# Saving NATO II



## ruxted (8 Feb 2008)

Link to original article on ruxted.ca


Saving NATO II

A deeply divided NATO held ministerial level meetings recently with a Canadian threat to withdraw from Afghanistan hanging over its head. Prime Minister Harper has, correctly in The Ruxted Group’s estimation, suggested that "NATO's own reputation and future will be in jeopardy"1 if it cannot get its act together and figure out a way to win in Afghanistan.

In an effort to forestall a NATO failure a panel of distinguished retired military commanders2 have reviewed the current situation and have proposed a new _grand strategy_ for a much-reformed NATO and, indeed, the West in a recent paper prepared for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (hereafter “the paper” or “Paper”). 

The Ruxted Group accepts the paper’s broad analyses of the challenges ahead and of the grand strategy proposed, but we dispute the paper’s main finding that an enlarged and reformed NATO can or should be the key actor when complex military operations need to be planned, coordinated, mounted and managed on behalf of the United Nations (UN).

The paper’s distinguished authors begin by enumerating six challenges the whole world will face:

1.	Demography - population growth and change across the globe will swiftly change the world we knew;

2.	Climate change - is leading to a new type of politics;

3.	Energy security – the supply and demand of individual nations and the weakening of the international market infrastructure for energy distribution make the situation more precarious than ever;

4.	The rise of the irrational and/or the discounting of the rational - though seemingly abstract, this problem is demonstrated in deeply practical ways. There are soft examples, such as the cult of celebrity, and there are the harder examples, such as the decline of respect for logical argument and evidence, and a drift away from science. The ultimate example is the rise of religious fundamentalism; 

5.	The weakening of the nation state - that coincides with the weakening of world institutions, including the UN and regional organisations such as NATO; and

6.	The _dark side_ of globalisation - interconnectedness has its drawbacks. These include internationalised terrorism, organised crime, the rapid spread of disease, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and asymmetric threats from proxy actors or the abuse of financial and energy leverage. Migration continues to provide challenges across the world; globalised threats are wide in scale and unprecedented in complexity.

_Source_: Paper, pps. 14/15

Taken together, the paper’s authors conclude, and we agree, these challenges mean decades, even generations of conflict which we, the US-led, law-abiding, secular Western democracies, cannot escape. They conclude that there is: a new form of warfare that abuses leverage in finance, energy and information technology. War could be waged without a single bullet being fired, and the implications of this need to become part of strategic and operational thinking. The threats today are a combination of violent terrorism against civilians and institutions, wars fought by proxy by states that sponsor terrorism, the behaviour of rogue states, the actions of organised international crime, and the coordination of hostile action through abuse of non-military means. These dangerous and complex challenges cannot be dealt with by military means alone. The West needs to agree on a new concerted strategy that would include the use of all available instruments, and to prepare for those global and regional challenges that we can predict, as well as those we cannot. _Source_: Paper, pps. 44/45

The Ruxted Group agrees with most of the analysis but we part company on the “*threat*” posed by the rise of Asia. We do not believe that it is a zero sum game of Asia vs. the traditional West (which includes e.g. Australia and Japan); rather, we prefer to take a free market perspective and assume that the rising economic, social and political tides in Asia will lift our boats, too. Further, since the challenges we face are global it stands to reason that we need a global response – one that must include friends and traditional allies from the Asia Pacific region.

The Paper moves on to address existing international security capabilities, from a wholly _Eurocentric_ or, at best, _North Atlantic_ perspective, concluding that:

1.	The United Nations remains a vital tool and should play a decisive role, but it is not capable of doing so;

2.	The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is useful in many respects, especially because both Russia and the USA are members. It has a mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes among its members, but it lacks a broad vision and a common strategy; 

3.	The European Union (EU) is a unique international organisation, partly supranational and partly a confederation. It has brought prosperity to its citizens and has succeeded in maintaining peace and eliminating war among its members. The EU also has political weaknesses, and it lacks unity. In areas of security and geopolitics, there are many internal differences concerning the status of the transatlantic alliance including the relationship with Russia and issues surrounding the Mediterranean and the Middle East; and

4.	The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been the most successful political organisation and military alliance in recent history, having managed to settle the Cold War peacefully and on its own terms. Despite its success, NATO faces serious challenges in Afghanistan and has lost the momentum required for transformation of its forces. NATO is, therefore, in danger of losing its credibility. In addition, the organisation seems to need an adequate vision for the future, including an effective strategy. It lacks capabilities, and its constituent nations are showing a marked lack of will for it to prevail. Unreformed, NATO will not be able to meet the challenges it faces now or in the future. NATO’s effectiveness is further constrained by the differences of opinion between the US and Europe, as well as by differences within Europe about the role and use of war, about hard and soft power, and about the legality of armed intervention. European NATO members are also divided among themselves about the size, role and scope of NATO. One important difference among Europeans concerns the range of NATO’s involvement: one view holds that NATO should be focused on Western security and should not extend its competence or its membership worldwide. In this vein, certain members are also opposed to extending NATO membership to non-North Atlantic nations, such as some of the democracies of the Pacific.

_Source_: Paper, pps. 71/75

The currently vexing problems of national caveats and sharing of intelligence are well-presented in the paper; it is hard to form a team-approach when each player, for national political reasons, applies different _caveats_ to its forces and relies upon different intelligence estimates. Part of this problem is created by the very size of NATO which, later, the authors propose to enlarge. NATO, like the EU, is, simply, too big, too divided and too political to bring forward a tight, cohesive plan for the sorts of complex military operations that will confront us in the future.

The paper concludes that there is a serious shortfall between the threats facing the world, not just the West, and the existing capabilities of e.g. the UN and NATO.

The authors posit (p. 85) that all is not lost because, and here we agree: “What we do have, however, are common aims, values and interests, and these alone provide a sufficient basis on which to design a new global strategy – one that appreciates the complexity and unpredictability, and that links all the instruments and capabilities together. Looking at the scale of trends, challenges and threats, we cannot see a solution in America, Europe, or any individual nation acting alone. What we need is a transatlantic alliance capable of implementing a comprehensive grand strategy that is integrated, both nationally and among allies.”

Ruxted takes great issue with one word of this assessment. The authors should have said and the leaders of the secular, law abiding democracies must insist that “what we need to is a global alliance capable of implementing a comprehensive grand strategy,” etc.

The central issue, the one the paper’s authors got right, is that the problems and challenges are global – they are not, in the main, in and around Europe and the North Atlantic. The ‘cockpit’ is, now, as it has been so often in history, in West and Central Asia and it is likely to shift towards Africa sooner rather than later. It is highly unlikely that Eurocentric or, at best, North Atlantic solutions are going to work all that well.

The Ruxted Group agrees with the paper’s broad thrust. The proposed new grand-strategy aims to preserve peace, values, free trade and stability. It seeks as much certainty as possible for the member nations, the resolution of crises by peaceful means and the prevention of armed conflict. In doing so, it aims to reduce the reasons for conflict and – should all attempts to find peaceful solutions fail – to defend the member states’ territorial integrity and protect their citizens’ way of life, including their values and convictions. _Source_: p. 92

The authors propose (Paper, p. 106) a clear, simple and, in our view, workable grand-strategy. But, despite the paper’s many, many excellent analyses and deductions the authors end up making the wrong conclusion because about implementing that strategy because, we think, of their highly _Eurocentric_ views. NATO, even an expanded alliance,3 cannot meet the objectives the UN will set because NATO will still be centred on the divided and divisive Europe.

The paper correctly points out that the problems facing us are global in nature but the paper then proposes only a ‘North Atlantic’ solution. Ruxted repeats: that is not going to be good enough. NATO should be maintained, enlarged and reformed but it needs to be steered, in the purely military sphere, by a small, nimble, global _alignment_ (rather than a formal alliance) of internationally respected (hopefully trusted), secular, law abiding democracies that have similar (even shared) intelligence systems and military standards. The Ruxted Group has proposed in the past and continues to suggest that this alignment must include the USA (for credibility) and should also include trusted members from the Americas (Canada), Europe (the United Kingdom) and the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, New Zealand and Singapore). Other qualified nations will be associated with the group; countries like Chile, Denmark, India, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway might be amongst them.

The world, connected or not, is dangerous and is growing more so. Existing international institutions (the UN, NATO, etc) are ill-suited to protect the world from itself. All can and should be reformed but a new global alignment of traditionally law biding, secular democracies is required to lead reformed regional groups, like NATO, in creating and managing the five-point strategy outlined above to serve our own and the UN’s interests – such leadership is especially necessary when ‘enforcement’ is the order of the day. 

Canada needs to have its voice heard in the world. Canadians want to contribute, actively, to the quest for world peace and security and they want their ‘values’ to animate any grand strategy which might involve Canada. Therefore, Canada should whine less and work assiduously, albeit quietly, to save NATO from itself and, more importantly, to create a new ‘alignment’ of like-minded, respected democracies which we can join with confidence and pride.


 ----------
1. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=290006
2. General (ret.) Dr. Klaus Naumann, KBE _Former Chief of the Defence Staff, Germany and Former Chairman of NATO’s  Military Committee_; General (ret.) John Shalikashvili _Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of America and Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe_; Field Marshal The Lord Inge, KG, GCB, PC _Former Chief of the Defence Staff of the United Kingdom_; Admiral (ret.) Jacques Lanxade _Former Chief of the Defence Staff of France and Former Ambassador_; and General (ret.) Henk van den Breemen _Former Chief of the Defence Staff of the Netherlands_
3. See ‘Enlargement and the three circles’ pps. 132/136 of the paper


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2008)

Does NATO need to be saved?  Is it necessary or desirable to be chaining our foreign and defence policy to the 4 jets that Belgium may provide?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2008)

See Ruxted of about 14 months ago where in the question was posed: Is NATO still the cornerstone of our foreign policy or has it _morphed_ into a stumbling block?

But, see also, this thread. There are still real and potential security problems facing Europe and we, Canada, have a vital interest in having a free, prosperous Europe as, at least, a trade partner.

I believe we, Canada, should work, as Ruxted suggested, to help NATO save itself, from itself *so that it can meet Europe’s legitimate security needs.*

I do not believe NATO is capable of leading and managing ISAF and I doubt it can reform itself in any meaningful way in the near future so as to be able to lead and manage the sorts of tasks (in Africa and Asia) that I believe will face the UN (and that the UN will need to _contract out_) in that same near future. Therefore we need, urgently, a new top level _alignment_ of _interoperable_ military powers that can plan, coordinate, mount, lead and manage ‘coalitions of the willing’ in a wide range of complex (three block way type) military operations anywhere in the world.

So: Yes, NATO is worth saving but not because it can or should conduct out of area operations.

One key to reforming NATO, in my opinion is that the US must withdraw NATO assigned/earmarked troops from Europe so that the security of Europe becomes a European responsibility, backed by the USA’s strategic power. Canada and the USA should remain fully committed to the defence of the North Atlantic and the sea lines of communication which are essential for Europe’s security.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Feb 2008)

Roger - I read the articles and then re-read your post.  So, NATO is not worth saving.  It should be dramatically altered to be a Euro-Defence organization (which the EU probably has covered off anyways) with some outside imput.  

Foreign "Cabinet Wars" are not what NATO was designed for or has the political will or structure to prosecute and we in Canada need a new organization (your _alignment of interoperable military powers_ - which I see as ABCA + some extras) to fill this gap.  Canada's overseas commitments will not be met when we plan policies around Dutch domestic politics.  Sounds like we should let NATO die and have the new group draw something up with the EU....


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2008)

No, I don’t think we should let NATO wither and die. I think there is till some life in its old, original and *only valid role*: deterring the Russians.

There are some, notably in France, who do want an exclusively European alliance, with no American leadership, or direct participation (although even the French admit they need the US strategic deterrent because without it they are military eunuchs, fir only to guard the harem). That is not in our best interests.

We want Europe to succeed as a free, prosperous market for our goods and services and as a bulwark against Russia – which, over the next few decades, I doubt will become anything like the _”partner in the quest for peace and prosperity”_ Bill Clinton though he glimpsed in 1994. But: I do think we should require the Europeans to bear the entire land/air burden of the defence of their own homelands – as we should bear that burden for ourselves. The US should offer its strategic deterrent to all nations that are pledged to peace, democracy and the rule of law – including Europe.

I am convinced that NATO, even if it is thoroughly reformed, cannot be the military `sub-contractor` the UN so desperately needs. NATO`s fundamental flaw is that it is a North Atlantic or, worse, European alliance, and the world, the UN, needs a global body – ABCA+ fits the bill.

I`m repeating myself, but: the new _alignment_ ought not to be a formal alliance – some of NATO’s weakness results from the fact that it is a formal political alliance with all the political issues that obtain from that status. (I don’t have the book at hand (I’m away from home) but in _*Present at the Creation*_ Dean Acheson railed against Mike Pearson for trying to inject too much politics into the North Atlantic Treaty. I think the experience of 60 years shows that Acheson was wise and Pearson was (idealistically) foolish.) Although I say ABCA+ works I think we must eschew any suggestion of either the _Anglosphere_ or an ‘all white’ _club_ – neither will be acceptable to the rest of the world. The alignment needs members of its core group like India and Singapore, maybe Malaysia (a formally Islamic state), too. That being said, the group must be small or else it will fall into NATO’s other weakness: size. As the authors of the paper cited in the Ruxted article pointed out (when they recommended that a reformed NATO have a core group) 25+ countries cannot plan and control anything.

We need to do two things at once:

•	Protect NATO from itself so that it can, over time, reform itself and get back to the only legitimate task it can have; and

•	Start *leading* the way in creating the new alliance – just as Louis St Laurent was amongst the leaders in creating NATO sixty years ago.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an article that illustrates NATO’s dilemma:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080210.wafghangates0210/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


> Gates urges NATO allies to do more in Afghanistan
> 
> ANDREW GRAY
> 
> ...



We, the NATO nations and people in them, are deeply divided. Some of us, ( Infidel-6, Secretary Gates and I, for example) do indeed see that “the threat posed by violent Islamic extremism is real – and it is not going to go away” and we see it as “the pinnacle issue of our generation”. Others, many others, perhaps most people, especially in Europe and maybe Canada, too, do not agree. They see the entire Afghanistan entanglement as an *American strategic blunder* dating, as Gates himself suggests, back to the 1980s and 90s. They cannot reconcile the fight against the Taliban with any real terrorist threats to Berlin, Madrid, Paris and Rome. It is not to say that Berlin, Madrid, Paris and Rome fell immune to terrorist attacks – but they blame them on the USA, because it is more _convenient_ to pass the buck than to face the facts. I suspect most people in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver share that view.

It seems pretty clear to me that, left to Europe, we will lose Kandahar because they (NATO) lack the will to win. I believe, and I think most analysts agree, that if we lose Kandahar then the entire Afghanistan _project_ (Bonn agreement, etc, etc) fails, too. If the Arab/Persian/_Islamist_ extremists and religious fundamentalists ‘win’ in Afghanistan – no matter how false the victory may be – then we, the mighty, rich, US led, secular, liberal-democratic West lose. That ought to be an unthinkable proposition – but it’s not.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Feb 2008)

I would not discount the opposition to the Iraq war in the US among a sizeable number of people, including the two contenders for the Democrat presidential nomination, being easily transferable to the Afghanistan mission. It is very troubling that election year politics trumps the greater interests of the secular western democracies, and this attitude is all too prevelant internationally. One perhaps could excuse this in Canada and the minor European states, who tend to avoid thinking about the big picture because of self-preceived powerlessness or wilful ignorance or delusional moral superiority or whatever, but it is troubling when the big and almost big powers waver.  

The excuse that both are George Bush's wars provides an easy way out, and temporarily avoids facing the issues.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Feb 2008)

I truly believe that an effective alliance needs a rather credible and immediate threat to function with any union and harmony.  The Soviet Union graciously provided this threat during the Cold War.  Take that threat away and unique national interests will crop up.  I tend to agree with Edward that many do not see a threat.  It is hard to convince people because the threat is a second or third order issue before it affects them and they can fall back on blaming the mission in the first place.  

NATO has turned into something else and perhaps we are hoping for too much.  Please forgive the following rhetorical questions.  Were there calls for NATO involvement in Vietnam?  Did that crisis bring down NATO?  How involved was NATO in the Falklands or Malaya?  How many NATO troops were in Algeria?   

Pushing a rope is a rather frustrating venture, and fighting in alliances can also be frustrating.  While these references are from another time and place, both the Soviets and the British 8th Army liked to pick on weak German allies when they could.  I would rather fight alone than with indifferent allies on my flanks.  At least when I'm alone I _know_ that I have to watch my flanks...


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (21 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I would rather fight alone than with indifferent allies on my flanks.  At least when I'm alone I _know_ that I have to watch my flanks...



+1


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Feb 2008)

More NATO bashing... grrrrrr 

Winning the battles, losing the war
Without a greater resolve, US and European forces in Afghanistan risk putting the future of the Nato alliance, and our lives, in danger

February 27, 2008 2:30 PM | 
"The Americans are winning everything - except the war." Amazingly, this is not the sceptical comment of a European on current US activities in Iraq. In fact, it is the assessment made by Israeli general Moshe Dayan, following a visit to Vietnam - in 1966, which was an impressively early point in which to have this understanding. And sadly, it could apply not only to Iraq today, but also to the Nato efforts in Afghanistan.

Like the Americans in 1966, Nato forces, known as Isaf, win most - if not all - engagements with the Taliban. The problem is that the victories are not backed up when there is a need to escalate or build upon them, and so in sum they add up to loss and defeat. In other words, the core issues are lack of political will - and lack of purpose. 

Worse still, the Taliban is quite aware of these issues, and can live quite easily with the local defeats. In its own terms, it is winning: it picks the fights that Nato forces then respond to, and these are more often than not located within civilian populations. Nato's firepower against the Taliban defeats it, but also causes disproportionate damage to civilian infrastructure, and in some cases also kills innocent civilians. The end result is awful: a military engagement won, a population lost. 

If Nato has any strategic purpose in Afghanistan, it is winning over the people, the population: the Afghans have to become convinced that the alternative posed by the international community is better, more viable, and more dependable than that offered by the Taliban. Since there is a residual hatred of the latter, the international option should be a no-brainer - but it is not: despite tens of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars, Isaf is ultimately seen as weak, obsessed with itself rather than the population, constantly searching for an exit strategy and therefore not dependable for the long term. 

Above all, Isaf is ultimately perceived to be losing - and that is of course the greatest and most important asset of the Taliban: not only is it still seen as a potential winner despite local losses, it has exposed Nato as being weak and lacking in political will. As such, it has actually uncovered a far greater reality: that Nato has lost its power of deterrence. And this is no minor loss: Nato won the cold war on the power of deterrence alone, since not a single shot was ever fired between the sides. Losing this power, and to an unruly bunch of hooligans such as the Taliban at that, is therefore a colossal loss. 

The roots of this reality go far deeper than the current conflict in Afghanistan. Together with General Sir Rupert Smith, former deputy commander of Nato, I have analysed them more widely in an article in National Interest - where we argue that the alliance has not been restructured, politically as much as functionally, to undertake the kind and scale of operations for which it is now committed. 

Most significantly, there is a deep disconnect between the US and its European allies: the former still assumes it can maintain absolute leadership over, and hence obedience of the Europeans, as had been the case during the cold war - ignoring the fact that there is now no longer an overwhelming threat such as that posed by the Warsaw pact and the Soviet nuclear capability. Moreover, it can no longer ignore the chasm that opened between itself and the UK and many of the other allies over the Iraq war, and the resulting discrediting of the far more consensual operation in Afghanistan, especially in the eyes of the European electorates.

The European allies, in turn, must make the clear distinction between Iraq, as a folly, and Afghanistan, which poses sincere security issues to us all: defeat there is not simply a question of victory to the Taliban and al-Qaida, but also of a vast state left in their hands, with masses of refugees fleeing in all directions, further increasing our burdens of insecurity. 

In addition, Europeans must confront the harsh fact of having lost any ability to use force, in any context: there is a willingness to deploy forces, but an absolute reluctance to employ them in conflict. This is partly due to most Europeans taking the so called "peace dividend" at the end of the cold war, and partly due to a seemingly blind equation between any use of military force and a US-style display of shock and awe with its entailing massive destruction. 

This is ultimately unacceptable: an unwillingness to use excessive force is a value to be admired; a blanket unwillingness to use force is irresponsible. There are situations in which a short sharp display of force can make a massive difference - and be of great moral as well as political value. A classic example where such a show may have made a big difference is of course in Srebrenica, where the Dutch withdrew their forces rather than fire a single shot, leaving 8,000 Bosniaks to be massacred. Conversely, when the UK made a short display of force in Sierra Leone, the rebels fled, leaving the war-torn country to finally attempt to restore itself.

Nato appears remarkably unaware of its endemic problems: as delegation after delegation of alliance diplomats and senior commanders visits Afghanistan, all comments seem to focus upon troop commitments and force levels. Across the Atlantic, and the Channel, the talk is only of removing or replacing caveats, as if this would be the panacea for all. And while it would be extremely useful to have greater commitment from the member states, and a more just spread of the burden, this would not resolve the core issues. For unless the US and the Europeans find a new way to communicate and agree, there can be no coherent future for Isaf - or Nato. And such an outcome could be a disaster for us all.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ilana_betel/2008/02/winning_the_battles_losing_the_war.html


----------



## Falange (29 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, I don’t think we should let NATO wither and die. I think there is till some life in its old, original and *only valid role*: deterring the Russians.
> 
> There are some, notably in France, who do want an exclusively European alliance, with no American leadership, or direct participation (although even the French admit they need the US strategic deterrent because without it they are military eunuchs, fir only to guard the harem). That is not in our best interests.



Russia as the raison d'etre for NATO simply won't work anymore. The Europeans prefer to approach Russia through the Stategic Partnership and the ENP set up a couple of years ago. Russia itself is behaving more in its own microcosm as it wants to define itself as an autonomous actor in the international system, and although many of its policies have certain nationalist rethoric, the Europeans could feel less that threaten as they know the Duma  cannot look further than its own backyard. The development of the ESDP and other security arrangements within the auspices of the EU come from the fact that many of Europe's security interests cannot be fully satisfied by NATO. Regions such as Western Africa are better approached through European defence policy making, instead of a Euro-Atlantic approach that won't have much interest from the North American counterparts. Also it is in the interests of the 27 members of the EU to become militarily more self-sufficient, as it is in their interest to protect the Union. Not all countries in the EU are members of NATO and vice-versa, and thus it becomes easier to seek again a Euro-approach. The best call for NATO is to keep working in issues that share a common ground for all partners.  Also NATO has to remind its members the  significance of the strategic outcome of Afghanistan. Instead of seeing it as part of the "War of Terror" it should be seen as an stabilization mission in a region adjacent to Western interests. Indeed, I strongly beleive that was brought this huge rift within NATO is the fact that the Americans started using the whole "war on terror" rethoric. The idea of terrorism or more precisely radical islam is not as coherent as it may sound. There are always different social, political, cultural and economic factors that cannot be ignore when dealing with a topic such as this. Hopefully, certain European states will take a more leading role in Afgh. as they will realize what really is at stake here.


----------



## fraserdw (15 Mar 2008)

I am torn on this one.  I grew up militarily in NATO but I have to admit that it has come to a crossroads.  We have some very good allies in the newer NATO nations but it seems that some of the older NATO Europeans prefer slaughter on their own continent to slaughter in eslewhere.   Maybe we should move the whole Afghan war to ....Saxony?  Seriously, I think we should be expanding a North American Alliance with the US and Mexico and consider 50% of the Atlantic North American territory.  Stay in NATO but have no troop committments in Europe until after an aggression is declared.  

From fish to seals, climate change to native affairs, the Europeans have shoved their noses into our affairs as a reward for our committment to save them from the Soviets.  They are not the business market they once were and they have become very ungrateful and un-cooperate.  It may just be time to move on.


----------



## Mourning (17 Mar 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This is ultimately unacceptable: an unwillingness to use excessive force is a value to be admired; a blanket unwillingness to use force is irresponsible. There are situations in which a short sharp display of force can make a massive difference - and be of great moral as well as political value. A classic example where such a show may have made a big difference is of course in Srebrenica, where the Dutch withdrew their forces rather than fire a single shot, leaving 8,000 Bosniaks to be massacred. Conversely, when the UK made a short display of force in Sierra Leone, the rebels fled, leaving the war-torn country to finally attempt to restore itself.



Though I aggree virtually completely with the article this part irritates me as a Dutch national. IF you make an example atleast make sure it is factually correct. True, I will be the last that there was real hard fighting in Srebrenica, but to say that there were no shots fired is an absolute lie. There were blocking positions and there definitely was shooting. Also it fails to mention the call for airstrikes on Bosnian Serb positions for almost a week, all been blocked except one when just two Dutch F-16s were allowed to bomb a small Bosnian Serb column. It fails to mention that the position of that valley was not in anyway defendable (THAT was our collossal mistake, putting our troops in such an unholdable position with no major country placing some of it's troops there aswell). There were less then 450 troops there of which only just 150 were combat troops, mostly placed in dozens of small OP's that conform to UN rules had to be highly visible (combat value: 0). The troops had been blockaded by the Bosnian Serbs for months with the nearest supplycentre beying more then 40km away in Tuzla in mountainous terrain. Fuel was almost non-existant, of the ammo almost a 1/3 was considered unreliable because the means to maintain them properly couldnt be brought in and then there were the Bosnian government forces that actually shot at the Dutch troops and used them as cover in multiple occassions.

Hardly a comparable situation with Sierra Leone with armed forces that were opposing the British were not comparable in training, information, doctrine, logistics, positioning, etc, etc. and that was a situation in which the UK had the means to send in extra forces. Again, ridiculous comparison, but hey, I guess the author is British too and why not make some propaganda for your own nation at the expense of another, right?

Again, aggreed with the rest of the article, but this just blew it for me.

Regards,

Mourning  8)


----------



## CougarKing (1 Apr 2008)

Will the addition of further NATO members rejuvenate the alliance, especially if these new members send MORE troops to Afghanistan?

Interesting. Although the entry of a number of former East Bloc states into NATO has been going on for quite a while now, the US and its NATO allies are further strengthening their membership especially with the Russian Bear being resurrected by Putin -especially with all this recent increased Russian military activity such as those Russian bombers "buzzing" that USN carrier recently, IIRC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23894165/



> *Bush: U.S. backs Ukraine to join NATO
> In Kiev, he declares Russia won’t have a say at alliance meeting next week*
> The Associated Press
> updated 2:27 a.m. PT, Tues., April. 1, 2008
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an article – the “lead” for its weekly _Focus_ section – about NATO at 60:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090327.wfocuscover28/BNStory/International/home


> NATO turns 60
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> 
> ...




I will quibble with one point Saunders makes when he switches from _fair comment_ to the *institutionalized anti-Harper bias* that is so deeply ingrained in most of the mainstream Canadian media that the majority of _journalists_ cannot bring themselves to believe that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada actually won a free and fair election and really, really are the legitimate governing party. Saunders says: ” … the United States, backed aggressively by Stephen Harper's government, was pushing to expand NATO far eastward, by inviting the former Soviet colonies of Georgia and Ukraine to be members — a move that antagonized Russia and deeply divided Europe.” The American led _Drang nach Osten_ began while George HW Bush and its was supported, with about the same level of “aggression,” by Liberal and Conservative governments alike, led by Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.

The central point, however, that NATO is a worthless hulk, is worth considering.

_Caveat lector_: I opposed the expansion of NATO - beginning with the decision to admit the Baltic states and the former Warsaw Pact members. My rationale was that, with the demise of the USSR, _per se_, NATO needed to be *contracted* rather than expanded and the best role for the former Russian satellites was to serve as a buffer zone between Western Europe and Russia.

NATO is a tightly structured, formal alliance. It was a good, even great idea sixty years ago. Canada played useful, even important roles in its creation and implementation – until 1969 when, 20 years too early, we decided there was no Soviet threat. NATO provided the essential security umbrella beneath which Western Europe sheltered, in relative safety, able to devote its resources to reconstruction rather than defence. NATO, by its very existence, obliged the USSR (Russia in particular) to make difficult and, ultimately, wrong choices. A combination of pride and second rate strategic thinking led the USSR into an arms race a resurgent West. We (the American led West) won - decisively.

Fifteen years ago, in 1994, NATO *did* find a useful role – as Europe’s military agent in the Balkans. But NATO was ill suited for the task because it was, as it still is, an Atlantic alliance and so Europe *failed* because the Balkans was/is a European problem which Europe ought to be able to solve by itself, without American and Canadian help and because it is now perceived, by the world, including Europe, that Europe is unable to clean up messes in its own back yard. Do you think the US will welcome or even allow Spain, a NATO members, to _engage_ in Mexico? Not bloody likely.

The French were right – even France has to right once a century, or so, and they were desperately wrong, time after time after time, throughout the first 90 years of the 20th century – Europe need its own military alliance, *not NATO*, to do Europe’s bidding in Europe and the adjacent regions.

So, in 1994 we made the wrong decision. We preserved and then expanded NATO rather than having a huge victory bash on its 45th anniversary and then folding our tents and disbanding the alliance.

Saunders is right, I think: Afghanistan will destroy NATO. It has exposed too many deep divisions – cracks that will not be papered over. “Why the hell,” Canadians might ask, “do we need so-called ‘allies’ who are too gutless to send their well equipped soldiers to help us when our men and women are fighting and dying?” (No knock on the individual Germany or Italian soldier, I’m guessing they aren’t “gutless” but Merkel and Berlusconi are certainly not the ‘allies’ we need in a fight, are they?)

But the whole world now knows that the UN cannot run Chapter 7 peacekeeping operations on its own. No one (at least no one who matters) trusts it to do so and the UN, itself, has admitted that it cannot manage its own operations as well as it must. This, to be the UN’s trusted “hard power” sub-contractor, is the role upon which NATO seized to perpetuate its existence. It’s a valid role – for some body.

I will not go an, yet again, about why we need a loose, informal alliance coalition of like-minded and militarily interoperable nations that can organize and manage complex, “hard power” operations for the UN – but we do need just that. The problem with NATO is that the members are anything but “like-minded.”

HMCS Winnipeg is off to a NATO mission in the Indian Ocean. That’s commendable – for NATO and Canada, because there’s lots of good naval “work” to be done in Indian Ocean region – but SNMG1 should have ships from e.g. Australia, China, India, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore, too. In other words it should be a *coalition* force rather than just a North Atlantic Treaty force operating “out of area.”

It is time to rethink NATO; maybe it’s time to bury it. We would not have to wait long for a replacement to appear. Perhaps it can _morph_ into a European Security Alliance able to make contributions to “hard power” operations led by a coalition.


----------



## GAP (28 Mar 2009)

> It is time to rethink NATO; maybe it's time to bury it. We would not have to wait long for a replacement to appear. Perhaps it can morph into a European Security Alliance able to make contributions to “hard power” operations led by a coalition.



And not be dominated by the International focus/agenda of the US.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2009)

There is a 15 minute discussion of NATO’s future here, on CTV News’ _Power Play_.

Obama urged the Europeans to support his new strategy and they agreed to provide all possible support, short of real help. This is not a “new Europe” vs. “old Europe” thing; it is an “insular Europe” vs. a “globalist” conflict.

Bill Graham notes that, from 1990 on, NATO has been in a constant process of “redefining itself.” He thinks NATO will be kept together because we (everyone) really need a strong, effective multilateral organization to do the “hard power” work for the UN.

Lew Mackenzie notes that the ‘breakdown’ is likely to come over the Ukraine/Georgia issue. Despite Canada’s support for this US proposal, Mackenzie disagrees with further NATO expansion – as do I. Bill Graham agrees, in part, but believes the challenge is how to _engage_ Russia rather than how to stand against it over e.g. Georgia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, NATO got too large in the 1990s and it cannot, now, be trimmed down to a useful size.

Stephen Harper, very correctly, says that the long, deep _*global*_ recession will produce new and greater security threats. For now, NATO is about the only tool in the UNSC’s kit so it needs to be sharpened and made ready for use.

The current “burden sharing” in Afghanistan demonstrates that the “globalists” (Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, UK, USA and a few others) are doing the “heavy lifting” while the “insular Europeans” – *neo-isolationists* – are making a mockery of the _idea_ of NATO.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (4 Apr 2009)

With reference to the critisizing of NATO's exansion...

It seems to me that it is the newer and smaller NATO countries that are more then willing to participate in operations, whereas the older, larger European members are the ones who refuse to lift a finger.  In light of this, is it far to say that NATO has gotten too big and is therefore no longer effective?  My assessment is that NATO is no longer effective because France, Germany et all no longer want it to be effective.  The new members of the alliance seem more then willing to pitch in.  I dont think its expansion thats hurting the alliance.  Its Western Europe that is.  Lets not forget, this alliance was formed to protect Western Europe from Sovient attack.  Those same European countries are no longer interested because the tables have turned and NATO to have taken a tone of protecting the United States rather then Europe.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> With reference to the critisizing of NATO's exansion...
> 
> It seems to me that it is the newer and smaller NATO countries that are more then willing to participate in operations, whereas the older, larger European members are the ones who refuse to lift a finger.  In light of this, is it far to say that NATO has gotten too big and is therefore no longer effective?  My assessment is that NATO is no longer effective because France, Germany et all no longer want it to be effective.  The new members of the alliance seem more then willing to pitch in.  I dont think its expansion thats hurting the alliance.  Its Western Europe that is.  Lets not forget, this alliance was formed to protect Western Europe from Sovient attack.  Those same European countries are no longer interested because the tables have turned and NATO to have taken a tone of protecting the United States rather then Europe.



Cheese eating surrender monkeys ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2009)

I think it is much more complicated than that. “New Europe” vs. “old Europe” was claptrap when it was postulated and it remains so today.

The reason, the only reason “New Europe” shows any enthusiasm for American led _enterprises_ like Iraq is that it is sucking up to its new paymaster. “New Europe” is not getting quite the same _sweetheart_ deal that Greece, Portugal and Spain got from the EU so they are more reliant upon the US for a leg up – and they are looking for US bases and the medium term economic “boomlettes” they provide.

Not all of “Old Europe” is isolationist – Denmark, Netherlands and Norway, for example, are in the _globalist_ camp with Australia, Canada, the UK and the US.

If I read the papers and polls correctly, I conclude that Continental Europe, West and East is, largely, of a single mind – the exceptions being found around the North Sea.

I remain opposed to NATO expansion – hell’s bells, I never understood why we wanted Spain “in” – it contributes/contributed nothing, about the same as Estonia _et al_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an article – the “lead” for its weekly _Focus_ section – about NATO at 60:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090327.wfocuscover28/BNStory/International/home
> 
> ...




Whereas, five years ago, when it turned 60, I thought NATO had just about outlived its usefullness, I am now wondering if Putin/Russia has breathed new life into the alliance, giving it an new opportunity to fill its only useful role: defending the West, Europe, from the East, Russia.

I remain convinced that NATO is the wrong tool of the UNSC to use to conduct "out of area" military operations.* There needs to be something better ~ global, smaller, more nimble and so on ~ a _coalition_ of powers that I have, elsewhere described as being _globalist_ (America, Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, etc ... and I should never list countries because someone will say "Why did you leave ____ and ____ off the list?" The answer is: "idleness") and who are prepared to establish and staff a small planning HQ and to build upon already established _interoperability_ matters.

But: Ukraine is on NATO's frontier. Russia is flexing its military muscle in NATO's back yard. Crimea is *NOT* "out of area." NATO is here for a reason, one reason, and Russia/Putin has just reminded us of what it is.

It is time for NATO to shake off its _political_ lethargy and to do a wee, tiny bit of _sabre rattling_ of its own. NATO is massively more powerful than Russia ... or it would be if it chose to be. My sense is that Putin/Russia judges Cameron, Harper, Hollande, Merkel, Obama, Rutte and Thorning-Schmidt to be timid and tired of war. If Putin is right then NATO is done; if NATO wants a useful role then it must bestir itself .. and that will require two things in its leaders: some "bottom" or _gravitas_, if you like, and several spines. 

_____
* And Russia/Putin will never allow the UNSC to declare that anything involving Russia is a proper matter for UN action, so ...


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2014)

While the aforementioned heads of government may be concerned about the war-weariness of their populations I believe the greater issue is how do these people and their populations perceive the situation:

Thorning-Schmidt, Rasmussen, Solberg, Ansip, Straujuma, Butkevicius, Tusk, Radicova, Sobotka, Orban, Ponta, Oresharski, Bratusek, Milanovic, Erdogan and Samaras.  

As well as these non-NATO names:

Reinfeldt, Katainen, Leanca, Tymoshenko, Klitschko.

The further east you go the fewer material goods there are to lose and the rawer the memories.  Freedom is not just another word over there.

Moldova presents an interesting case study - The Moldovans want to remove a  WW2 monument to their "Liberators" from Russia.  The grand-kids of the liberators, that never left, insists the monument stays.  Those folks have a majority position in Transdniestr and also insist they wish to become Russians again.

NATO could split along roughly the same lines as the EU with Germany, as ever, being the wild card.

Edit: Forgot a non-NATO name - Garibashvili

Re-Edit:

Another point I wanted to make is that while I agree that it was unwise from an RealPolitik point of view to expand NATO and the EU I do not see what the alternative was.  The reason the Russians built the Iron Curtain was not to keep the west out. It was to keep the east in.  The wall was not pushed down by westerners. It was pushed down by easterners.

The problem that both Washington and Moscow face is the loss of control of people and events.  They can't solve problems with one phone call.  They must now react to events like everybody else.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Mar 2014)

Would the EU come to the defense of a member if they were threatened by the Russians ? Will NATO defend Estonia ? If Russia wants to reconstitute the USSR I don't see NATO stopping Putin.This is what started WW2,Sudentland,Austria ect.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Would the EU come to the defense of a member if they were threatened by the Russians ? Will NATO defend Estonia ? If Russia wants to reconstitute the USSR I don't see NATO stopping Putin.This is what started WW2,Sudentland,Austria ect.



I have my doubts about the EU or NATO doing much of anything.  I think that you may see some of the Eastern countries coming to each others aid, to the extent they can.  

Bigger problem for Putin though, would be now having all those demonstrators, "neo-nazis" and Tatars with Chechen tendencies inside his borders.

He may see himself as heir to Lenin and Stalin but would Russia be Putin up with that again?


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2014)

He sees himself not as premier of a resurgent USSR, but rather as a new Czar.  IMHO


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> He sees himself not as premier of a resurgent USSR, but rather as a new Czar.  IMHO




There was a joke making the rounds, in London, in the 1980s, that the British Admiralty had secretly arranged a _Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George_ (GCMG) to Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina because he saved the Royal Navy by starting the Falklands War. Mrs Thatcher had her beady little accountant's eyes focused on the carriers ... until Galtieri's blunder.

Maybe we need to reserve a similar _gong_ for Putin ... for saving NATO.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Mar 2014)

Does this mean the CCV is back on the blocks?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Does this mean the CCV is back on the blocks?



 :rofl:


----------



## devil39 (23 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Does this mean the CCV is back on the blocks?



If it means they will take back TAPV I'm for it.....


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2014)

I'd settle for some size 9 1/2 mukluks...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> He sees himself not as premier of a resurgent USSR, but rather as a new Czar.  IMHO



The problem with Putin is he spends to much time looking into the past and trying to resurrect the former glories of the Russian/Soviet empires. This is, after all, the man who thinks that the worst disaster to befall Russia in the 20th century was the fall of the Soviet Union, which I'm sure some  survivors of "The Great Patriotic War" might think differently. 

What Putin should have been doing is looking to the future and trying to improve relations with the West.


----------



## upandatom (24 Mar 2014)

Im not too sure I understand all thats being said here with the exception of;

1. Putin is now the big bad wolf? 
2. NATO is an old outdated arrangement that needs a serious update?
3. We need another war to stimulate economies?

To be honest, UN is the more outdated one, look at the fact that someone charged with WAR crimes picks their court dates, and sometimes doesnt even have to show up. The UN is the schoolyard bully stuck in the sandbox and can only hurt people that step into the box. 

I will and do agree that the rest of NATO needs to step up their contribution game. The major players have been fighting hard for over a decade now. 

Canada will need that NATO agreement should things go south with Russia, we are bang in the middle, of the shortest path. WE have already raped and pillaged the budget taking away readiness levels, affecting our ability to respond to immediate threatsm, and it is goint to get worse. 

Alot of talk about the EU, someone want to elaborate? and dumb it down?


----------



## Journeyman (24 Mar 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Im not too sure I understand all thats being said here with the exception of;
> 
> 3. We need another war to stimulate economies?


Where does that understanding come from?


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Mar 2014)

Read somewhere yesterday that the US has quietly been withdrawing troops and is now under 70,000 in Europe.


----------



## Griffon (24 Mar 2014)

> Im not too sure I understand all thats being said here with the exception of;
> 
> 3. We need another war to stimulate economies?
> Where does that understanding come from?



Wars increase government spending, which will increase real GDP.  The increase in GDP increases disposable income, which will further increase GDP growth.  Works pretty well for the victors, especially when the war is fought on foreign soil, but only if you're using domestic equipment.  The downsides: you're running a deficit, and *you're at war!*

Not exactly a great foreign or economic policy, if you ask me...

Edit: Spelling


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Mar 2014)

Just came across this....

It seems to nicely describe the West in general, and NATO in particular these days:

THE SLEEPY SENTINEL 

 Faithless the watch that I kept: now I have none to keep.
 I was slain because I slept: now I am slain I sleep.
 Let no man reproach me again; whatever watch is unkept—
I sleep because I am slain. They slew me because I slept.

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_epitaphs.htm


----------



## Journeyman (25 Mar 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> Wars increase government spending.....


Thank you for acting as interpreter for upandatom and reaffirming my understanding of Economics 101; it's been a while.  However, the poster said that needing another war to stimulate economies was "being said here" -- I apparently missed that sidebar discussion, and was wondering where his "understanding" came from.


----------



## Griffon (25 Mar 2014)

> However, the poster said that needing another war to stimulate economies was "being said here" -- I apparently missed that sidebar discussion, and was wondering where his "understanding" came from.



I see your point...now.  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Mar 2014)

Griffon said:
			
		

> I see your point...now.  ;D



If I may interject here, I took basic economics 30+ years ago. While a war may stimulate the economy for a period of time, once that war is ended.....what happens?
What do we want...guns? or butter?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2014)

The _Economist_ shares its views on _whiter NATO?_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal:



> The future of NATO
> First principles
> *Russia’s annexation of Crimea has given NATO renewed purpose*
> 
> ...




As the article says, "Russia ... made chillingly clear on March 18th [that] it is willing to use military force in support of coercive diplomacy when it feels its interests are jeopardised," and "NATO’s attempts since the 1990s to enlist Russia as a security partner through bodies such as the NATO-Russia Council now lie in tatters." 

But what now? According to the article, For "Kori Schake, a Bush-administration defence official now at the Hoover Institution ...  the answer to deterring Russia is simple: “We must be inflexible on Article 5, but it is no good half-caring about countries that are part-way Western.”"

What does that mean?

We, America, Britain, Canada, France, Germany and so on, must commit, fully, to safeguarding the new, Eastern European and Baltic members ... we may have to reconsider the current post-Afghanistan _peace dividend_. For Canada, maybe it is time for a _six pack_ of CF-18s to deploy, for a few weeks, maybe even a few months, to Europe.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But what now? According to the article, For "Kori Schake, a Bush-administration defence official now at the Hoover Institution ...  the answer to deterring Russia is simple: “We must be inflexible on Article 5, but it is no good half-caring about countries that are part-way Western.”"


Dovetailing with the bit in yellow, here's what NATO's SG said after his meeting with the U.S. President for mastication and rumination:


> ....  I welcome the steps that the United States has taken in response to Russia’s reckless and illegal military actions in Ukraine. Clearly collective defence of our Allies is a core task for NATO and I join you in your call for additional measures to enhance our collective defence including updated and further developed defence plans, enhanced exercises, and appropriate deployments.
> 
> Our commitment to the defence of our Allies is unbreakable and at the same time we are firm in our support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will intensify our military cooperation with Ukraine including helping the Ukrainians to modernise their armed forces. As we prepare for our next summit in Wales later this year, we will review the viability of our relationship with Russia, we will enhance cooperation with our partners, we will further strengthen our collective defence and we will reinforce the transatlantic bond. NATO is a force for peace but also unmatched militarily. We do not seek confrontation but we will not waver if challenged.  And our Alliance is more than just a military Alliance, we are a community of values that also brings hope for all people seeking freedom and peace.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We, America, Britain, Canada, France, Germany and so on, must commit, fully, to safeguarding the new, Eastern European and Baltic members ... we may have to reconsider the current post-Afghanistan _peace dividend_. For Canada, maybe it is time for a _six pack_ of CF-18s to deploy, for a few weeks, maybe even a few months, to Europe.


That said, how confident are you all the NATO horses will line up in the harness and pull in the same direction on this one?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ... That said, how confident are you all the NATO horses will line up in the harness and pull in the same direction on this one?




My guess is that _Supreme Leader_ Putin has scared the bejeezus out of Cameron, Holland, Merkel, Obama _et al_ and the (few) hard liners, led by Prime Minister Harper, will have some but not too may problems in getting them to pull, sort of together, in roughly the right direction.

But I think Prime Minister Harper has to do a bit more than buss Chancellor Merkel's cheek ...







... that's why I think now is the time to say "We'll send a _six pack_ of CF-18s to help out, just for bit." Finance will hate the idea, but ...


Edit: typo/capitalization  :-[


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... that's why i think now is the time to say "We'll send a _six pack_ of CF-18s to help out, just for bit." Finance will hate the idea, but ...


Just to get the ball rolling, so to speak.  I think Finance will win, so I wait with bated breath.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Mar 2014)

Canada's commitment to Korea started with 3 destroyers from the RCN and the RCAF contributing to an air bridge.  That was followed up by a single battalion of "light" infantry (2 PPCLI) created from whole cloth which formed a composite brigade with the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis. 

Concurrently 2 additional "light" battalions were raised and within 6 months a Canadian brigade was formed in a Commonwealth Division.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Canada's commitment to Korea started with 3 destroyers from the RCN and the RCAF contributing to an air bridge.  That was followed up by a single battalion of "light" infantry (2 PPCLI) created from whole cloth which formed a composite brigade with the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis.
> 
> Concurrently 2 additional "light" battalions were raised and within 6 months a Canadian brigade was formed in a Commonwealth Division.




I doubt the 2014 model Army staff in Ottawa could design, recruit, train and equip a single rifle section, much less, as the Canadian Army did, _circa_ 1950, expand from one infantry brigade to four in the space of just a few years.

/rant


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I doubt the 2014 model Army staff in Ottawa could design, recruit, train and equip a single rifle section, much less, as the Canadian Army did, _circa_ 1950, expand from one infantry brigade to four in the space of just a few years.
> 
> /rant



Probably right .... you know the players a lot better than me .... but it can be useful to set a benchmark.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For Canada, maybe it is time for a _six pack_ of CF-18s to deploy, for a few weeks, maybe even a few months, to Europe.


I think that Vilnius can accomodate that.  So long as we can continue to counter Tu-95s and Tu-22Ms that may decide to come say hello _to us_ on our back yard.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Mar 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Canada's commitment to Korea started with 3 destroyers from the RCN and the RCAF contributing to an air bridge.  That was followed up by a single battalion of "light" infantry (2 PPCLI) created from whole cloth which formed a composite brigade with the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis.
> 
> Concurrently 2 additional "light" battalions were raised and within 6 months a Canadian brigade was formed in a Commonwealth Division.


Actually the complete brigade group had been recruited, but the Inchon invasion and subsequent collapse of the North Koreans suggested the war would be over very quickly. The decision was made to continue with the plan to concentrate and train the brigade group in Fort Lewis and the Patricias were selected for a show the flag mission in Korea. The Chinese then intervene and the rest, as they say, is history.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Mar 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I doubt the 2014 model Army staff in Ottawa could design, recruit, train and equip a single rifle section, much less, as the Canadian Army did, _circa_ 1950, expand from one infantry brigade to four in the space of just a few years.
> 
> /rant



Don't forget to include the recruiting and individual training system when engaging in verbal abuse. The area personnel depots were able to process including medicals, are you nuts tests and the M score testing and enrol recruits in less than a week. In 1957 it took me three days from walking in the door to swearing in as a Gunner (Recruit) and that was not unusual.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Don't forget to include the recruiting and individual training system when engaging in verbal abuse. The area personnel depots were able to process including medicals, are you nuts tests and the M score testing and enrol recruits in less than a week. In 1957 it took me three days from walking in the door to swearing in as a Gunner (Recruit) and that was not unusual.




Ditto for me just a couple of years later ... I think I walked in on a Monday and I was enrolled on Friday morning. And there were several of us processed at the same time ... a Personnel Selection Officer (military psychologist) and MO were on staff and at work. At the same time as they were enrolling several of us they were releasing several others. There were no computers and the message system was _s l o w_ ~ authority and responsibility were delegated to local people, who, sometimes, made mistakes and, one hoped, learned from them without there being crises at several HQs up the chain. It, recruiting, was a fairly simple, rule based system that NCOs, with Grade VIII educations, could understand and operate.


----------



## Dissident (27 Mar 2014)

C. 2002-2003 it took me ~18 months from walking in the door to swearing in. Blatchford recently commented that it takes an average of something like 156 days to recruit a troops. Somehow I would not be surprised if the number of mistakes/problems were just about the same.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Mar 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I think that Vilnius can accomodate that.  So long as we can continue to counter Tu-95s and Tu-22Ms that may decide to come say hello _to us_ on our back yard.



Tu-95s, Yes. Tu-22Ms - No. Tu-160s - ?.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Mar 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Tu-95s, Yes. Tu-22Ms - No. Tu-160s - ?.


Indeed


----------



## CougarKing (31 Mar 2014)

A commentary on the Russian _Mistral_ class LHDs thread, on one way to help strengthen and rejuvenate the alliance:

NATO should buy Mistrals originally slated for Russia (commentary)


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2014)

Notwithstanding my (sometimes) skepticism about NATO's capabilities and leadership, it is appropriate to wish it a very happy 65th anniversary and to congratulate it on succeeding in its mission: to keep the West safe from Soviet (now Russian) aggression.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Apr 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Times_ is an interesting _inforgraphic_ on NATO defence spending over the past decade (the numbers in brcakets show changes from 2000 to 2012). 






The US, UK, Estonia, Norway and Poland have all increased their defence expenditures, but not by anything like the _rate_ 126% increase over 12 years) in Russia.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Apr 2014)

Didn't the RCAF rotate in fighters to NATO's Baltic air policing mission at one point? Or am I confusing that with the Iceland rotation?

Defense News



> *Baltics To Hike Budgets, Pursue Permanent NATO Troop Presence*
> Apr. 26, 2014 - 10:11AM   |   By GERARD O’DWYER
> 
> HELSINKI — With nervous Baltic governments urging the US and NATO to establish a permanent “force presence” in the region, against the backdrop of Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine, *Lithuania has responded to a NATO call for increased defense spending by promising to double its military budget to more than $800 million by 2020.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (1 May 2014)

Turkey- the weak link for NATO in this current round of posturing?

CBC



> *Ukraine crisis: Why Turkey is silent as NATO operations ramp up*
> 
> NATO is hunkering down in central and eastern Europe for its mission to reassure allies this week, just as Ukraine saw a major escalation of the rebellion when forces backing Russia opened fire on police in the east.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2014)

In an essay, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Foreign Affairs_ website, Jan Joel Andersson of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, argues that NATO should be further enlarged to include Finland and Sweden:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141377/jan-joel-andersson/nordic-nato


> Nordic NATO
> *Why It's Time For Finland and Sweden to Join the Alliance*
> 
> By Jan Joel Andersson
> ...




I would support adding both Finland and Sweden to NATO, despite having been quite mildly opposed, to adding Spain in 1982, and to keeping Greece in (after the colonels' _coup_) and, being much more strongly, opposed to the 1999, 2004 and 2008 expansions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Didn't the RCAF rotate in fighters to NATO's Baltic air policing mission at one point? Or am I confusing that with the Iceland rotation?
> 
> Defense News


Don't know about the Baltic Air Policing before this latest round, but they have sent CF-18's to the Iceland gig.

A bit more evidence of "Turkey marching to own drummer within NATO" ....


> *'Maddening' mission: Keeping NATO's interoperability on track*
> By Nancy Montgomery, Stars and Stripes
> Published: May 2, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_ is an essay by Michael E. Brown explaining how and why NATO went off track in the and after the a 1990s:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138432/michael-e-brown/natos-biggest-mistake


> NATO's Biggest Mistake
> *It Drifted From Its Core Mission -- And the World Is Paying the Price*
> 
> By Michael E. Brown
> ...




I agree with the four things that NATO did wrong, especially with expansion into Russia's former colonies, and with "out of area" operations.

I'm not quite so sure I agree with Prof Brown's prescriptions ... but that certainly doesn't mean that he's wrong.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2014)

More on "Saving NATO" (from itself?) in this article by Prof Roland Paris which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/nato-needs-to-get-its-house-in-order-to-face-a-more-dangerous-world/article19258190/#dashboard/follows/


> NATO needs to get its house in order to face a more dangerous world
> 
> ROLAND PARIS
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree, in part, and disagree, in other parts.

First, I agree with the "four shifts:"

     "Russia’s emergence as an openly revisionist power whose actions threaten to replace a rules-based order in Europe;"

     "The sudden unravelling of states and political order across parts of the Middle East and North Africa. These places may seem far away to North Americans, but for many of our European allies, they are practically next door;"

     "The rapid escalation of tensions between China and its neighbours. They are engaging in dangerously militarized competition for control over islands, important sea lanes, and strategic resources in the South and East China Seas;" and

     "The increasingly strained system of international rules and institutions, which seems less and less able to manage the security challenges arising from the first three shifts."

I also agree, fully, that "NATO must adopt a firm stance towards Russia by demonstrating its commitment to defend all its members." And I accept that this _may_ require the CF to, routinely, exercise (demonstrate our commitment and capability) in Eastern Europe.

I agree further, that: "NATO countries must also develop the doctrines, instruments and techniques to defend against the “non-linear” type of aggression that Russia practiced in Ukraine, which combined the use of special forces disguised as local partisans, mobilization of local proxies, cyber-attacks, mass disinformation campaigns, intimidation through displays of strength, and economic coercion."  and Europe must reduce "the total or near-total reliance of certain European countries on Russian energy imports." 

Finally, I agree that we cannot return to any kind of "partnership for peace" with Russia. That was, always, a sham.

Where I begin to part company with Roland Paris is in suggesting that NATO "should avoid the temptation to turn inwards." In fact, I think NATO needs to refocus its attention inwards: towards Russian aggression. Of course it cannot ignore what's happening in its own "near abroad," but we need to remember area of responsibility, area of influence and area of interest and we need to apply that rule.

On the matter of defence spending: it would be politically impossible, even foolish to ask Canadians to increase their (fiancial) support for NATO, through Canada's defence budget, until Europe, especially Germany, has shown  real leadership by rebuilding its armed forces (the _Bundeswehr_). In 2012 Germany spent only 1.35% of GDP on defence ~ Germany needs to spend 2% or even 3% before _experts_ ask Canadians to spend even a bit more.

(Don't get me wrong: I support a bigger, much bigger and better managed,* defence budget ... but not for NATO.) 

_____
* Not managed as a regional job creation slush fund.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jun 2014)

I'd also go so far as to say no type of partnership with China also...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2014)

China, I think you will find, isn't looking for any sort of "partnership." They don't want enmity but they are not interested in _joining_ anything in which they are not the undisputed _leader_ (master?).

Russia has, consciously, rejected the post 1989 Western _outreach_; they have chosen open hostility.

That's the difference between Russia and China in so far as we are concerned: while neither wants "partnership" with the West, China is not interested in hostility, either.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> China, I think you will find, isn't looking for any sort of "partnership." They don't want enmity but they are not interested in _joining_ anything in which they are not the undisputed _leader_ (master?).



So in your view, China is the "undisputed leader" of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO), which also includes Russia. So you see Putin playing 2nd fiddle to Xi Jinping in that arrangement?  ???

Or would it be better to say "they're not interested in joining any organization/partnership from which they won't get any (diplomatic/strategic) advantage from"?

*Btw, I tried sending you a message via your outside e-mail last week since your PM inbox here was full.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2014)

I _think_ China sees the SCO, now, as its own forum, one in which Russia is a member. I'm pretty sure the Russians don't see it that way but I _suspect_ the _Stans_ pay more attention to China than they do to Russia.


----------



## McG (24 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In an essay, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Foreign Affairs_ website, Jan Joel Andersson of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, argues that NATO should be further enlarged to include Finland and Sweden:
> 
> http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141377/jan-joel-andersson/nordic-nato
> 
> I would support adding both Finland and Sweden to NATO, despite having been quite mildly opposed, to adding Spain in 1982, and to keeping Greece in (after the colonels' _coup_) and, being much more strongly, opposed to the 1999, 2004 and 2008 expansions.


With Finland and Sweden, NATO would also be an arctic alliance.  While not a selling point to most of the alliance, the inclusion could enhance NATO's relevance to Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jun 2014)

Well, as I said, I agree with Prof Michael E Brown that previous NATO expansions, especially into what Russia saw as it's _sphere of influence_, were mistakes. I think Sweden and Finland are more _natural_ fits for NATO than were the Eastern Europeans (although one can, I suppose, make a case for the Baltic states) and even for Spain and, indeed, even for Greece and Turkey in 1952 and Italy in the _original twelve_ founding members. (I agree that Germany needed to be admitted in 1955.) (I understand that _strategic_ rationale for all the expansions up to but not including 1999 and beyond.)


----------



## MilEME09 (25 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On the matter of defence spending: it would be politically impossible, even foolish to ask Canadians to increase their (fiancial) support for NATO, through Canada's defence budget, until Europe, especially Germany, has shown  real leadership by rebuilding its armed forces (the _Bundeswehr_). In 2012 Germany spent only 1.35% of GDP on defence ~ Germany needs to spend 2% or even 3% before _experts_ ask Canadians to spend even a bit more.
> 
> (Don't get me wrong: I support a bigger, much bigger and better managed,* defence budget ... but not for NATO.)



In a recent interview the German Defense Minister said Germany plans to increase its defense budget over the next few years. According to him, not near the 2% target, as he argues the GDP value means nothing if the money isn't spent well/properly. Saying he wants to see the German military as a stream lined, effective and highly efficient organization.


----------



## CougarKing (25 Jun 2014)

Related: this goes hand-in-hand with the other thread posted about that Norwegian spy ship.

Yahoo Finance



> *Norway Wants NATO To Prepare For An Arctic Showdown*
> Business Insider
> By Armin Rosen
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2014)

Russia has given NATO nations plenty to consider with regards both to their own defence spending and to the future of the alliance.  We should not go to war over a non-alliance member, but what do we do with whatever remains of the Ukraine crawl out of the boot-stomping it is about to receive?  What considerations should be given to the arctic, about which Mr Putin has recently commented that Russia will strengthen its influence?



> How Vladimir Putin reinvigorated NATO
> PAUL KORING
> WASHINGTON — The Globe and Mail
> Published Friday, Aug. 29 2014, 8:53 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## stellarpanther (31 Aug 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Russia has given NATO nations plenty to consider with regards both to their own defence spending and to the future of the alliance.  We should not go to war over a non-alliance member, but what do we do with whatever remains of the Ukraine crawl out of the boot-stomping it is about to receive?  What considerations should be given to the arctic, about which Mr Putin has recently commented that Russia will strengthen its influence?



This may sound harsh but we shouldn't do anything.  What happens in the Ukraine happens.  They are no part of NATO and that's it.  We can remind Russia that we will defend ALL NATO nations and that's it.  So far Russia hasn't threaten any NATO country and I don't think they would.  

In my opinion, all this tough talk from the west is going to trigger a war that nobody wants.


----------



## GAP (31 Aug 2014)

hmm....you might want to wave a paper shouting "peace in our time"........ :


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2014)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> This may sound harsh but we shouldn't do anything.  What happens in the Ukraine happens.  They are no part of NATO and that's it.  We can remind Russia that we will defend ALL NATO nations and that's it.  So far Russia hasn't threaten any NATO country and I don't think they would.
> 
> In my opinion, all this tough talk from the west is going to trigger a war that nobody wants.


That's great, but irrelevant to my question.  When the dust of this current conflict settles, what relationship does NATO seek with the defeated Ukraine?


----------



## stellarpanther (31 Aug 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> That's great, but irrelevant to my question.  When the dust of this current conflict settles, what relationship does NATO seek with the defeated Ukraine?



NATO should not seek or have any type of relationship with them.  NATO should be staying out of Russia's backyard just as they should stay out of ours.


----------



## Seanjj (1 Sep 2014)

As much as I dislike the russians, it's silly to think only the USA can declare a Monroe Doctrine. Ukaine is not a NATO ally and it is a part of Russia's backyard.


----------



## McG (1 Sep 2014)

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> NATO should not seek or have any type of relationship with [Ukraine].  NATO should be staying out of Russia's backyard just as they should stay out of ours.


NATO and Russia share backyards, in eastern Europe and the Arctic.  Whether you agree with the decision or not, NATO eastward expansion happened.  The Ukraine and Belarus (and arguably Georgia) constitute the partial line that separates NATO from Russia.  Because both NATO and Russia share boarders with these countries, it is an inevitable requirement that NATO and Russia have relationships with these countries.

Will a beaten Ukraine have any desire to be "Russia's backyard" after the Russian Army has cleaved off the parts desired by Russia?  They will likely come crawling in search of NATO membership.  When the imminent risk of being dragged into a war has passed, some might be inclined to welcome them in to NATO.  Maybe the better relationship is that we keep the Ukraine out with the intent that it becomes the nuclear kill zone if Russian forces ever launch an attack that continues beyond the western boarder.  Maybe the relationship is something in between.  Regardless, NATO needs to have that discussion sooner rather than later.

For that other backyard to which Canada is connected (ie. the Arctic), we should also consider relationships with other countries that one might describe as "Russia's backyard" (ie. Finland).


----------



## GR66 (1 Sep 2014)

NATO as originally designed made some sense.  Europe was weak and recovering while the USSR was strong.  Europe wanted to ensure that the US would be bound to help them right from the start of a conflict rather than risk having them remain isolationist like they did at the start of the first two World Wars.  The USSR knowing that war in Western Europe automatically would mean war with the US and it's superior nuclear arsenal would be deterred from attacking (there is some question as to if the USSR ever even considered military action against Europe outside the zone of influence it was granted at the Yalta conference).  

My personal opinion is that the situation was fundamentally changed by the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Europe was (is) strong and growing in power while Russia was (is) weaker and ultimately at least not significantly growing in power.  A Western Europe that has a greater population, a much more powerful economy, greater combined defense spending and a larger combined military than Russia no longer needs to rely on American (and Canadian) military support to deter Russia from attacking them since Russia is not capable of defeating them in a conventional war.

I personally think it was a big mistake for NATO to expand into Eastern Europe as it puts us directly into areas that conflict directly with Russia's physical and economic security.  A country's behaviour becomes much more difficult to predict when it's direct national interests are threatened as we are seeing now in Ukraine.  My personal preference would have been for the EU to develop their own military mutual defence alliance.  The promise of the major European powers automatically (by treaty) coming to the defence of countries like Poland would be enough of a deterrent to Russian attack without risking turning a potential conflict into a Global conflict.  It would leave the UN as a potential escape valve for both sides in case of conflict through miscalculation since the US would not be an automatic participant in a Russo-European war.  If it's a NATO show then the Security Council (with only China not directly involved as a veto-wielding member) becomes less of a viable option of halting the conflict.  

In the case of countries with very significant Russian minorities (Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia in particular) I would have preferred to see cooperation and trade with these countries but no direct military guarantees of support so as to avoid exactly the kind of risks of direct conflict that we're seeing in Ukraine.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2014)

I'm still where I was more than six years ago: NATO has, still, one (and only one) useful (valid) role: to deter Russian aggression.

I happily admit that, six years ago, I didn't see Russia as a huge problem ... but times change.

My problem with NATO, in 2008, was "out of area operations." I remain persuaded that NATO is not well suited to be the "military sub-contractor" that the UNSC needs for operations beyond Europe: the UNSC needs a broader, global _alignment_ (rater than a formal alliance) of nations that are willing to work together to enforce UNSC resolutions. I believe that there is a role for some, several, European countries in such an _alignment_ but it must also have Asian nations and Latin American nations and African nations, too. (Not every nation in the _alignment_ will want to participate in every coalition, I suppose; and that's where _*alliances*_ can be weak: they are inflexible.)

But, it's not 2008, and the _operational_ problem *is* in Europe and, so, NATO is the the answer.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm still where I was more than six years ago: NATO has, still, one (and only one) useful (valid) role: to deter Russian aggression.
> 
> I happily admit that, six years ago, I didn't see Russia as a huge problem ... but times change.
> 
> ...



Europe 2014 is not Europe 1946... I'd suggest we let them sort themselves out, to a greater extent than we have before.

A resurgent, wealthy (and self-centred and relatively smug) Europe should not need to hide behind Uncle Sam's apron...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20140831.aspx


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2014)

Fair enough, D&B, but NATO is there, the Europeans and we North Americans signed up for it and, now, it has a role again. Europe has been slacking off ... as have the North Americans, to be fair. But we, the North Americans, need a peaceful, prosperous Europe ~ we have 'skin' in this game, too. We are most likely to force a Russian climb down if we all act, firmly and in concert.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Sep 2014)

2 for 2 ERC.

On both the role of NATO and the need/opportunity to boost Canada's military budget. 

3 for 3 if I include the AIP subs.

One of the more interesting aspects of these discussions is that at the same time I hear members arguing for more money to support increased numbers, better training, heavier equipment I also hear many of the same voices arguing against taking any actions that might actually justify those expenditures.

The AIPs and the AOPSs, together with the entire RCAF inventory, satellites and UAVs at least have the merit of being employable in the only place we are even remotely likely to be at risk: the Arctic.

LAVs, Leopards and SPHs are unlikely to be employed in Canada in their primary role.  The only place a Mech Brigade is likely to find employment is in places like Eastern Europe or Iran or Korea.

If we are going to stay home then buy more Hercs, more Chinooks and Bvs.  The RCN can also take a greater share of the defence budget and, along with the RCAF, take the lead in foreign diplomacy and crisis response.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 2 for 2 ERC.
> 
> On both the role of NATO and the need/opportunity to boost Canada's military budget.
> 
> ...



Goodness me... would we even dare to suggest the reforming of an Airborne Brigade?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Sep 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Goodness me... would we even dare to suggest the reforming of an Airborne Brigade?



Well, possibly.  And maybe even some Marines .... just to maintain order on board of course. ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Sep 2014)

I spotted this opinion piece from Strategy Page dated 31 Aug 2014 on Facebook re the state of the European NATO nations' preparedness. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. I am not sure how much credence to give it, but one suspects there are a few grains of truth hidden inside the chaff of accusations.

Murphy's Law: NATO Sort Of Willing But Not Really Ready

August 31, 2014: The recent ISIL (al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria) misbehavior (mass murder and so on) in Syria and Iraq has caused a public uproar in Europe and generated demands that NATO send forces to try and stop all the killing. The German government responded on August 20th with a pledge to send weapons to the Kurds who are fighting ISIL in northern Iraq. But Germany was reluctant to send warplanes or troops. A few days later a German Defense Ministry readiness report was leaked and it made it clear why even getting weapons to the Kurds would be difficult. The report showed that only 8 percent of 109 Eurofighter (similar to the U.S. F-15), 11 percent of 67 CH-53 transport helicopters, and 10 percent of 33 NH90 helicopters were fully operational (not sidelined for upgrades, repairs or other problems.) However 38 percent of 56 C-160 twin turboprop transports were available. This made it possible to fly some weapons into northern Iraq, but not much else. Normally a combat ready military has at least half, and more normally over 70 percent of its warplanes ready to go. While this situation shocked many, those who have followed European military trends since the 1980s were not surprised.

The problem is that the European NATO members never spent as heavily on their armed forces as did the United States and Russia, especially after 1991. Britain and France are still heavy spenders, but not enough to make up for what the rest of European NATO members are not doing. European NATO members are aware of this problem, but it has never been a high enough national priority to actually fix.

There was some hope in the decade after September 11, 2001 as the need to deal with international Islamic terrorism changed the armed forces of Europe in unexpected ways. More money was spent on the military and many of the troops got some combat experience. Now the Europeans have more capable and professional forces than they have had for many decades. None of this was expected. But in the last few years these changes have begun to fade. Thus the shocking readiness numbers for German aircraft.

The current mess began in 1991 with the end of the Cold War. Europe was, for the first time in nearly a century, truly at peace. There was no military threat. There were some Islamic terrorists, but that lot didn't have an army. They were considered a public safety, not a military, threat. It was a unique situation in European history, and European generals and politicians had a hard time trying to get their heads wrapped around it.

There were potential military threats, but nothing in the immediate future that required a large force. There was peacekeeping, and that's what the Europeans were trying to organize for. That, however, was found to cost a lot of money. The post-Cold War military budgets could not support the traditional type forces and the new peacekeeper ones as well. But the idea of disposing of ancient military traditions and organizations that created combat ready troops was, well, hard to accept. But that’s what happened.

All this post-Cold War euphoria began to unravel a few years into the 1990s, when war broke out in the Balkans (as multi-Ethnic Yugoslavia came apart). Now some European nations found themselves involved with military operations for the first time since World War II. When that happened, deficiencies become very obvious. It happened again, when forces were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. Later, the problem reappeared when European peacekeeping forces went to Darfur and Chad. European nations found their troops were not in shape, not trained and not equipped for combat. After over a decade of these hassles, the Europeans have adapted, sort of.

For example, in 2008 the German parliament was in an uproar over a report depicting German soldiers as physically unfit for military service. It was found that 40 percent of the troops were overweight, compared to 35 percent of their civilian counterparts (of the same gender and age). The investigation also found that the troops exercised less (including participation in sports), and smoked more (70 percent of them) than their civilian counterparts. The military now encourages sports and physical fitness, and discourages smoking, but those efforts did not appear to be working.

When other Europeans looked around they found that it was not just a German problem. It was worse than that. Most European military organizations were basically make-work programs. It's long been known that many European soldiers are not really fit for action. They are mainly uniformed civil servants. One reason many are not ready for combat, or even peacekeeping, operations, is that they don't have the equipment or the training. And that's because up-to-date gear, and training, are expensive. A disproportionate amount of money is spent on payroll. That keeps the unemployment rate down more effectively than buying needed equipment, or paying for the fuel and spare parts needed to support training.

Britain is the only real exception, with armed forces capable of going into action at any time. But even that capability is under attack, as British politicians try to emulate other European nations, and save money by creating hollow forces that are there, but cannot really do much. Britain is becoming more like other large European states, with a small force capable of going overseas, and little more. In this respect, Britain would become more like France, which has some special units (like the Foreign Legion and Paratrooper units) ready for overseas emergencies. Most nations have small special operations (commando) units. But most European troops were not capable of fighting back in the 1990s.

European NATO troops that went to Afghanistan (where most of them went, Iraq being politically incorrect for most Europeans) quickly adapted. Money was found to properly equip the troops. Some governments took another approach and ordered their troops to avoid combat as much as possible. In some cases, the troops rarely left their heavily defended camps. All this was to avoid too much attention being paid to how much better U.S., British, Canadian and Australian (the “fighting nations”) were prepared for combat. Despite this, everyone quickly learned that you cannot bluff your way through military preparedness. That kind of pretending always ends badly when the shooting starts.

Faking military preparedness is a hard habit for Europeans to break. That’s because, from 1945 to 1991, the United States was available whenever Europeans needed some real military muscle. So confident were the Europeans, that they often heaped abuse and scorn on the U.S. and the American military, certain that the Americans would still show up if Europe ever faced a threat. But in the last decade the Europeans found that at least in military matters the Americans had not only become the masters, but were increasingly unhappy with European doubletalk and ingratitude. It’s been suggested that Europeans ought to pay more attention to defending themselves. That change is still sinking in, and is not being received with much enthusiasm. But European nations did scrape together enough forces in 2011 to help the Libyan rebels overthrow the local dictator. Even so the U.S. was still needed for a lot of the logistical and technical support. That was a start. No to one’s surprise trying to do the same against Russian aggression revealed that there’s not enough NATO military strength to stop naked aggression right next door or in the Middle East.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Sep 2014)

I would much rather see them deploy forces to the Ukraine.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I would much rather see them deploy forces to the Ukraine.



So would this guy:

Vladimir Putin’s boots are on the ground – why not ours?

Publicly ruling out any military option against Russia has emboldened it to interfere in Ukraine 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11068109/Vladimir-Putins-boots-are-on-the-ground-why-not-ours.html


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Sep 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So would this guy:
> 
> Vladimir Putin’s boots are on the ground – why not ours?
> 
> ...



While I don't think any western European, or NATO leader for that matter has the balls to back any of their words up, we are trying to talk tough while slashing defense spending, not targeting certain sectors of the russian economy because it will hurt ours. In my opinion if we show putin we are willing to hurt our selves (economically) to hurt Russia he may start to have second thoughts


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Sep 2014)

Without US backing even NATO would be like the EU.If the US won't put boots on the ground how can we expect anyone else to.At this point in history I wish we had a Reagan in the White House.Until then Putin will take what he wants.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Without US backing even NATO would be like the EU.  If the US won't put boots on the ground how can we expect anyone else to.At this point in history I wish we had a Reagan in the White House.Until then Putin will take what he wants.



It seems that the EU members have for the last few decades, relied more on "Five Eyes" members to carry the team, with the US, and UK, always being the major contributors; and EU members filling token roles.  Not that Canada hasn't been as strong a contributor in recent history, as well, but still able to supply a little more than a token show when called upon.  

The 'Fall of the Wall' triggered drastic cuts in the militaries and their capabilities in all NATO and EU countries.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Sep 2014)

I am talking about the European lack of will with regard to Russia.Maybe its because Putin can turn off their electricity and or heat.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I am talking about the European lack of will with regard to Russia.Maybe its because Putin can turn off their electricity and or heat.



I would tend to think that Europe with its North Sea wells and other sources, is much like North America with all our oil reserves; importing oil from off shore sources only not to deplete their own resources, and to promote Foreign Trade.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Sep 2014)

Ok so where is the collective will in the EU to protect their turf so to speak ?Putin is thinking that no one is going to stand up to him outside of the Ukraine.He did make the off the cuff comment that he could take Kiev in a few weeks.He probably isnt too far off the mark,except what would be the cost ?


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2014)

There is no coherent collective will in Europe; a reflection of what we see in the UN.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is no coherent collective will in Europe; a reflection of what we see in the UN.



Which is why the UK will never join the EU. They are all perpetually under one kind of the Damocletian sword or another with no collective will to govern wisely regardless.

Thank Gawd for the English Channel: the world's largest tank trap  :nod:

"During my lifetime most of the problems the world has faced have come, in one fashion or other, from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." -- Margaret Thatcher 

"If the Europeans truly wish to improve their NATO contribution they can show it simply enough. They can establish professional armed forces, like those of the UK. And they can acquire more advanced technology. Indeed, unless that happens soon the gulf between the European and US capabilities will yawn so wide that it will not be possible to share the same battlefield. Alas, I do not think that sharing battlefields with our American friends - but rather disputing global primacy with them - is what European defence plans are truly about." -- Margaret Thatcher 

"(A unified) 'Europe' is the result of plans. It is, in fact, a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage done is in doubt." -- Margaret Thatcher 

http://www.margaretthatcher.tv/The_Best_Quotes.html


----------



## CougarKing (5 Feb 2015)

A split within NATO?

Reuters



> *U.S. defense chief voices fear of north-south NATO divide*
> 
> By David Alexander and Adrian Croft
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (2 Dec 2015)

2 notable updates: Wouldn't the 1st update rankle Serbia as well, not just Russia?

CNN



> *NATO formally invites Montenegro to join alliance, rankling Russia*
> Greg Botelho-Profile-Image
> 
> By Greg Botelho, CNN
> ...



Diplomat



> *NATO Looking to Extend Funding for Afghan Security Forces
> 
> As the war moves into its 15th year, Afghanistan’s stability remains tenuous.*
> Putz_Catherine
> ...


----------



## CanadianInTexas (10 Feb 2016)

Resurecting this thread because I believe this is the best place  to post this: 

NATO CHIEF EXPECTS OK FOR GREATER FORWARD PRESENCE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NATO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This is an article from today dealing with how the defense ministers of the NATO nations plan on approving plans to increase the presence of NATO in the Eastern Europe by rotating a multinational brigade size unit that would rotate through Eastern Europe allies. 

Thoughts?


----------



## CougarKing (11 Feb 2016)

Anti-smuggling ops: another role for today's NATO:

Defense News



> *NATO To Backfill AWACS, Assist Europe With Migrants*
> By Aaron Mehta, Defense News 8:21 a.m. EST February 11, 2016
> 
> 
> ...


----------

