Author Topic: US versus NATO  (Read 32569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #225 on: July 13, 2018, 08:46:39 »
I call dibs on "Dishonest" and "Weak" for the next game of Trump Twitter Bingo!  ;D
Turns out it was May who got the brunt of the American Presidents broadside.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #226 on: July 13, 2018, 09:08:24 »
An excellent piece this morning from Robert Kagan.  He points out that NATO has been under extreme pressure for sometime, but that the summit this week spells its death knell.  As NATO crumbles, so shall the rest of the edifice that is the world order of the last 70 years that has delivered unprecedented stability and prosperity.
Imagine that.

If NATO members don't reach the target by 2020, instead of 2024 as was agreed on, America would go it alone.

The statesman hasn't yet been born who can undo the damage this american president has done to American prestige, respect, and influence on the world stage.

It's increasingly clear that NATO, the G7, whatever international organization that relies or depends on America can start planning on going on without it. America has ceded it's place in the world, replaced with a level of isolationism not seen since the 1930s.

America has no friends right now. Serve them right. If another attack on the scale of 911 happens in the US after January, I doubt anyone lifts a finger to assist. America can do it alone.

Same goes for Korea. If America comes to the the decision that military action is needed, do it by themselves.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 09:20:43 by Altair »
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Online Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 540,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
  • Your example, not your opinion, can cause change
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #227 on: July 13, 2018, 09:43:24 »
Having a bad day?  Imagine how the past few days have been for Kay Bailey Hutchison, the U.S. ambassador to NATO;  she has to pick up the pieces.  :nod:
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 282,836
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,625
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #228 on: July 13, 2018, 09:44:23 »
I have a question about this USA NATO Germany Russia business because I think it's going over my head.


NATO is essentially there to deter Russia in the Atlantic and by extent in Europe. The US spends a considerable amount of money in NATO, on the defense of Europe and in Germany's defense.

Germany is buying energy (natural gad/oil/whatever) from Russia.

[Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has been working for the Russian energy industry since he lost to Chancellor Merkel in 2005]


Isn't what Germany doing sort of a conflict of interest ?

Why spend money and man power on Germany with a view to protecting them "from Russia" when Germany puts themselves in a position where Russia can turn their lights and heating off, so to speak. Not to mention strengthen Russian economy. That doesn't make sense to me.






A lot of SciFi works about the future show large corporations replacing traditional countries in terms of world disputes, wars and soldiers. Maybe it'll be non-fiction before we know it.



« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 09:57:23 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #229 on: July 13, 2018, 10:40:50 »
I have a question about this USA NATO Germany Russia business because I think it's going over my head.


NATO is essentially there to deter Russia in the Atlantic and by extent in Europe. The US spends a considerable amount of money in NATO, on the defense of Europe and in Germany's defense.

Germany is buying energy (natural gad/oil/whatever) from Russia.

[Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has been working for the Russian energy industry since he lost to Chancellor Merkel in 2005]


Isn't what Germany doing sort of a conflict of interest ?

Why spend money and man power on Germany with a view to protecting them "from Russia" when Germany puts themselves in a position where Russia can turn their lights and heating off, so to speak. Not to mention strengthen Russian economy. That doesn't make sense to me.






A lot of SciFi works about the future show large corporations replacing traditional countries in terms of world disputes, wars and soldiers. Maybe it'll be non-fiction before we know it.
This is nonsense.

Every country trades with Russia, and every country that trades with Russia strengthens the Russian economy.

And trade is a two way street, should Russia turn off the taps, there are multiple other sources that Germany can get its gas from, albeit, at a higher price than what Russia sells it for, but Russia, by turning off the gas, would lose out on revenue as well, counter to their own interests.

So unless the american president is calling for a complete and total embargo on Russia, focusing on Germany buying their gas from Russia is nothing but a deflection.

It's ironic, because I get the feeling that after his summit with Putin, the American president is probably going to be asking for a elimination of sanctions on Russia.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 232,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,255
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #230 on: July 13, 2018, 10:48:05 »
This is nonsense.

Every country trades with Russia, and every country that trades with Russia strengthens the Russian economy.

And trade is a two way street, should Russia turn off the taps, there are multiple other sources that Germany can get its gas from, albeit, at a higher price than what Russia sells it for, but Russia, by turning off the gas, would lose out on revenue as well, counter to their own interests.

So unless the american president is calling for a complete and total embargo on Russia, focusing on Germany buying their gas from Russia is nothing but a deflection.

It's ironic, because I get the feeling that after his summit with Putin, the American president is probably going to be asking for a elimination of sanctions on Russia.

Trump's main goals in all of his negotiations is to try and shake up existing agreements, with everyone, to try and get a better deal for the US while playing to his base in order to crush the Democrats in the upcoming mid-terms.

He's doing a great job, based on those goals.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #231 on: July 13, 2018, 10:57:40 »
Trump's main goals in all of his negotiations is to try and shake up existing agreements, with everyone, to try and get a better deal for the US while playing to his base in order to crush the Democrats in the upcoming mid-terms.

He's doing a great job, based on those goals.
America is simply focusing on the best deal it can get for itself, others be damned. No way to constructively come to mutual agreements with anybody else.

It cannot even negotiate a NAFTA deal with its two closest neighbours, one of which is it's largest market for exports. This is America pulling out of global affairs in terms of military, trade, and diplomacy.

No way to sugar coat it or say that he's bluffing. He's doing what he has always said he was going to do, destroy the international arrangements that he feels takes advantage of America. Shame he doesn't see the cost in doing so, but that's what is happening.

If America would rather go it alone on trade,diplomatically, and militarily, then I hope they suffer for that decision.

Because he isn't going to get a better deal on NAFTA, so he will probably just kill it if he can.

He isn't negotiating a better deal on Iran, and Europe and China refuse to follow along.

The Paris deal will continue on in some way shape or form without the only country in the world who refused to go along with it.

TPP will continue along, and ironically, open up the Canadian dairy market that Trump continues to go on about.

NATO, good luck America, will all your foreign adventures without assistance.

G7 will be the G6, and america will be shut out of the west global policy makers and the agenda they set.

America isn't renegotiating anything right now, it's tearing everything up in a fit of nonsense
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 282,836
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,625
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #232 on: July 13, 2018, 11:13:33 »
This is nonsense.


Cutting the supply of fuel and power to would be a great preemptive strike for a Russian invasion of Germany.

Invasion a ridiculous notion? Then why put so much money and effort into germanies defense against them.

There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #233 on: July 13, 2018, 11:17:51 »
Cutting the supply of fuel and power to would be a great preemptive strike for a Russian invasion of Germany.

Invasion a ridiculous notion? Then why put so much money and effort into germanies defense against them.
The costlier the effort, the less likely it is to be undertaken.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 502
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #234 on: July 13, 2018, 11:32:39 »
When I was at SHAPE I heard the saying "the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out and the Germans in" more than once.

Given history, do we really think it is a good idea to be marginalizing Germany when nationalism is only starting to rise there again?  Do we really think it is a good idea to plant the idea of militarization in Germany again?  Do we think that by making it even harder for Merkel to keep the government together, and possibly enable the right wing to take root there?

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #235 on: July 13, 2018, 11:44:31 »
When I was at SHAPE I heard the saying "the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out and the Germans in" more than once.

Given history, do we really think it is a good idea to be marginalizing Germany when nationalism is only starting to rise there again?  Do we really think it is a good idea to plant the idea of militarization in Germany again?  Do we think that by making it even harder for Merkel to keep the government together, and possibly enable the right wing to take root there?
At least Germany will be together with a United Europe next time something goes down.

I fear this just creates another military power block to be dealt with in the future.

America, solo.

EII AKA, Europe.

Russia

China.

There is not guarantee the EII plays nicely with the USA should the USA go it alone.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 502
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #236 on: July 13, 2018, 11:48:04 »
At least Germany will be together with a United Europe next time something goes down.

Not so sure of that... one result of the US marginalizing NATO and Brexit affecting the EU could be the crumbling of the foundations of both.  It would be ironic that we go back to the situation that the leaders post WWII worked so hard to avoid...

Online Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 540,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
  • Your example, not your opinion, can cause change
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #237 on: July 13, 2018, 11:56:33 »
It would be ironic that we go back to the situation that the leaders post WWII worked so hard to avoid...
You need to stop listening to Alanis Morissette.    ;D
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #238 on: July 13, 2018, 11:59:43 »
Not so sure of that... one result of the US marginalizing NATO and Brexit affecting the EU could be the crumbling of the foundations of both.  It would be ironic that we go back to the situation that the leaders post WWII worked so hard to avoid...
Could, but looking at the soup sandwich Brexit is turning out to be may be giving some people pause.

I think it's telling that when faced with the American President, and his threats to NATO, Europe turned to increased European integration and the creation of a EII, notably, including the UK.

That's a formidable force right off the bat, France, Germany, the UK working together. If and when NATO dies, the core of it's replacement, in Europe's case, is already built.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,868
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #239 on: July 13, 2018, 12:11:55 »
...That's a formidable force right off the bat, France, Germany, the UK working together. If and when NATO dies, the core of it's replacement, in Europe's case, is already built.

Interesting hypothesis: if "Son of Nato" forms after Dad's death, and doesn't have the Eastern European elements in it, thereby re-establishing the buffer that Gorbachev and Yeltsin understood from Reagan would remain post-USSR, is that Trump skillfully maneuvering to re-stabilize the relationship with Russia, thereby actually increasing stability?   ???

Regards
G2G

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #240 on: July 13, 2018, 12:17:54 »
Interesting hypothesis: if "Son of Nato" forms after Dad's death, and doesn't have the Eastern European elements in it, thereby re-establishing the buffer that Gorbachev and Yeltsin understood from Reagan would remain post-USSR, is that Trump skillfully maneuvering to re-stabilize the relationship with Russia, thereby actually increasing stability?   ???

Regards
G2G
I have no doubts that if the US takes its ball and goes home, PESCO and the EII will be integrated into a single organization.

EII might be for external operations, PESCO for defense. PESCO does have the eastern bloc in it, so I don't see Russia stealing a march on Europe in that regard.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 232,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,255
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #241 on: July 13, 2018, 12:30:41 »
When I was at SHAPE I heard the saying "the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out and the Germans in" more than once.

Given history, do we really think it is a good idea to be marginalizing Germany when nationalism is only starting to rise there again?  Do we really think it is a good idea to plant the idea of militarization in Germany again?  Do we think that by making it even harder for Merkel to keep the government together, and possibly enable the right wing to take root there?

Germany is already the 'King of Europe', and pretty much calls the shots for the EU, to their economic benefit. Their position is even stronger now with the UK out. Geography is also on their side, being the 'gateway to the east', and at the centre of the developing Chinese Belt and Road super project.

Add a million hard working and grateful refugees (who will breed like rabbits) that they can retrain and stick into their factories at low wages, because the 'Osties' are a lost welfare generation, and I think in about 10 years we'll see the rise of Germany that can go head to head with any other country globally as an economic giant.

Militarily? Their constitution keeps them focused internally, and economic giants call the shots in different ways, so they won't need an armoured blitzkrieg to run things in the future.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 502
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #242 on: July 13, 2018, 12:38:40 »
Germany is already the 'King of Europe', and pretty much calls the shots for the EU, to their economic benefit. Their position is even stronger now with the UK out. Geography is also on their side, being the 'gateway to the east', and at the centre of the developing Chinese Belt and Road super project.

Add a million hard working and grateful refugees (who will breed like rabbits) that they can retrain and stick into their factories at low wages, because the 'Osties' are a lost welfare generation, and I think in about 10 years we'll see the rise of Germany that can go head to head with any other country globally as an economic giant.

Militarily? Their constitution keeps them focused internally, and economic giants call the shots in different ways, so they won't need an armoured blitzkrieg to run things in the future.

True... I've also heard it said that Germany finally figured out they didn't need to conquer Europe, they just needed to buy it.

I guess what I'm saying is Nationalism hasn't served as well historically...

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #243 on: July 13, 2018, 12:39:47 »
True... I've also heard it said that Germany finally figured out they didn't need to conquer Europe, they just needed to buy it.

I guess what I'm saying is Nationalism hasn't served as well historically...
Neither has American isolationism, but here we are.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 13,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 502
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #244 on: July 13, 2018, 12:50:42 »
Neither has American isolationism, but here we are.

In a lot of ways they are two sides of the same coin.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 169,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,177
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #245 on: July 13, 2018, 12:51:26 »
Isn't what Germany doing sort of a conflict of interest ?

Trade is a two way street when it comes to interest.

Look who the US traded with during the Cold War.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/10/04/huge-grain-sale-to-soviet-union-approved-by-us/41b3bc1d-8f75-4ed6-98db-77556322a3d9/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c6f84f17b81
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 136,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,237
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #246 on: July 13, 2018, 13:20:45 »
Putin does not need to invade all of Europe when he can turn off the heat in winter instead. Putin wants to be able to control Europe and he is setting them up for that. Poland has told him to pound sand. For Europe, buying cheap gas from Russia is ok, as long as they have the infrastructure to receive and move gas from other sources. Including a smallish contract in place already with agreements for emergency supplies as required. Canada should lobby for that and work on Energy East and another LNG loading terminal to supplement Bearhead.
This means Putin cannot control Europe, but still has trade and revenue coming in, a fairish trade.   

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 39,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,628
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #247 on: July 13, 2018, 17:45:23 »
Trade is a two way street when it comes to interest.

Look who the US traded with during the Cold War.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/10/04/huge-grain-sale-to-soviet-union-approved-by-us/41b3bc1d-8f75-4ed6-98db-77556322a3d9/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c6f84f17b81

At the same time, the Soviet Union was also one of major recipients of Canadian grain (IIRC Red China was also a major recipient).
Years ago, fairy tales all began with, "Once upon a time." Now we know they all began with, "If I'm elected."

Carolyn Warner

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 917,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,145
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #248 on: July 13, 2018, 17:54:30 »
Russia's lost $1T USD in its GDP in the last couple of years, do you think they'd ever turn off LNG exports to Europe that account for roughly 12-15% of their entire export economy? They'd bankrupt themselves. Russia needs Europe as much as Europe needs Russia.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 232,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,255
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: US versus NATO
« Reply #249 on: July 13, 2018, 18:22:41 »
Russia's lost $1T USD in its GDP in the last couple of years, do you think they'd ever turn off LNG exports to Europe that account for roughly 12-15% of their entire export economy? They'd bankrupt themselves. Russia needs Europe as much as Europe needs Russia.

Until the supply chain to China kicks in....
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon