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?

[HoreTore]

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

Please pass this revolutionary new information on to our government.

[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]

Please pass this revolutionary new information on to our government.

Labour and the Conservative party are in favor of it. You are toast. My money is on accession talks within the next 5 years.

[HoreTore]

Labour and the Conservative party are in favor of it. You are toast. My money is on accession talks within the next 5 years.

Sadly, it's extremely unlikely to happen any time soon.

I blame the illiterate peasantry.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sadly, it's extremely unlikely to happen any time soon.

I blame the illiterate peasantry.

When your governing party and their opposition, coupled with endless external pressures push you to join, put your money on joining.

Your illiterate peasantry is the most literate peasantry in the world.

Personally, I think that a European Union with a weak central authority isn't a bad idea. The one that currently exists, however, is not to be trusted.

[HoreTore]

When your governing party and their opposition, coupled with endless external pressures push you to join, put your money on joining.

Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, that's not the case... A referendum now would be political suicide, a garantueed way of making sure you lose both the referendum as well as the next election.

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That is obviously nonsense

[Montmorency]

Check yo'self

[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"!

[PanzerJaeger]

NATO should be disbanded. Europe has essentially become a backwater within the geopolitical equation and is certainly no longer a part of the world that is key to US interests. An EU unified command would resemble the EU in general, which is to say it would be a dithering, bureaucratic mess. The major economies should return to pursuing their own interests and maintaining their own militaries. A hypothetical war between Germany and France/Britain is highly unlikely today and even if it happened, their importance on the world stage has been so diminished that it would not have nearly the global impact that such wars had during the last century.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

NATO should be disbanded. Europe has essentially become a backwater within the geopolitical equation and is certainly no longer a part of the world that is key to US interests. An EU unified command would resemble the EU in general, which is to say it would be a dithering, bureaucratic mess. The major economies should return to pursuing their own interests and maintaining their own militaries. A hypothetical war between Germany and France/Britain is highly unlikely today and even if it happened, their importance on the world stage has been so diminished that it would not have nearly the global impact that such wars had during the last century.

Panzer, you have simply got to stop sugar-coating your opinions...

[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]

NATO should be disbanded. Europe has essentially become a backwater within the geopolitical equation and is certainly no longer a part of the world that is key to US interests. An EU unified command would resemble the EU in general, which is to say it would be a dithering, bureaucratic mess. The major economies should return to pursuing their own interests and maintaining their own militaries. A hypothetical war between Germany and France/Britain is highly unlikely today and even if it happened, their importance on the world stage has been so diminished that it would not have nearly the global impact that such wars had during the last century.

I was enjoying your criticism of those nerds, but I no longer think of NATO as useful for keeping European wars from happening, but instead for securing the budding periphery. Think of it, purely, as mutual defense treaty. Without it, would Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania be safe? If they aren't safe, would Poland be safe? Clearly, European stability is a western interest. Russia is a very real threat to European stability. It won't always be a threat, but there are new threats growing larger every day.

I wish that the EU contributed more to its own security. Years ago, the benefit to NATO, beyond the counterbalance to the Soviets, was that it deterred the untrustworthy euroweenies from building up their military means. This served a purpose then, but not now.

[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 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?

[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.