The future of NATO post Afghanistan disaster.

[rmgill]

Ooh, you got secondary explosions. 

[BansheeOne]

On 9/9/2021 at 1:34 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its already made a difference to how America's allies see it. In that regard there difference has already been made, its only the consequence of it that cannot be seen.

Though arguably, the only changes of fundamental consequence could be made by America. The Europeans may well pursue a more independent course and increase their capabilities for it, but that only means NATO returns further to its original purpose of regional security. In the end under any rational consideration (which admittedly is not necessarily a given in view of recent history) the trans-Atlantic construct will probably hold, because both sides benefit too much from it.

Looking back, the push for a more global role began by about 1980 already, probably because the other US-dominated regional security systems had failed by them. Apropos of the treaty area being delineated by the Tropic of Cancer, that was originally chosen specifically because it relieved the US of having to defend most remaining European colonial possessions (the anti-colonial sentiment in Congress at the time would probably have prevented ratification otherwise); and as a practical limit, since it was seen as the effective range of the Soviet submarine threat when the USSR was otherwise no naval power. After the demise of SEATO and CENTO however, not only American voices began calling for NATO participation in countering the challenge of evolved Soviet global capabilities. See this 1982 book by Conservative British politician Julian Critchley, for example; the Falklands obviously may have played a role there, too.

Securing international lines of communication, particularly against growing Chinese influence, is the one area where I can see a global NATO role even if the interventionism of the last 30 years comes to an end; everyone is aware of the interconnections in the globalized world. But again, it will only happen to a meaningful extent if the US consciously yields responsibility to the Europeans. OTOH, even the whole American "over-the-horizon" thing depends upon trans-Atlantic  infrastructure like drone command relay stations to reduce satellite lag; previously in Ramstein, now moving to Sigonella due to German domestic sensibilities about the country's unwitting role in the controversial drone wars.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, BansheeOne said:

Though arguably, the only changes of fundamental consequence could be made by America. The Europeans may well pursue a more independent course and increase their capabilities for it, but that only means NATO returns further to its original purpose of regional security. In the end under any rational consideration (which admittedly is not necessarily a given in view of recent history) the trans-Atlantic construct will probably hold, because both sides benefit too much from it.

Looking back, the push for a more global role began by about 1980 already, probably because the other US-dominated regional security systems had failed by them. Apropos of the treaty area being delineated by the Tropic of Cancer, that was originally chosen specifically because it relieved the US of having to defend most remaining European colonial possessions (the anti-colonial sentiment in Congress at the time would probably have prevented ratification otherwise); and as a practical limit, since it was seen as the effective range of the Soviet submarine threat when the USSR was otherwise no naval power. After the demise of SEATO and CENTO however, not only American voices began calling for NATO participation in countering the challenge of evolved Soviet global capabilities. See this 1982 book by Conservative British politician Julian Critchley, for example; the Falklands obviously may have played a role there, too.

Securing international lines of communication, particularly against growing Chinese influence, is the one area where I can see a global NATO role even if the interventionism of the last 30 years comes to an end; everyone is aware of the interconnections in the globalized world. But again, it will only happen to a meaningful extent if the US consciously yields responsibility to the Europeans. OTOH, even the whole American "over-the-horizon" thing depends upon trans-Atlantic  infrastructure like drone command relay stations to reduce satellite lag; previously in Ramstein, now moving to Sigonella due to German domestic sensibilities about the country's unwitting role in the controversial drone wars.

Yes, but there still are operations independent of NATO, and yet which the US would like supported, that are still ongoing. The US was with French operations in Africa. The UK assisted the US in patrols in the Persian Gulf. I think we stumped up 400 bods for training roles in Afghanistan a couple of years back when the US asked.  Other than that, admittedly there are few occasions when the US really needs help from allies, but politically its useful, and if they suddenly start seeming reluctant to come forwards with troops or help, its not a great look politically.

There is also things we dont see, such as Signals Intelligence or even just plain old intelligence work. Ive no doubt our submarines still undertake recce missions into the North Cape to assist the Americans when they ask. I guess the point im suggesting is, business will on the face of it go on as normal. But I would be surprised if it does not impact certain requests or assistance behind the scenes which we will not know for years. And just because we do not see it, does not mean it isnt important.

The UK helped the US not just because it was an ally, but saw it as a friend. It strikes me that the terms of that relationship have just changed, whether the US recognises it or not.

[sunday]

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

Ooh, you got secondary explosions. 

Who?

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The UK helped the US not just because it was an ally, but saw it as a friend.

Countries and corporations can't have friends. Only people can.

There's overlapping interests, and there may be shared values and overlaps in culture and tradition and while the sun is shining people might mistakenly perceive that as "friendship". But it isn't. A country's leader will have to do what's in the best interest of his country (and usually his own image in the history books of the future) - or at least, what's going to help him in current domestic politics; violate that rule at your own peril.

Much will also boil down to the personal level. It may be possible to have amicable relations between leaders (it's certainly possible for them to exert non-confrontative influence on each other), but much of that is attempted to reign in with diplomatic rules and defined processes.

[sunday]

Quote

We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

speech, House of Commons, 1 March 1848

Lord Palmerston 1784–1865
British statesman; Prime Minister, 1855–8, 1859–65

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Countries and corporations can't have friends. Only people can.

There's overlapping interests, and there may be shared values and overlaps in culture and tradition and while the sun is shining people might mistakenly perceive that as "friendship". But it isn't. A country's leader will have to do what's in the best interest of his country (and usually his own image in the history books of the future) - or at least, what's going to help him in current domestic politics; violate that rule at your own peril.

Much will also boil down to the personal level. It may be possible to have amicable relations between leaders (it's certainly possible for them to exert non-confrontative influence on each other), but much of that is attempted to reign in with diplomatic rules and defined processes.

Yes, im perfectly aware of that mindset, and if you pardon me saying so, its bullshit, usually touted by the likes of Henry Kissinger to explain why cutting the balls off a nation is perfectly justifiable in the name of realpolitik. Interestingly I heard some of the Telephone conversations of Kissinger with Nixon around the time Britain joined the EEC, and the best comparison ive heard is that of a spurned lover.

Nations can and do have closer relationships than just practical circumstance demand, or there is no explaining the wider relationship between Arab states. The two Germanies in the cold war, or Russia and the Serbs for that matter.  One world war errupted just because of that historic friendship. It caused no end of problems as late as 1999 for both sides come to that.

And its the same with Britain and America, or was. Other nations might mock the name 'special relationship', yet for most of that period since the war it has been true. Still is to some extent. The US trusts us enough to design the missile compartment for their ballistic missile submarines. We trust them enough to let them help design the next generation nuclear warhead for our Tridents.  It was we that invited them into the 5 eyes intelligence system, and we whom provide the chunks of the globe for them to put their listening post upon. Their helicopters seemingly carry our special forces, our submarines do sigint for them.

There are multiple layers here, but at the military and intelligence end, there isnt much difference at all, and we grow ever closer. GCHQ and NSA are to a very large extent seemingly joined at the hip.  We actually own large chunks of their military industrial establishment, they own chunks of ours.  By contrast, at the political end we have all the self serving shit of 'America first' without any real comprehension of how interdependent they are on their immediate allies, not least us. And that a US President can go 3 whole days without talking to a British PM in the middle of an international crisis involving our own people is completely unheard of. At the political end there is a rift, and has been one emerging for some time. There were cracks in the relationship as long ago as the Falklands and Grenada, but they were soon papered over. This time, neither side even seem to be trying.

For Europeans, America has always been a transactional relationship, you help defend my country, I drive your Ford. For us, its been a very different relationship. Now all of a sudden it isnt, the only question is what result precisely its going to have.

[rmgill]

10 hours ago, sunday said:

Who?

You. I was essentially saying you were on target. 

[sunday]

47 minutes ago, rmgill said:

You. I was essentially saying you were on target. 

Oh, thanks!

[Ssnake]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, im perfectly aware of that mindset, and if you pardon me saying so, its bullshit

FRIENDSHIP is an interPERSONAL sentiment. By definition it can't be applied to organizations, nations, political constructs. That's not to say that there can't be considerable overlap in cultures, traditions, attitudes that also shape the sentiments of individuals towards people of those other nations.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ok, so here is why ive been asserting, which I think you seem from what you have just written you have been misreading.

Let me give two examples. Firstly when the Royal Navy went to war with the US in 1812, it didnt enjoy the thought of shooting at people they considered as cousins. Probably even literally so at the time, it wasnt THAT long since they had become independent. And when the US got mixed up in one of our Opium wars, one of their warships sailed to the assistance of a sinking Royal Navy vessel because, well, thats what brothers do. I can think of dozens of other examples, not just about of their Navy, but in other areas, but it all amounts to the same thing. We saw America as our other self, Churchill being a prime example of this attitude.

You do not see any similar close relationship with the French between the US and France. Because whilst on the face of it, they were closer in revolutionary zeal than they were with Britain, in reality most of the American revolutionary writings had been conceived by English writers. Mainly writers rejected by the British establishment, but they still were English conceived. There is a reason why a giant brass copy of Magna Carta is in the US Senate. Even their supreme court is conceived, again purely by English writings.

Yes, its inevitable in the nearly 250 years since American independence, with cultural input from multiple other nations those ties are going to become weaker. And yet, despite what Ryan will insist, they are far more like us than any European nation. That counted for something, and it WAS a different relationship. Primarily because, in my view, the US is not an organization or a Political construct, its an experiment, and one that Britain, not just by being the distant tyranical landlord, helped create. They credited us with that.

This in my view has changed, comparatively recently, and its primarily due to the war on terror. But then the insularity of 'America First' owes itself to the exceptional past 20 years, so I guess there was an inevitablity about it. Now its just one more grim transactional relationship of the type the US says its despises.

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

Funny, I’ve been the one asserting that the US political foundation was derivative of the ENGLISH enlightenment and Glorious Revolution. Despite being told that the US political foundations were entirely different by Brits. 

 

The sentiment that Trump exhibited by moving the Churchill bust back to the white house versus which was exhibited before by Obama having it moved away...what does that say? You think Biden’s policy direction is America First? It is nothing so resolute, it is just plain moral cowardice. 

 

Also, your sentiment vis a vis The EU and Brexit seems to contradict your position on the special relationship. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

Don't know whom by, I've always been saying this. Yes, there are key differences between England and America. But those key differences, such as your supreme court, are systems we envisaged, published, even if we did not ultimately adopt. . 

America first is moral cowardice. It implies an America not in the world influencing events for the better. And like it or not, Biden s actions in Kabul are fully in line with America first in action. It's what you asked for. Why don't you cheer, didn't you want to surrender? This is what you were cheering for, whether you realised or not.

America actively encouraged us to join the EEC, did you know that? And then instantly regretted it. There is a very good BBC article on this on the Nixon telephone call. Try searching Nixon and a year of Europe, it might pop up. The point is, there was no difference between being loyal to Americans and loyal to Europeans.  Or at least, was not. In my view it's like being forced to choose between aunts and uncles.

 

 

[rmgill]

So what was abandoning Hong Kong? 

[Simon Tan]

Inevitability.

[Stuart Galbraith]

25 minutes ago, rmgill said:

So what was abandoning Hong Kong? 

Here are a couple of source's, in case you forgot the context.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-agrees-to-return-hong-kong-to-china

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Territories

So thats Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton all present when parts that decision was made.Did any of sam complain what that decision was made? No, because china was most favoured trading status, because you trusted them, and because frankly, you never had much time for Empires anyway.  Britain holding onto Hong Kong independent of the US was impossible. In fact, looking at Taiwan today, when most people believe the US could not defend it, holding onto Hong Kong even WITH the US was impossible.

Legally the most we could have held onto was the financial district. But that would have been without water and without half the population to service it. In short, it would have been like holding onto Manhattan, whilst giving the rest of New York back. You think that would have worked, hmm? Whom was supposed to run this shard of a city, Snake Plisken?

But foolish me trying to inject facts into a discussion. I should have known better long before now.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith