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

[Tellos Athenaios]

USA's whole legibility as Super Power is based on it.

Hmm, there's an idea: confine all future showdowns to a competition in calligraphy.

[Husar]

We already overmatch Russia economically and militarily, just not in "boots on the ground".

I'm still not sure about that. Russia has some really good high-tech and a lot of their gear is underestimated. Other people have made that mistake before.

A authoritarian and nationalist philosophy, suborning religious and intellectual thought to the service of the State, persecution of minorities, regimented control of the economy.

A leader who deliberately fosters a quasi-cult of himself?

How is Russia not a Fascist state?

Nice try at the ad hominen, btw. I missed a letter out, big shocker for a Dyslexic writing in a foreign language.

I may have gone a bit too far there and sorry about the ad hominem.
I still find that western rhetoric colours him far worse than a lot of people in his own country see him. If Putin is that bad, Russians will find a way to get rid of him. But by giving him good outside excuses and funding NGOs that work against him, we are not helping.

Excuse, what excuse?

I'm not excusing anything, I'm pointing out that those two wars are very specific, one to a period in history and one to a single president. Both in the past.

There were enough wars by other presidents, regime changes, attempted regime changes etc.
That these things are historic is of little help when the current admins and large parts of the population seem to follow a very similar line.

As opposed to an army unable to deploy overseas because it is too integrated into civilian life and lacks mobile logistics?

Germans want Germany to take a more prominent role on the world stage but noone wants to do this by sending the army overseas.
As for capabilities, that stay-at-home army had more than 3000 tanks, the new one will have less than 300. You can roll over third world countries or the Netherlands with those but against a more competent opponent they're not enough.

Even when the British PM demanded MI5 not spy on someone, they did. As previously noted, the US has a plan to kill everyone. If you think Russia doesn't - well.

I think Russia does, but what's your point? That western intelligence has gone rogue and is uncontrollable?

that was not a moral judgement, or disrespectful - but he IS a Tyrant, he has manipulated the Russian polity and Constitution so that he, and only he, can be President, or Prime Minister, or Tsar.

Pretending otherwise at this point is a deliberate exercise in apologetics.

I agree that he is a power hungry muppet but IIRC he didn't need to manipulate a lot and he (his party) still got roughly 50% of the votes anyway. As Sarmatian said, the best course is probably to wait until the Russians deal with him themselves and realize that the West is not as antagonistic towards Russia as it currently actually is.

I mean, there is nothing much to say other than you guys are all doing it wrong. I am glad that no matter what, I will always be able to point at two different faces as the reason X decade was terrible.

I am glad that you enjoy your system of perpetual terribleness.

[rvg]

We already overmatch Russia economically and militarily, just not in "boots on the ground".

There's one more weakness that Russia has: traditionally and historically Russian logistics have been shit. They're downright terrible at maintaining a supply chain in good order. Things might have improved for them recently, but with the amount of corruption their military has seen, it's unlikely that their new defense minister had time to clean things up.

[Hax]

I wonder in the local Russians there are also eager to be absorbed into the empire.

Well that is the scary part of course. I only really know one Russian Estonian, and she pretty much hates Putin. Eh.

Yeah, that's why Sweden decided to place as many as 2 (TWO!!) fighter jets on Gotland.

You know, if the first one doesn't keep the Russian Bear at bay, we have a plan(e) to fall back on.

I was surprised to hear Sweden still has an air force.

Ah, just make Russia try to invade Finland again, it'll be fine.

[Kadagar_AV]

There's one more weakness that Russia has: traditionally and historically Russian logistics have been shit. They're downright terrible at maintaining a supply chain in good order. Things might have improved for them recently, but with the amount of corruption their military has seen, it's unlikely that their new defense minister had time to clean things up.

So they send twice as much as needed, what's the problem?

[rvg]

So they send twice as much as needed, what's the problem?

No problem, more stuff to steal!

[Kadagar_AV]

No problem, more stuff to steal!

You didn't get my point.

The Russian army, in a situation, would be supplied. At high costs, sure. But they would be.



Just like the Olympics. Might have costed more than expected, but they got the job done.

EDIT: Oh, and even the aristocracy of Russia would be patriotic if their life line were at risk. So, less stealing.

[rvg]

You didn't get my point.

The Russian army, in a situation, would be supplied. At high costs, sure. But they would be.

No, I understood what you meant, and you're right about elevated costs and all, but it's not just a matter of theft: they can send the best machine guns to the front lines and then supply them with ammo of wrong caliber. Or send out 10000 boots, all of them being left ones. Stuff like that. It's an attitude problem where people just don't care if they do things correctly, properly and in good faith.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm still not sure about that. Russia has some really good high-tech and a lot of their gear is underestimated. Other people have made that mistake before.

Russia also still runs a lot of units on conscripts who are only in for a year - the average British soldier is in for five. High levels of corruption make it likely that Russia has unknown shortages of expensive kit, or a lack of (say) shells for it's tanks.Added to which, corruption may also reveal flaws in bits of kit like boots, which would be pretty terrible.

Having said that - we currently don't have enough ammo for the L30 gun on the Challie two, so British tanks would be under-armed until they restart production of shells.

That was the major motivator behind moving to the German gun, btw, and the issue was actually the power pack rather than the turret. Point being - we have logistical flaws too.

Overall I still think we have an edge because we're more consistent across the board.

I may have gone a bit too far there and sorry about the ad hominem.
I still find that western rhetoric colours him far worse than a lot of people in his own country see him. If Putin is that bad, Russians will find a way to get rid of him. But by giving him good outside excuses and funding NGOs that work against him, we are not helping.

I think I've several times expressed my admiration for Putin's political ability, and I've said I don't think he's "evil" but if he isn't an enemy of the West, he's at least the key political opponent.

"Facist" is still the best way to describe his government though, because he isn't a King.

Oh - and thank you for apologising.

There were enough wars by other presidents, regime changes, attempted regime changes etc.
That these things are historic is of little help when the current admins and large parts of the population seem to follow a very similar line.

Debatable - given that most of that was the Cold War. Still, NATO wasn't the prime tool used to coerce other nations into supporting the US.

Germans want Germany to take a more prominent role on the world stage but noone wants to do this by sending the army overseas.
As for capabilities, that stay-at-home army had more than 3000 tanks, the new one will have less than 300. You can roll over third world countries or the Netherlands with those but against a more competent opponent they're not enough.

This is admittedly a problem, though perhaps no as bad as you might think. if the other 2700 tanks stay in storage they're unlikely to get blown to bits at the start of WWIII and will therefore be avaialble for the meat grinder after the initial blow up.

I think Russia does, but what's your point? That western intelligence has gone rogue and is uncontrollable?

That everybody spies on everybody. If the Germans aren't spying on the US, it's only because they can't.

I agree that he is a power hungry muppet but IIRC he didn't need to manipulate a lot and he (his party) still got roughly 50% of the votes anyway. As Sarmatian said, the best course is probably to wait until the Russians deal with him themselves and realize that the West is not as antagonistic towards Russia as it currently actually is.

I read up on him recently. He's repeatedly manipulated the composition of the Durma, and the ability of opposition candidates to campaign effectively, banned viable alternative political parties...

Tyranny doesn't necessarily mean not holding elections, it just means nobbling your opponents, and we have ample evidence of that via intimidation, kangaroo courts, murder...

About the only election he seems to have won remotely fairly was his second Presidential term - Yeltsin manipulated the situation to make sure he won the first one, Putin made sure he was going to be Prime Minister - then he made sure he would be President again - and I recall accusations of fixing and voter intimidation then.

[Sarmatian]

There's one more weakness that Russia has: traditionally and historically Russian logistics have been shit. They're downright terrible at maintaining a supply chain in good order. Things might have improved for them recently, but with the amount of corruption their military has seen, it's unlikely that their new defense minister had time to clean things up.

On what info are you basing that?

They performed great near the end of the ww2, in eastern Europe, Germany, Manchuria... In Afghanistan they've won every single military confrontation with very little casualties.

I think I've several times expressed my admiration for Putin's political ability, and I've said I don't think he's "evil" but if he isn't an enemy of the West, he's at least the key political opponent.

And why do you think that is?

Can something be done, short of invading Russia and forcibly removing him from power? Do you think there is way of dealing with him politically or do you believe he's a loose cannon, who's only interested in getting as much territory as possible under his control?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes. If we were to wipe out a few land divisions in Crimea in the event that he doesn't leave after referendum, he may get the picture. The US government needs to meet extraterritorial Russian aggression with force. What would he do? We will secure Eastern Europe and destabilize Russia from within - we thought this could be done diplomatically, but clearly force is required.

Putin is correct that this has become the plan, but he is incorrect that it was the plan all along.

[Kagemusha]

For the OP. I think it all depends on the point of view.

If we look at the European capabilities at basic level. Europeans taking care of their own defense is completely viable.
Total defense spending of EU countries is 274,213 billion, which is second only to US spending globally. Compared to Russia´s 90.7 billion it is almost three times larger. Those numbers also still exclude non EU countries from Europe like Norway and Switzerland.
Thanks to NATO and other defense partnerships inside Europe. I do not see huge problems in building up an effective organisation and chain of command for European forces. Thus if we look at it from purely monetary and military point of view. European countries could quite effectively defend and even dominate their regional sphere.

To me the problem currently is EU. EU lacks necessary democratic institutions and checks and balances, to be allowed to wield such power. Other problem is that if EU remains as it is and is essentially a cooperation institution between individual countries. Individual foreign policies of countries would most likely hamper effective cooperation in many cases.

So in my view the biggest problem for mutual European military cooperation without NATO is that Europe is not at level of integration for such to happen. Thus for meantime NATO is best option for mutual defense of European countries as i do not see USA individually withdrawing from NATO as NATO is lead by it, while i think if i was from USA, that would be exactly what i would support.

In the end i see NATO as best option for European countries for the moment and future unless there will be some drastic changes in EU, which would allow me to change my opinion. I hope my own country and Sweden would also apply for NATO, so the lines inside Europe would become less murky, but even in this current situation majority of my countrymen are against such..Thats democracy, we get what majority wants.

EDIT: For those who voted for the last option. Should Russia also be in NATO as it is European country, while of course also Asian.

[rvg]

On what info are you basing that? They performed great near the end of the ww2, in eastern Europe, Germany, Manchuria...

The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since. Winter War was not just a tactical but also a logistical nightmare. Same with the early months of WW2. Same with WW1 and Russo-Japanese war. Russian mentality overall is very prone to screwing things up and not caring. It's just the way they are.

Can something be done, short of invading Russia and forcibly removing him from power?

Yes, actually. If he's kicked out of Crimea by force, Russians themselves will remove him from power. He'll be considered a disgrace no longer fit to rule Russia. As for us marching on Moscow? You don't ever march on Moscow, everybody knows that.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think Kage sums up the situation.
NATO is a unified command, logistics structure; no point re-inventing the wheel.
The US likes it because it maintains influence in an important part of the world; Europe likes it because it offloads some costs and is hard for any one member to abuse for their own ends.
Keeping NATO avoids a lot of dick-swinging arguments over who needs to do what, and who is subordinate to whom.

[Kadagar_AV]

The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since. Winter War was not just a tactical but also a logistical nightmare. Same with the early months of WW2. Same with WW1 and Russo-Japanese war. Russian mentality overall is very prone to screwing things up and not caring. It's just the way they are.


Yes, actually. If he's kicked out of Crimea by force, Russians themselves will remove him from power. He'll be considered a disgrace no longer fit to rule Russia. As for us marching on Moscow? You don't ever march on Moscow, everybody knows that.

And people call me racist...

Anyway, Russians are much like you and me. They have a different history, but when I met them, I can relate.

It's not like they are Arabs or Africans.

They are white people from a modern state. They cherish the same beliefs you do at large, heck, in many questions Russia is WAY closer to USA than to Europe - gay rights as an example.

Stop falling for the propaganda. Visit Russia, you would be surprised.

[rvg]

And people call me racist...

Anyway, Russians are much like you and me. They have a different history, but when I met them, I can relate.

It's not like they are Arabs or Africans.

They are white people from a modern state. They cherish the same beliefs you do at large, heck, in many questions Russia is WAY closer to USA than to Europe - gay rights as an example.

Stop falling for the propaganda. Visit Russia, you would be surprised.

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

[Pannonian]

The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since.

Russian Army in Manchuria, British Army in the 100 days, US Army in GW1, German Army during Barbarossa. Perhaps a query more suited to the Monastery, but what were the peaks of the armies of other major powers? Relative to their times, of course.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

Oh? Had no idea.

Your view still differ from mine though.

[Hax]

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

This was satisfying to read.

[Brenus]

"I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names." In doing what exactly did you EARN these rights?

"If we were to wipe out a few land divisions in Crimea in the event that he doesn't leave after referendum, he may get the picture." And what is you are wiped out? Or if after having wiped out the Russians, the locals start to shoot at you as YOU will be the invaders in Crimea? Do you kill them all and change the populace that refuses to do what you want? Because all the pro-war are avoiding one point: what do the locals want? Crimea is a autonomous Province with Parliament. So, will you impose a dictatorship on Crimea?

[Kadagar_AV]

"I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names." In doing what exactly did you EARN these rights?

Being there?

I think his statement is idiotic, but I can't flame his personal opinion on life experience.

[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.

[Kagemusha]

If the EU already spends more than China and Russia combined, and it still relies on NATO logistics and NATO frameworks to operate in a theoretical global war, then I shudder to imagine the money the EU would have to spend to out-and-out replace NATO. Have fun with that. Maybe we can spend the savings on real universal healthcare?

EU is not a singularity, so lot of European spending is used on overlapping factors. But i agree and i think so does many others. Western hemisphere should really think again what they are using their military spending. You guys still spend almost three times what EU countries, more then four times what China and about seven times what Russia does and what you get for that money?

[rvg]

...You guys still spend almost three times what EU countries, more then four times what China and about seven times what Russia does and what you get for that money?

I think we're about to find out.

[Kagemusha]

Its a strategic singularity or its a strategic liability. I refer to a whole, singular Europe on purpose.

'
There is no such thing you are referring into. NATO is the factual strategic singularity when it comes to most European security and that is the choice of both USA and European countries. EU is nothing more then partial monetary Union and otherwise a cooperative organism for individual European countries with plans of possible expansion with different expectations for different countries. Let us stick with this reality we live in my friend.

I think we're about to find out.

I am leaning into direction that we arent and sincerely hope so as well.

[Kagemusha]

Its a changing reality. America has been pulling out of Europe for years. If Europe had acted quicker maybe Russia wouldn't be bullying your borders.

Speculation. Of course US have been pulling their troops from Europe as you have to even send your National Guards units to act as regulars to crisis zones in order to have enough boots in the ground. Now we again get back to the spending issues of Western hemisphere.

[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.

[rvg]

If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.

I hear you, but if we pull out now, it'll only make it more difficult to ...umm... squeeze back in and finish the job so it all comes to its proper conclusion.

[Kagemusha]

How do you guys continue to see yourselves as so morally superior? You don't to use your military indutrial complex because of us, but you're happy to sell arms and judge us while we protect you?

If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.

I kind of said the same when i speculated how i would view the NATO if i were American. Still apparently your leaders aka majority of US voters think that influence in Europe is worth spending certain billions and who are the Euros to complain?