Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Celerior wrote:
NATO helps keep the peace *between* NATO members. When everyone is coordinating and talking to each other, people don't feel hostile to each other.

But that's another reason why it's obsolete. The EU accomplishes that already, and most European states have degraded their militaries to the point where a conventional war between any of them would be...absurd comedy, for lack of a better descriptor. Nobody's a military threat to anybody else over there.

The EU is part of that but not all of it, and in case it missed notice a major NATO member just withdrew from the EU. A large part of that military drawdown is reliance on US assistance through NATO, not other members of the EU.

The EU is a big important factor in the current European tranquility, but so is NATO.

And that's cool for Europe, and explains what they get out of it, but we're not looking at it solely from a, "How does this help Europe?" standpoint.

NATO's basically a scheme to ensure its members get guaranteed military assistance from the US at this point, and by "military assistance" I of course mean "do the overwhelming majority of the military work." Trouble is, most of the members aren't paying their dues. Why exactly should we keep subsidizing Europe's deliberate abandonment of any significant conventional military power?

Exactly. For the US its a cost.

For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.

 Vaktathi wrote:
For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no.

The US managed to stay out of Europe's wars for a full century. We could have stayed out of WWII if not for Japan. Now if we make the wrong move 50mm Americans die. How the feth is that progress?



NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory.
No only between Russia and Germany. NATO countries (Greece/Turkey) have come to blows before. In light of Turkey's new ":Got Dictatorship?" spirit and cosying up to the Russians, they may do so again.

If Russian sends "freedom fighters" into the Baltics or Poland do you seriously think France, Germany or Belgium will DO ANYTHING??? Looks whats happening in Ukraine which has NATO promises of protection now but strangely Russian troops in it. NATO aint gak but a trap for the US to kill ourselves with at this point.

{quote]Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.

 Vaktathi wrote:
For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.

IMO, that presumes that NATO/EU countries would be incapable of defending themselves. If true, then NATO with heavy US assistance is very much needed.

However, I don't agree with it... while these countries may not be able to project force like the US, I'm sure these countries could ramp up enough assets to, at the very least, be able to defend their borders on their own.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.

IMO, that presumes that NATO/EU countries would be incapable of defending themselves. If true, then NATO with heavy US assistance is very much needed.

However, I don't agree with it... while these countries may not be able to project force like the US, I'm sure these countries could ramp up enough assets to, at the very least, be able to defend their borders on their own.

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no.

The US managed to stay out of Europe's wars for a full century. We could have stayed out of WWII if not for Japan.

Hrm, thats a big *maybe*, we got ourselves handily into WW1 by masquerading as neutral when really we were just non-belligerent (when you're single handedly keeping one side in the war by supplying them with arms and financing while respecting their blockade of the opposing side and insisting that your citizens should be able to travel in safety even on armed and combatant flagged vessels...you're not neutral) and the opposing powers stopped buying that fiction, and the same circumstances were present in WW2. More importantly, the US is fundamentally a very different nation than the pre WW1 US, and almost certainly could not avoid getting sucked into another european conflict, NATO or no. Thank Wilson & Teddy for that.

Likewise, the century the US avoided Europes wars was an easy century to do so in, being completely unable to intervene during the one big conflict at the start of the century and later conflicts being relatively small and confined.

Now if we make the wrong move 50mm Americans die. How the feth is that progress?

depends on what you see as progress, but ultimately that potential wouldnt disappear without NATO, it would just be reduced, while risk elsewhere would rise. Nobody knows exactly how it would look.

.
No only between Russia and Germany. NATO countries (Greece/Turkey) have come to blows before. In light of Turkey's new ":Got Dictatorship?" spirit and cosying up to the Russians, they may do so again.

Turkey has always been kind of an odd duck, but we certainly havent seen military tensions between Frane and Germany or the UK and Germany or Italy and Austria or the like since NATO was founded. Now, there are a multitude of reasons for that but NATO is one of them.

If Russian sends "freedom fighters" into the Baltics or Poland do you seriously think France, Germany or Belgium will DO ANYTHING??? Looks whats happening in Ukraine which has NATO promises of protection now but strangely Russian troops in it. NATO aint gak but a trap for the US to kill ourselves with at this point.

Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO is under no statutory obligation to come to Ukraine's defense. As for the Baltic states, there are a number of NATO forces being built and deployed specifically for that area right now.

Horse gak. Germany can't even fly enough planes to meet commitments. After Iraq the UK won't side with us. That leaves...France.

yeah, theyre not going to blindly follow us on silly excursions in the middle east with no relation to NATO security. That doesnt mean that NATO doesnt give the US some powerful sway over a huge swath of other important decisins, actions, processes, and other such things.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no. NATO helps reduce the likelyhood of that, particularly between nations that slaughtered each other by the millions within living memory. Likewise, it gives the US leverage to achieve its aims and goals if necessary, and allows the US to set the tone in many instances and the dominant voice in any potential conflict.

IMO, that presumes that NATO/EU countries would be incapable of defending themselves. If true, then NATO with heavy US assistance is very much needed.

However, I don't agree with it... while these countries may not be able to project force like the US, I'm sure these countries could ramp up enough assets to, at the very least, be able to defend their borders on their own.

hrm, at this point one could argue many could not adequately defend their borders on their own, though one could also argue that the shield of US forces allowed them to get to that point.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.

Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.

Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.

Russia's annexation of Crimea says otherwise.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
....I think the Big 3 in Europe: Britain, France, Germany, need to come to a new arrangement for defence and security....

Like an EU combined force perhaps?

I have to ask, as a Scottish Independence advocate, a vehement Leave supporter and now a proponent for the dissolution of NATO, what is it with you and attempting to dissemble established International treaties and organisations?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.

Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.

If we are not in the middle of a Cold War, why do we still have NATO? its the same to them. I wouldn't want to see the "peaceful" NATO expanding right up to my border when the last time an empire expanded to my border 25mm of my people died.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.

Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.

If we are not in the middle of a Cold War, why do we still have NATO?

To keep peace between the nations and streamline combined operations when they are needed, as well as to protect the smaller nations from aggression.

its the same to them. I wouldn't want to see the "peaceful" NATO expanding right up to my border when the last time an empire expanded to my border 25mm of my people died.

Really Frazz? Comparing NATO to the Nazis?

NATO is not forcing those countries to join. They are asking to become members. Now the question Russia should be asking itself is why these countries want support from NATO in order to protect themselves rather than from Russia.

The obvious answer being that the last time Russia was supporting these countries with its military it was sending in the Red Army to violently crush anti-communism sentiment and propping up dictators.

Really Frazz? Comparing NATO to the Nazis?

From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.

Russia should probably ask to join NATO. Now that would be fun.

 Frazzled wrote:

Really Frazz? Comparing NATO to the Nazis?

From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.

Russia should probably ask to join NATO. Now that would be fun.

NATO offered before. Russia turned it down.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Really Frazz? Comparing NATO to the Nazis?

From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.

Russia should probably ask to join NATO. Now that would be fun.

NATO offered before. Russia turned it down.

Ok thats funny,

Whats NATO for?
To protect us from Soviet aggression .
Ah very wise. Who's tanks are those over there?
Russian. They are a key member.
? wa??

The idea would be that, as a cooperative member, there is a whole lot more to be gained working together than against each other, and that logistical strain can be shared along with coordination of forces and sharing of intelligence information.

Setting aside political issues, Russia would have large practical issues integrating into NATO, as it was the primary equipment alternative to NATO with basically nothing shared with anyone and huge industrial resources devoted to making its own patternt stuff that would require some (expensive) modification or replacement.

If the US can't depend on Europe staying together and not falling to attacking each other, then we can never pivot towards the Pacific as planned. Therefore, NATO must stay.

 Easy E wrote:
If the US can't depend on Europe staying together and not falling to attacking each other, then we can never pivot towards the Pacific as planned. Therefore, NATO must stay.

Or Europe abandoned. Which is happening. Military spending is declining and will continue to decline. We are a declining empire. China is taking over. you'll miss us when we're gone.

 Frazzled wrote:
From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.

From their history, it's an understandable view. There's a difference between a rational fear that something/one is a threat, and an accurate fear that something/one is a threat.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.

From their history, it's an understandable view. There's a difference between a rational fear that something/one is a threat, and an accurate fear that something/one is a threat.

Your logic cannot be challenged. You win this round jedi.

Jedi are weak. All hail the mighty Hypnotoad!

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

By the US and its warmongering imperialism. The US is the enemy of Russia. The US attempts to impose its will on the entire world, either by 'soft force', subversion or open violence. Russia (as well a few other nations, such as China and Iran) refuses to bend and tries to maintain its traditional position in the world. This makes Russia an obstacle for US domination, and therefore a target.

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I fully agree. Of course, it depends on what their borders need defending from, but virtually all European countries have forces large enough to defend themselves from any threat that could realistically arise in the near future. Really, the only possible threat that they could not defend against would be a full Russian invasion, but that is not something Europe is going to be able do defend itself against unless it goes back to Cold War levels of military spending and stationing of NATO troops on the border. And Russian invasion would be easier (and much cheaper) to defend against with non-military means. It simply isn't likely going to happen as long as Russia is left alone and does not feel hreatened.

So then what does Europe need larger armies for?

May I ask what Russia is so threatened by?

The same reason we would be threatened if the Warsaw Pact rolled up nations all the way to Mexico. Its why we went to the precipice of NUCLEAR WAR over Cuba.

Considering that we aren't in the middle of a cold war, I don't really think it's the same. NATO has no reason to attack Russia, and unless Russia plans on attacking any of the states that want to join, there is no reason to be afraid.

As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.

Frazzled wrote:

Really Frazz? Comparing NATO to the Nazis?

From the Russian perspective we're all just invaders waiting to invade. Considering their history thats an excellent and accurate view.

Russia should probably ask to join NATO. Now that would be fun.

Russia did. The Soviet Union officially applied for membership when NATO was founded. The SU was rejected, so it decided to found its own (way cooler) alliance instead: The Warsaw Pact. That was the definited beginning of the Cold War (altough really, the Cold War started in 1917 already. Or even centuries before that if you take a larger view. You might even say that a Cold War has almost always existed between Russia and the West)
The idea of Soviet/Russian membership of NATO was also brought up by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but both were turned down.

Easy E wrote:If the US can't depend on Europe staying together and not falling to attacking each other, then we can never pivot towards the Pacific as planned. Therefore, NATO must stay.

Keeping Europe together is not the responsibility of the US, and NATO has already demonstrated its ineffectiveness in preventing members from attacking each other (see the Turkey-Greece conflict). The EU is a far more efficient tool for European stability than NATO (or any US-led organisation) will ever be able to be.

 Iron_Captain wrote:


As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.

Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.

Seaward wrote:
NATO's basically a scheme to ensure its members get guaranteed military assistance from the US at this point, and by "military assistance" I of course mean "do the overwhelming majority of the military work." Trouble is, most of the members aren't paying their dues. Why exactly should we keep subsidizing Europe's deliberate abandonment of any significant conventional military power?

What quaranteed? NATO quarantees nothing. Members have need of military aid and they have ZERO quarantees US or anybody else will lift a finger.

If USA wants they can simply say couple harsh word for the attacker and have fulfilled 100% of NATO contract requirements.

It's telling even USA didn't utilize NATO deal when they had chance but instead went for another route to get same aid from same countries as they would have got by NATO...Except NATO quarantees nothing so they didn't want to push it and show how empty quarantee it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
For the US it's an investment. The US would be dragged into any European conflict, NATO or no.

The US managed to stay out of Europe's wars for a full century. We could have stayed out of WWII if not for Japan. Now if we make the wrong move 50mm Americans die. How the feth is that progress?

Since US moved in against soviet union after all it seems they weren't happy about red europe so Japan or not they would have come to Europe in the end. Maybe sooner than without Japan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

If Russian sends "freedom fighters" into the Baltics or Poland do you seriously think France, Germany or Belgium will DO ANYTHING??? Looks whats happening in Ukraine which has NATO promises of protection now but strangely Russian troops in it. NATO aint gak but a trap for the US to kill ourselves with at this point.

Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO is under no statutory obligation to come to Ukraine's defense. As for the Baltic states, there are a number of NATO forces being built and deployed specifically for that area right now.

NATO countries only obligation is aid member country in a form they deem sufficient. That can be harsh words for the invaders. Nobody has obligation to actually send any troops, equipment or anything whatsoever.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:


As long as NATO exists and sits on the Russian border, the Cold War is far from over.

Or as long as Russia stops invading and occupying neighboring countries the same could be said. There's a big difference between sitting next to a border and invading across it.

Tell me about it. My next deployment has a lot to do with the fact that Russian international policy is not about providing fluffy bunnies to their neighbors...

I am less concerned with ditching NATO which still has a great role in international security than ditching the UN which does nothing but meddle in things that aren't its concern. The UN started with good intentions as has turned into a BS globalist co-op joke with terrorist countries running things like the ethics and human rights commissions. It is long due past time to get out and do our own thing without them. They can stay in New York but they need to pay rent for the building.

NATO at least doesn't intervene in politics or waste slowed amounts of money on the climate change hoax which is rapidly crumbling after 20 years of fraud and abuse. NATO also provides a good foundation for training for international crisis for both the US and many countries that do not get the opportunity to do so.

Col. Dash wrote:
NATO at least doesn't intervene in politics or waste slowed amounts of money on the climate change hoax which is rapidly crumbling after 20 years of fraud and abuse.

Ah, I see. You have no idea what you're talking about.