Is NATO still viable?

Original post by Davij038

Most people presume that NATO is the bedrock of European defence, is this a viable option?

The U.S. Presence is falling steadily- not a single US tank remains in Europe and I see no reason why this trend won't worsen. Coupled with this barely any countries are meeting their 2% target.

i think an EU army is the most logical solution to this. We already have some pan European military units such as the euro corps. A joint military would be a force to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?

NATO has always been a nuclear based alliance. US forces were only ever a trip wire to allow for a nuclear response. As long as that part of NATO is viable then the organisation has a purpose. As long as Russia see's Eastern Europe as "theirs" NATO has a purpose.

Reply 2

OP

Original post by Aj12

NATO has always been a nuclear based alliance. US forces were only ever a trip wire to allow for a nuclear response. As long as that part of NATO is viable then the organisation has a purpose. As long as Russia see's Eastern Europe as "theirs" NATO has a purpose.

This is true but will the U.S. be willing to pay for that deterrent indefinitely? I doubt it. Whilst I think Russia is a semi fascist oligarchy whose actions in the Ukraine are a threat to Europe I do not think it is anyway near a threat that the USSR was (which too was over exaggerated ) . Wouldn't Europe be better having its own deterrent?

Reply 3

A level sufferer

Original post by Davij038

Most people presume that NATO is the bedrock of European defence, is this a viable option?

The U.S. Presence is falling steadily- not a single US tank remains in Europe and I see no reason why this trend won't worsen. Coupled with this barely any countries are meeting their 2% target.

i think an EU army is the most logical solution to this. We already have some pan European military units such as the euro corps. A joint military would be a force to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?

It better be viable otherwise if we enter into a conflict with our present army then we'll be ****ed to say the least

Reply 4

Rakas21

21

Original post by Davij038

Most people presume that NATO is the bedrock of European defence, is this a viable option?

The U.S. Presence is falling steadily- not a single US tank remains in Europe and I see no reason why this trend won't worsen. Coupled with this barely any countries are meeting their 2% target.

i think an EU army is the most logical solution to this. We already have some pan European military units such as the euro corps. A joint military would be a force to be reckoned with.

Thoughts?

As a whole i think not, Americans won't die for Moldova. That said, i do think that notably the Uk, France, US and Poland can trust each other to act so although there's some pretense, at least some aspect of the military alliance still exists.

I do like the idea of an EU armed forces but i would never ever vote for Britain to join it given the pacifist elements in Europe.

Reply 5

Original post by Davij038

This is true but will the U.S. be willing to pay for that deterrent indefinitely? I doubt it. Whilst I think Russia is a semi fascist oligarchy whose actions in the Ukraine are a threat to Europe I do not think it is anyway near a threat that the USSR was (which too was over exaggerated ) . Wouldn't Europe be better having its own deterrent?

I don't see why not because NATO forms the basis of American reliability as an ally, something that forms a key part of their pivot to Asia. If the US is seen to allow one of it's oldest and arguably most successful alliances die then every country it is trying to line up against China will take a look and say " are they going to be there in a fight?" It would completely undermine what is fast becoming the cornerstone of US diplomacy, coalition building. I don't think the expense is that much, given the benefits.

Sure a European deterrent would be better, more tied into the local environment. But who is going to run it? There are two military powers in Europe, France and Britain. Neither has the resources to take America's place, even together. Given that Europe can barely provide a united response to a country invading another I have little faith of their ability to build a credible defensive alliance.

Reply 6

OP

Original post by Aj12

I don't see why not because NATO forms the basis of American reliability as an ally, something that forms a key part of their pivot to Asia. If the US is seen to allow one of it's oldest and arguably most successful alliances die then every country it is trying to line up against China will take a look and say " are they going to be there in a fight?" It would completely undermine what is fast becoming the cornerstone of US diplomacy, coalition building. I don't think the expense is that much, given the benefits.

These things change in time and as you say, there are more pressing concerns than Russia which at the moment is only getting weaker- and as the EU already matches US interests more or less (liberal, democracy) and things like TTIP are only going to strengthen the relationship.

Sure a European deterrent would be better, more tied into the local environment. But who is going to run it? There are two military powers in Europe, France and Britain. Neither has the resources to take America's place, even together. Given that Europe can barely provide a united response to a country invading another I have little faith of their ability to build a credible defensive alliance.

I imagine there'd be an appointed Secretary General like in NATO but responding to maybe the high representative? Or ideally the EU would operate as a sovereign body as kart of a federal state.

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Rakas21

As a whole i think not, Americans won't die for Moldova. That said, i do think that notably the Uk, France, US and Poland can trust each other to act so although there's some pretense, at least some aspect of the military alliance still exists.

I do like the idea of an EU armed forces but i would never ever vote for Britain to join it given the pacifist elements in Europe.

I think a lot of that supposed pacifism comes from essentially German post war guilt- acting under a pan European directive should help them overcome their past in this area I think.

Reply 8

Original post by Davij038

These things change in time and as you say, there are more pressing concerns than Russia which at the moment is only getting weaker- and as the EU already matches US interests more or less (liberal, democracy) and things like TTIP are only going to strengthen the relationship.

I imagine there'd be an appointed Secretary General like in NATO but responding to maybe the high representative? Or ideally the EU would operate as a sovereign body as kart of a federal state.

Russia may be getting weaker, it certainly is not a super power. But then neither is Iran and it still manages to have a huge destabilizing impact on the states around it. Without an American bulwark in the way it is difficult to imagine Russia not gaining de facto control of much of Eastern Europe. Unless Poland and Germany really step up to the plate.

True it could work in those circumstances, but I think we are a long way from a federal European state, which would completely eliminate the need for NATO.

Reply 9

OP

Original post by Aj12

Russia may be getting weaker, it certainly is not a super power. But then neither is Iran and it still manages to have a huge destabilizing impact on the states around it. Without an American bulwark in the way it is difficult to imagine Russia not gaining de facto control of much of Eastern Europe. Unless Poland and Germany really step up to the plate.

True it could work in those circumstances, but I think we are a long way from a federal European state, which would completely eliminate the need for NATO.

Yeah I agree with that.

Do you think that by the U.S. Leaving it would force European States to get serious about defence?

I notice a lot of Eurosceptics are very fond of the U.S. Continuing their major presence inneurope, do you think it's because they fear something like this occurring?

Reply 10

Original post by Davij038

Yeah I agree with that.

Do you think that by the U.S. Leaving it would force European States to get serious about defence?

I notice a lot of Eurosceptics are very fond of the U.S. Continuing their major presence inneurope, do you think it's because they fear something like this occurring?

Doubtful, Russia invading another nation barely made a dent. If anything could cause a wake up call it'd be that. I can't imagine anything bar a local war by which time it may be too late to achieve anything.

I always get the feeling the Eurosceptics respect power and force. UKIP want to go for a military build up, as do many of their fellow travelers. Part of the reason is no doubt that they fear anything that would push European nations together.

Reply 11

Original post by Davij038

EU army
Thoughts?

German (largely) troops around Europe, now what does that remind me of......
Let's just say that wont be a good move for the EU.

Reply 12

OP

Original post by balanced

German (largely) troops around Europe, now what does that remind me of......
Let's just say that wont be a good move for the EU.

Keep that attitude up mate it'll do wonders for your chances of an out vote :wink:

Reply 13

username2298253

11

I think it's too big and full of countries with different ideologies to be a proper alliance (e.g. Turkey)

Reply 14

Original post by Davij038

Keep that attitude up mate it'll do wonders for your chances of an out vote :wink:

This EU army debate is golden for the out vote, you realise. This is because it is smothering Dave's "reforms" whilst at the same time highlighting the unelected nature of the EU, what could be better?

Reply 15

OP

Original post by balanced

This EU army debate is golden for the out vote, you realise. This is because it is smothering Dave's "reforms" whilst at the same time highlighting the unelected nature of the EU, what could be better?

I've actually spoken to a number of people -even UKIP voters * who support an EU army- which according to polls is quite popular. How is it undemocratic if it's a policy of the most popular EU party the EPP. I think this is a famous case of the eurosceptics supporting democracy apart from when they don't like the outcome.

*whilst obviously not wanting Britain being a part of it.

Reply 16

Original post by Davij038

I've actually spoken to a number of people -even UKIP voters * who support an EU army- which according to polls is quite popular. How is it undemocratic if it's a policy of the most popular EU party the EPP. I think this is a famous case of the eurosceptics supporting democracy apart from when they don't like the outcome.

*whilst obviously not wanting Britain being a part of it.

Is it though? Are we voting? No. Therefore it's rather simple, it's not democratic.

Think about what you're saying here, I'll provide you with an example. If I, the supreme dictator of north korea decided that we should increase public spending and it turned out to be popular it's democratic? Is this seriously your view?

Just because it might have "support", even if it did, it does not make it democratic. Have a rethink.

Reply 17

OP

Original post by balanced

Is it though? Are we voting? No. Therefore it's rather simple, it's not democratic.

Think about what you're saying here, I'll provide you with an example. If I, the supreme dictator of north korea decided that we should increase public spending and it turned out to be popular it's democratic? Is this seriously your view?

Just because it might have "support", even if it did, it does not make it democratic. Have a rethink.

Comparing the EU commission (who is chosen by the elected MEPs from the largest party) to North Korea- full blown retarded.

I do support a fully elected EU president as do most federalists but this move is opposed by some elected heads of state.

If you want to be obtuse on the matter we have an unelected head of state anyway

Reply 18

Rakas21

21

Original post by balanced

German (largely) troops around Europe, now what does that remind me of......
Let's just say that wont be a good move for the EU.

Original post by Skeptyle

I think it's too big and full of countries with different ideologies to be a proper alliance (e.g. Turkey)

Original post by balanced

This EU army debate is golden for the out vote, you realise. This is because it is smothering Dave's "reforms" whilst at the same time highlighting the unelected nature of the EU, what could be better?

Ironically Ukip's EU group (and the Tories) pretty much oppose any and all attempts to bring democracy to the process. To be expected (Farage and co are politicians after all) but it's not like Europe itself has not tried to bring in measures.

There are many reasons to oppose EU membership (i may vote out) but the lack of democracy argument is not all that strong. Hell, there are over 200 MEP's who want nothing less than full federalism.

Reply 19