your comments are always encouraged.

[Beskar]

I think NATO will always end up existing in some-form, until the time it is replaced by the UN Hegemony of the Free People or something. Even if a European Union unified command occured, NATO works as a framework for a great many countries which encompass much of that is perceived as the 'West'.

[Fragony]

My worst nightmare, the EU with an army.

[Sigurd]

There is the problem that key strategic nations are not members of the European Union. With the withdrawal of Greenland from EU in '85, the Russian North fleet have free passage to America in non-EU territory. EU will not be a buffer for the US.

[HoreTore]

There is the problem that key strategic nations are not members of the European Union. With the withdrawal of Greenland from EU in '85, the Russian North fleet have free passage to America in non-EU territory. EU will not be a buffer for the US.

Are you of the opinion that Norway is not a member of the EU?

Better inform our government of that.

As for the topic, I don't think the existence of NATO matters much anymore. The ties it created between the western countries will remain even if the formal agreement disappears. We will still need a channel for discussion, though, so I think disbanding NATO will be mostly an administrative change.

[Sigurd]

Are you of the opinion that Norway is not a member of the EU?

Better inform our government of that.

EU has no obligations towards Norway. We are not a member. Have we filed for membership in secret?

[drone]

There is the problem that key strategic nations are not members of the European Union. With the withdrawal of Greenland from EU in '85, the Russian North fleet have free passage to America in non-EU territory. EU will not be a buffer for the US.

The key part is in the name. Securing the shipping lanes of the North Atlantic is the most important strategic task of the organization, as this allows the US to supply Europe in case of conflict. The EU can have a central command if they want, but the military elements responsible for maintaining the GIUK gap need to be controlled under NATO.

[rvg]

What? An org poll without a "Gah" option? I demand "Gah"!

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, but the various nations should increase their military budgets and find out what role each plays best. NATO is extremely important to both the EU and there US. It is the most effective way to pursue joint military strategies with strong allies AND to reduce cost through fewer redundancies in that theater.

I don't believe that Russia is going to stop aggressively pushing itself into the affairs of surrounding nations. Putin has tasted the forbidden fruit. War is the desire of those in power, always and forever. So long as they don't feel the pain themselves, are aggrandized by the spoils, and can do it with relative impunity - it is the first option rather than a last resort.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'd like to see someone break out of the EU. A soluble union would make It much more enticing. One of the main problems in the US is that the union is eternal. It gives the central government no reason to be reasonable and the people no recourse against bad policy.

[Montmorency]

the people no recourse against bad policy.

Bollox.

Being in for the duration means you have every incentive to improve not just your own situation, but the situation of the union as a whole.

A soluble union is a useless and trivial thing, as the first recourse is always departure rather than improvement.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Bollox.

Being in for the duration means you have every incentive to improve not just your own situation, but the situation of the union as a whole.

A soluble union is a useless and trivial thing, as the first recourse is always departure rather than improvement.

Soluble is key. The EU is still soluble, but there needs to be a trendsetter. Central government should be minimalist. The aggressive nature that the Federal government takes toward State sovereignty leads to the government jealously stealing and then protecting all stolen powers.

Our system is unwieldy and is only capable of compounding existing problems. Avoid our mistakes by allowing for political fluidity and experiment.

[Montmorency]

The central government should of course have all power, on paper - it just needs to use it selectively to best advantage, so as to maximize efficiency and impact.

[Xiahou]

A soluble union is a useless and trivial thing, as the first recourse is always departure rather than improvement.

Who dragged marriage into this?

[ICantSpellDawg]

That is obviously nonsense

[Montmorency]

Check yo'self

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

NATO was formed to stop Soviet encroachment upon or invasion of Europe. For 20 years now, there has been no Soviet Union. For all of his efforts, Putin appears to be doing no more than consolidating the Russian sphere of interest -- and making a mint for himself and his pals selling stuff to Europe.

In that context, is it finally time for NATO to fold, allowing the European Union to develop a unified command to replace it -- a command that is structured and focused on furthering the agenda of a united Europe.

The USA would, in all probability, maintain a close working relationship with this new European defense entity, but would no longer be forward deployed in Europe or exert pressure on Europe to support US strategic interests because of the ties imposed by NATO.

This would also allow the USA to draw down forces further for budgetary reasons and focus on relationships and strategic partnering with the other states in the Americas.

Quick Poll included, and your comments are always encouraged.

NATO exists to draw America into a war in Europe, that is it's real purpose.

It exists so that isolationists like Panzer and ICSD can't waste thousands more live by keeping you out for several years AGAIN.

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I'm certainly not averse to a US drawdown vs a European uparming, but it's helpful for US troops to be stationed in places like the UK and Germany for cultural reasons, and the reverse is also true. Just today I was thinking what a good idea it would be to have a Romanian, Polish, or Bulgarian garrison in the UK to reduce racism against those countries and to harmonise the various NATO militarises more.

[Beskar]

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I'm certainly not averse to a US drawdown vs a European uparming, but it's helpful for US troops to be stationed in places like the UK and Germany for cultural reasons, and the reverse is also true. Just today I was thinking what a good idea it would be to have a Romanian, Polish, or Bulgarian garrison in the UK to reduce racism against those countries and to harmonise the various NATO militarises more.

That would be a lot of garrisons in the country.. or we could have an EU one, and we export/import eachothers soldiers into our respective countries for the same reasons you just stated.

[Brenus]

“NATO should be disbanded.” Agree. NATO being a USA tools, I don’t see why Europeans should foot the bills and sent troops to reinforced USA expansion war(s) in Afghanistan, Iraq or others. If the US is happy to send young men and women dying to protect or expend their market, fine. Why we should finance it or contribute to as it serves no purpose in European Countries point of view?
If European Countries needs defence there are enough Military Factories, knowledge and experience in this side of the pound, and just leave the USA deal with their Military-Industrial Complex. Following the USA left European countries believing in “Missile Shield” and “Special Forces” things when we need tanks, air-planes, boats, submarines, aircraft carriers with planes on it and boots.

[ICantSpellDawg]

“NATO should be disbanded.” Agree. NATO being a USA tools, I don’t see why Europeans should foot the bills and sent troops to reinforced USA expansion war(s) in Afghanistan, Iraq or others. If the US is happy to send young men and women dying to protect or expend their market, fine. Why we should finance it or contribute to as it serves no purpose in European Countries point of view?
If European Countries needs defence there are enough Military Factories, knowledge and experience in this side of the pound, and just leave the USA deal with their Military-Industrial Complex. Following the USA left European countries believing in “Missile Shield” and “Special Forces” things when we need tanks, air-planes, boats, submarines, aircraft carriers with planes on it and boots.

You guys foot the bills? We supplement your national defense saving you untold oodles.

[Husar]

Pretty much what Brenus said. The German army is being sized down to turn it into some small airmobile force that can be used all around the world to pretend that we're important because we can support conflicts like Afghanistan better because due to this one single conflict everybody thought it would be the only kind of conflict we get from now on. Turns out we may have to defend our Russian friends from US-led aggression instead and a light airmobile force won't do in that scenario.

You guys foot the bills? We supplement your national defense saving you untold oodles.

During the cold war perhaps, now you stress our budgets by begging us to support your adventures to secure your oil empire.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pretty much what Brenus said. The German army is being sized down to turn it into some small airmobile force that can be used all around the world to pretend that we're important because we can support conflicts like Afghanistan better because due to this one single conflict everybody thought it would be the only kind of conflict we get from now on. Turns out we may have to defend our Russian friends from US-led aggression instead and a light airmobile force won't do in that scenario.



During the cold war perhaps, now you stress our budgets by begging us to support your adventures to secure your oil empire.

Defend your Russian friends? You are a nut. Wherever you are getting your news from; get your money back.

But anything that causes Germany to foot the bill for its own protection, I am in favor of it. Your action in Afghanistan has helped keep your military from atrophying. Also, a NATO ally was attacked by the government of Afghanistan, lest you remember.

[Kagemusha]

Well, if you'd asked me two months ago I'd have said NATO should encompass as many nations as possible (including Russia) in order to counter China, but since then things have changed a bit. Europe is not a theater America should be spending superpower bucks at. We've got too much to pay for at home to focus on the entire world, and NATO isn't helping us with China, so I say phase it out. Once Europeans have to defend their own interests and pay for their own superpower-scaled military industrial complex it'll be interesting to see if they also develop a rash of chickenhawks to go with it.

Like i said, this is not a spending issue. EU countries combined already spend more then China and Russia combined and i cant see Europe ever starting to compete with USA in that department, at least i hope i will be long dead when such day would come.

[rvg]

If China really wanted to expand, they would have already done so. There is no NATO there to stop them. If they went after Laos or Vietnam, I doubt many would care. Besides, China already broke some teeth in Vietnam once. As for going against India, India can handle itself just fine imho. The rest of Chinese disputes are maritime, and their navy as of today isn't strong enough to challenge us over, say, Taiwan.

[Husar]

Well, if you'd asked me two months ago I'd have said NATO should encompass as many nations as possible (including Russia) in order to counter China, but since then things have changed a bit. Europe is not a theater America should be spending superpower bucks at. We've got too much to pay for at home to focus on the entire world, and NATO isn't helping us with China, so I say phase it out. Once Europeans have to defend their own interests and pay for their own superpower-scaled military industrial complex it'll be interesting to see if they also develop a rash of chickenhawks to go with it.

Funny guy, we already have such a thing, it may just not be as apparent as it is in the US because we do not talk about it as much.

http://www.uk.peacelink.org/gmd/articles/art_27.html

I mean we're the continent that invented the World War, of course we have an abundance of military manufacturers. Or had, before they turned into a few megacompanies. I'm not sure whether scale is a problem, the only thing stopping us from churning out another 600 Leopard 2 and selling them to our best friends in Saudi Arabia is apparently politics, although I think that one is not finally decided yet.

And there are still countless smaller companies all over Europe that design their own gear or specialize on upgrading existing gear etc. Poland upgrade their own T-72s, I think the Czech design their own tanks etc. The bigger nations often each have a company for everything if it isn't part of a megacorporation yet.

Heckler & Koch, FN Herstal and countless premium small arms manufacturers such as Mauser, Walther and so on are/were European and even the mighty USA use their designs. The M60 used the British L7 gun, the Abrams uses the Rheinmetall L44, your infantry uses the FN Minimi and so on and on. I'm not sure why exactly one would think we are lacking in terms of arms manufacturing capabilites. Quite a few people in Europe think we have way too many and export way too many death machines to conflict zones and elsewhere.

[ICantSpellDawg]

NATO exists to draw America into a war in Europe, that is it's real purpose.

It exists so that isolationists like Panzer and ICSD can't waste thousands more live by keeping you out for several years AGAIN.

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I'm certainly not averse to a US drawdown vs a European uparming, but it's helpful for US troops to be stationed in places like the UK and Germany for cultural reasons, and the reverse is also true. Just today I was thinking what a good idea it would be to have a Romanian, Polish, or Bulgarian garrison in the UK to reduce racism against those countries and to harmonise the various NATO militarises more.

I'm not an isolationist. I'm the exact opposite of that. Why do you think I'm an isolationist?

[PanzerJaeger]

It exists so that isolationists like Panzer and ICSD can't waste thousands more live by keeping you out for several years AGAIN.

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I am certainly no isolationist. I simply believe in the stabilizing power of rational self interest. It is when people begin to talk about moral imperatives that the geopolitical balance goes awry.

The US had and has no moral obligation to protect European democracies. The country was founded on the idea of charting its own path separate and distinct from Europe and spent the majority of its early history fighting to remain independent. The British burned down the White House and came very close to supporting the Confederacy. The fact that the US found it expedient to ally with Britain (and France) during the 20th Century does not make the two nations eternal allies. In the first instance, the US had literally no interest in the outcome of the conflict other than getting its loans paid; in the second, Roosevelt's imperial ambitions forced the nation into the conflict.

Maintaining the sovereignty of Western European nations was... again... expedient as the US and Russia jockeyed for power and influence during the Cold War. However, those days have long since passed. Today, Europe is irrelevant to US interests, and should be left to its own devices. That part of the world has essentially become a retrograde welfare state in decline. Only Germany continues to demonstrate the kind of economic output and development worth fighting to keep in the US sphere of influence, but that is due in large part to unsustainable currency manipulation. US focus and energy should be devoted to the growing battle with China over natural resources; one in which the US is losing badly. The dynamic, growing economies of South America, Asia, and Africa are far more attractive and important to US interests than the stagnation in Europe.

There is absolutely no real threat to Europe proper from Putin's Russia, but in the event of a hypothetical invasion, why should the US be bothered to care about the outcome? The US economy is simply too large to ignore for whoever controls the continent. It is ridiculous that the US has been thrust into the Crimean 'crisis'. Putin returning Crimea to Russia is a European problem, not an American one. The US should be courting Putin, and doing all that it can to break up the new Chinese-Russian co-alignment, just as Kissinger did during the Cold War. If that means allowing Putin to reconstitute the Soviet Union's holdings, why should the US really be concerned?

NATO and the US-Western European alliances are artifacts from a different time that have become unhealthy for both sides. The US is forced to devote precious resources and energy to a part of the world that does not matter any longer and the once-major European powers have been rendered completely impotent. I grew up in the era of the 'Special Relationship', but it is still almost unbelievable to see the political leadership of what was less than a century ago one of the greatest empires in history blather on about being America's bitch... to see it dragged into wars that were clearly meant to further US interests. And when those leaders decided to take the lead in their own third world intervention, they could not even topple a third world, tin pot dictator without dear Uncle Sam stepping in when they ran out of missiles. And they do not dare attempt to take on the incredible military might of Assad's Syria without President Obama's green light. After years of US security guarantees, European nations have so neutered their political and military influence, they can no longer act independently to assert their own interests. It's just pathetic, and Europe can do better.

Both the US and Europe would be strengthened by more independent and assertive European powers. Both sides would be forced to assess and justify alliances and agreements, instead of having to view their geopolitical relations within the constraints of an outdated view of the world. Chances are, the two sides would likely still work together quite a bit, but only if both benefited from it - which is the way it should be.

[rvg]

I am certainly no isolationist... The US had and has no moral obligation to protect European democracies.

I'll give you a good reason to protect Europe: the dollar. It is our main export and our greatest contribution to the world economy. If any single country controls the European continent it will be able to ditch the dollar. EU with its Euro is not a threat because:
1. It's too decentralized
2. It's not our enemy

If Russia or any other totalitarian power takes over Europe, the dollar's world domination will be broken and our economy will more or less go down the toilet. That's why the old USSR and the Eastern Bloc were so dangerous to us: they did not depend on the dollar. Since the fall of the USSR dollar's power has grown tremendously: it would be extremely painful for us if that suddenly changes.
So gear up for war, Panzer, those benjamins won't protect themselves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am certainly no isolationist. I simply believe in the stabilizing power of rational self interest. It is when people begin to talk about moral imperatives that the geopolitical balance goes awry.
...
There is absolutely no real threat to Europe proper from Putin's Russia, but in the event of a hypothetical invasion, why should the US be bothered to care about the outcome? The US economy is simply too large to ignore for whoever controls the continent. It is ridiculous that the US has been thrust into the Crimean 'crisis'. Putin returning Crimea to Russia is a European problem, not an American one. The US should be courting Putin, and doing all that it can to break up the new Chinese-Russian co-alignment, just as Kissinger did during the Cold War. If that means allowing Putin to reconstitute the Soviet Union's holdings, why should the US really be concerned?

Bah. I cannot disagree more.

I have no taste for the realpolitik of supporting dictators grind their own people down. It always seems to end with the dictators collapsing sooner or alter anyway, but with the population hating us as well.

Why should we do such things to fight against China, anyway? China isn't annexing anyone; of course they're not a desperate kleptocracy with a declining population like Russia. Heck, most Chinese citizens like Americans.

And even if we did acquiesce to Putin, who says he'd actually help us against China?

Oh wait, there probably won't be an insurgency because they're actually welcome.

Because the USSR deported the Tartars to Uzbekistan where tens of thousands of them died and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

But oh wait, the US invaded Iraq, boohoo.

Bah, I'm letting your trolling get to me.

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wait a sec. Affiliates of the Taliban in Afghanistan who were trained and supported by the Afghan government hijacked flights and used them as missiles into areas of civilian congregation. They can say whatever they want after the fact, but they were held responsible. The Government supported the terrorism that let to a massive loss of life in the US. What part did I get wrong?