# NATO, EU and "The Great European Defence Crisis"



## MarkOttawa (28 May 2018)

Most of this applies equally to Canada too--start of a stinging piece:



> *LINDLEY-FRENCH'S BLOG BLAST: SPEAKING TRUTH UNTO POWER*
> _A Regular Commentary on Strategic Affairs from a Leading [British] Commentator and Analyst_
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2018)

It is rather mind boggling that even in the face of clear changes in the defense environment right at their front doors (so to speak) and indeed at all 3 of our "doors" (Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic), governments have been so complacent.

While hoping for 2% of GDP may be a forlorn hope in Canada's current political environment, we might achieve something closer if we examine the methodology the US DoD apparently used to discover they could save $125 billion over the next five years simply by streamlining their internal bureaucracy. It would be interesting to see how much saving _we_ could create internally and apply to funding things like purchasing training ammunition, buying fuel for exercises and hiring more soldiers, sailors and airmen to fill the empty billets as a stopgap. I would expect we could even use the extra funds freed up to get a jump on the most pressing capital projects as well. You will note in the article there is no "Washington Monument Strategy", all the savings come without the loss of a single service member

Just fixing our own self imposed inefficiencies would go a long way to making the CAF a more creditable force and instrument of hard power for some future government, and could serve as an example to our NATO allies (many of whom are also not going to be in a political position to reach their 2% GDP goals either). We certainly spend a lot of money without getting commensurate returns, fixing that is something we ourselves can do within our own boundaries and with our own efforts. 

Edit to add: here is a link to the report: https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/investigations/defense-business-board-study-from-jan-2015-identifying-125-billion-in-waste/2236/?ref


----------



## CBH99 (28 May 2018)

Totally agreed.  We are our own worst enemies - and I think everybody on these forums would be in agreement on that.

Currently, the DND actually has to return money each year because of the bureaucratic inefficiencies we have to actually spend the money we have.  

Projects that are instrumental to being an efficient force are taken care of by a separate government agency whom - despite it being their sole purpose - can't seem to actually conclude any large procurement projects.  And if they do, it's an uphill battle against themselves.

There truly is no point in spending 2% of GDP on defense if we can't even spend the 1.2% we have now.  Streamline internal systems, and cut the BS & just buy the basic kit that needs to be bought.  Remove the morons & get the train back on the tracks.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 May 2018)

Responses by knowledgeable friends of mine:

1) 





> Better still Europe should take over its own defence given it has only one major foe, Russia, and let Americans get on with blundering into needless wars in the Middle East and East Asia.



2) 





> As for Canada, defence of North America is our legitimate interest, if for no other reason than "defence against [US] help." Expeditionary follies cannot be afforded and the public will not stand for any kind of butcher's bill.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2018)

I don't necessarily disagree with your knowledgeable friends response, Mark.  Perhaps if we had tended to our own garden patches more, we might not be in the mess we find ourselves today.  

That being said, now that we (the west) have whacked the shit out of that hornets nest, it's a little naive isn't it, to run home to our garden and not be astonished to find some hornets have followed us home.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Aug 2018)

An article that questions NATO's aspired 2% GDP metric is available at the US' Center for Strategic & International Studies: "Assessing NATO and Partner Burden Sharing" (July 2018) LINK

Its major conclusions are:
-  it's difficult to confidently measure states’ contributions to NATO given absent or non-standardized data transparency. 
-  the 2% spending metric is an insufficient measure of security commitment and capability (ditto for the goal of 20 percent of defence spending be on equipment). While _possibly_  sending signals of alliance commitment, this metric "may add more noise than clarity." 
-  an array of metrics is required. The report considers issues such as: troop contributions as a share of active duty forces; pre-crisis military mobility; trade with sanctioned competitors, etc.
-  publicly available output measures of transatlantic security is required, such as NATO’s recent "Four 30s" initiative (alliance ability to deploy 30 battalions, 30 air squadrons, and 30 warships in 30 days), which includes measures of deployability; sustainability; days on deployment; etc.

Mind you, as such analysis becomes more complex, it makes repetitively simplistic sound bites more difficult.



A quick overview of various metrics is available at the NATO Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre, "Motivating Improved Contributions to the Alliance: Defence Measurements" (2011) LINK.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Aug 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> An article that questions NATO's aspired 2% GDP metric is available at the US' Center for Strategic & International Studies: "Assessing NATO and Partner Burden Sharing" (July 2018) LINK
> 
> Its major conclusions are:
> -  it's difficult to confidently measure states’ contributions to NATO given absent or non-standardized data transparency.
> ...



Regardless, their own policy reflects the importance of the NATO alliance, and acknowledges the US is p*ssed off while member nations tend to care more about their narrow national interests to the detriment of the whole:

NATO First: Argument or Alibi?

The progress on European defence has also suffered for many years - both for good and bad reasons - under traditional “NATO first” instincts. Throughout the Cold War, European security and territorial defence were synonymous with NATO and its Article 5. The Alliance remains our ultimate security guarantee, with the participation of 22 EU Member States and a strong transatlantic link.

Consequently, autonomous European efforts were long resisted in order to maintain a community of strategic and defence-industrial interests, as well as prevent a transatlantic drift. Times have changed, however, and that logic is no longer relevant. Washington, strategically pivoting to Asia, is now pushing for defence integration in Europe, seeing it as part of a stronger and more mature transatlantic alliance. The United States expect fair burden-sharing and more responsibility for Europe’s security from European partners, because “a stronger European Defence will contribute to a stronger NATO” .

At the same time, the NATO-EU strategic partnership has been deepened, notably through the so-called “Berlin Plus” arrangements on interoperability and the sharing of command structures. There is also an emerging division of roles where the Common Security and Defence Policy takes on increased responsibility for crisis management. On the capability side, NATO’s Smart Defence and the EU’s Pooling and Sharing programme both struggle with national conservatism and resistance to profound integration, although there is more commitment to joint efforts within the Alliance.

The bottom line is that national reflexes still stand strong in defence. Member States are slow to accept that they need to go beyond a model where defence is a matter of strict national sovereignty.


https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/strategic-notes/defence-europe_en


----------



## FJAG (18 Jul 2019)

A solid interview by Andrew Coyne of NATO's Secretary General:



> *'The world is changing': Andrew Coyne talks to NATO Secretary General about Trump, Russia, the future of the alliance*
> The urbane former prime minister of Norway has been Secretary General of NATO since 2014, and through tough times for the international consensus he's been one of the loudest voices defending it
> 
> ANDREW COYNE	Updated: July 17, 2019
> ...



See rest of article here:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/the-world-is-changing-andrew-coyne-talks-to-nato-secretary-general-jens-stoltenberg-about-trump-russia-and-the-future-of-the-alliance/wcm/3ba1786d-b499-44dc-b8ed-51765023e2ca

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2019)

"No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well." Margaret Thatcher


----------



## Spencer100 (3 Dec 2019)

Liberal will not spend more 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6236653/canada-nato-defence-spending/?fbclid=IwAR2HH2OvP2pIJ2VtwqqbUIYCOZYNC7PX8ogC2z-r-JUPwreLnlO2whY5wAg


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Dec 2019)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Liberal will not spend more
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6236653/canada-nato-defence-spending/?fbclid=IwAR2HH2OvP2pIJ2VtwqqbUIYCOZYNC7PX8ogC2z-r-JUPwreLnlO2whY5wAg


And #POTUS45's response ...


> “They’re moving up and they’re moving up substantially and they’re starting to do very well economically and that has something to do with it.... “They have been under the 2 percent, obviously, but they’re moving up.” ... “Slightly delinquent, I’d say, Canada, but they’ll be okay. I have confidence. They’re slightly delinquent. Some are major delinquent. Some are way below 1 percent and that’s unacceptable, and then if something happens we’re supposed to protect them and it’s not really fair and it never has been fair. They’re paying up. We are talking to Germany tomorrow and they’re starting to come along. They have to. They have to. Otherwise if they don’t want to I’ll have to do something with respect to trade.” ...


----------



## Spencer100 (4 Dec 2019)

Ottawa fails to spend!   

https://globalnews.ca/news/6252911/canada-defence-spending-nato-target/


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Dec 2019)

Justin Trudeau's promises and just concluded NATO London summit--enough CF-18s left for NORAD? How and how fast will mech. infantry brigade get to Europe? How many frigates for North Atlantic ASW?



> Canada increases contribution to NATO high readiness force
> 
> Canada is increasing its contribution to NATO’s high readiness force by six additional fighter jets and a frigate, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Wednesday at the NATO Leaders Meeting in London.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Dec 2019)

How about contributing 2% like Trump wants ?


----------



## mariomike (4 Dec 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How about contributing 2% like Trump wants ?



For reference to the discussion,

US versus NATO  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/128315.0
15 pages.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Dec 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How about contributing 2% like Trump wants ?



Whoa... Wait... are we talking about national defence, or dairy products now?


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Dec 2019)

This article is from 2017 but if acted upon would seem to fit the need for increased defense spending. I visited the link but there was no way to post.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/07/canada-increase-military-spending-nato


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Whoa... Wait... are we talking about national defence, or dairy products now?


Or softwood lumber?


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2019)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau's promises and just concluded NATO London summit--enough CF-18s left for NORAD? How and how fast will mech. infantry brigade get to Europe? How many frigates for North Atlantic ASW?


And for the record, here's what the PM's info-machine cranked out - highlights mine ....


> ... Prime Minister Trudeau reiterated Canada’s unwavering commitment to NATO and its values, and highlighted the significant ways in which Canada strengthens the Alliance. The Prime Minister announced that *Canada is expanding its commitment to the NATO Readiness Initiative by increasing our contribution by 6 fighter aircraft and a frigate at the Secretary-General’s request. This brings our total commitment to 12 CF-18s, an expeditionary air task force, a maritime patrol aircraft, three frigates, a submarine, a mechanized infantry battalion, a mobile hospital, and a platoon for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear decontamination.* This contribution is another demonstration of Canada’s strong support for NATO and for the collective security of the Alliance ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Dec 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or softwood lumber?



Good point.... based on our latest 'National Face Palm' moment, Trump's likely to take the lumber to us, and then from us:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-summit-leaders-candid-comments-1.5383451?cmp=newsletter-news-digests-canada-and-world-evening


----------



## FJAG (4 Dec 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Good point.... based on our latest 'National Face Palm' moment, Trump's likely to take the lumber to us, and then from us:
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-summit-leaders-candid-comments-1.5383451?cmp=newsletter-news-digests-canada-and-world-evening



I looked at the clip and quite frankly what Trudeau said wasn't really all that bad. Unfortunately it was the truth and brought attention to the fact that Trump was spending much of his time by hogging the media limelight as he himself acknowledged in his "I'm outta here" tweet:



> ...When today’s meetings are over, I will be heading back to Washington. We won’t be doing a press conference at the close of NATO because we did so many over the past two days. Safe travels to all!



Note also this:



> Trump also canceled his own press conference scheduled for the end of his trip to the NATO summit. The President was caught on a hot mic of his own after the cancellation, saying, "Oh, and then you know what they'll say. 'He didn't do a press conference. He didn't do a press conference.' That was funny when I said the guy's two-faced, you know that."



What really got me about Trudeau is that he looked like the kid we all knew in high school who was always trying to hang around with the cool kids and making snide remarks about others who weren't there. He lacks gravitas. You'd think after the the Charlevoix G7 summit in 2018 that Trudeau would learn to curb his mouth. It's not often (in fact probably never) that I agree with Trump, but Trudeau is two-faced. He has a public persona that's relatively laudable but behind the scenes is cheap and petty (see for example Jody Wilson-Reabould).

Edited to add:

It just gets better and better:



> The viral moment likely wouldn't have surfaced at all without Chris Rands, the CBC's parliamentary producer in Ottawa. He spotted the exchange while he was scrolling through video footage.



https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.5383972/how-a-cbc-producer-caught-trudeau-on-a-hot-mic-gossiping-about-trump-1.5383974

 :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Dec 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> (...)
> 
> 
> > The viral moment likely wouldn't have surfaced at all without Chris Rands, the CBC's parliamentary producer in Ottawa. He spotted the exchange while he was scrolling through video footage.
> ...


Not bad for #BoughtBiasedMedia  ;D


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I looked at the clip and quite frankly what Trudeau said wasn't really all that bad.



Kellyanne's husband, George Conway put it this way,


> I can’t remember the last time anyone, let alone a president of the United States, was laughed off a continent.
> https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1202234244673818624



Washington Post,


> The world is laughing at Donald Trump
> https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1202312084446482433
> His obsession and greatest fear has come true.





			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How about contributing 2% like Trump wants ?





> National Post
> 5 Dec., 2019
> 
> Whatever you think of the president, he is radioactively unpopular in Canada. If Trump thinks we should spend two per cent of our GDP on the military, not just a few Canadians will find themselves suddenly wanting us to reduce it to zero, withdraw from NATO and sell off what materiel we have for scrap.
> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-donald-trump-is-right-about-deadbeat-canada-but-no-one-here-cares


----------

