The end of NATO - good for Europe?

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The US does spent a lot more than 2%. Obviously the assets can be used outside of NATO, which the Europeans would be free to do too, if they would be spending enough.

Imho it is clear that there is an increasing tendency in the US to leave NATO behind. And to be honest a partnership depends on the partners wanting to be in the partnership. If this is no longer the case, it is best to end it.

I never said it did not. I said it does not spend anything like 2 percent on NATO, and hasnt probably for decades. No, not even now, 10 years after Putin walked into Crimea, have they put a single Division back on NATO soil.

No, im sorry, that is not going to do. Those other assets will not be there on the day war with Russia is declared. For myself, I much prefer deterrence to catchup. it does no good if the US is bringing in assets from the other side of the planet to fight the war, when it is far cheaper to have the assets here to deter Russia, so there is no war. They understand that implicitly in South Korea and Japan. What makes Europe any different?

We understood thisfrom 1945 to 1990. Why is this so difficult to grasp now? You really think Putin is going to be impressed by 4 Brigades?

Yes, we must spend more. Some of us have not ever dropped below the 2 percent target, which is why im so damn irritated by Central Europeans, and Americans, not respecting a target they predominantly set.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

I think the spending, will not fix it. You clearly see that increasing believe that NATO is a bad deal for the US within the US.

Imho it is time to start working on extending the EU structures to prepare for the end of NATO and imho to spent more on defence, but when possible on European products.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The US could be handed the most gold nugget of deals right now, and they would still suspect it, because they have it in their heads to suspect Europeans. My own view, its the American equivalent of 'stabbed in the back'. We are being blamed for the 20 year soiree into the Sandbox, even though it was wholly the Americans' policy. Why? Because reasons. Nobody wants to acknowlege it was Republicans, because it would mean reflecting on how far they have shrunk as a party into populism and appeasement.

No, not EU. That blighted organization has screwed up too many things. There is no reason not to keep NATO without the Americans in it. After all, it was setup without Americans, by Britain, France and Belgium. Rebrand if you will, but if you have the EU, you shove out Britain and Canada, and thats just moronic.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

And Norway.

OTOH you keep Turkey, eh...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, that was a stupid omission on my part, thank you. Norway is vital for European security. So is Turkey, even if it is in the hands of a senile old fart right now.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

And Norway.

OTOH you keep Turkey, eh...

Norway is already associated to the EU military structure. Canada and the UK could be allowed to do the same. But what you need, is a back-up plan. Obviously most NATO installations are in Europe, so they would be available and a lot of the people working there would be, too.

[FALightFighter]

 

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

…No, not even now, 10 years after Putin walked into Crimea, have they put a single Division back on NATO soil.

Except that 11 of 12 US divisions are on “NATO soil”, so knock off the hyperbole.

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Some of us have not ever dropped below the 2 percent target, which is why im so damn irritated by Central Europeans, and Americans, not respecting a target they predominantly set.

You have no idea how NATO works, do you? All the members have to agree, there is an absolute veto by any member. So EVERYONE set this collectively.

On 12/2/2024 at 4:13 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

….the NATO catchment area.

WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you arbitrarily redefining parts of NATO countries as not NATO now?

On 12/2/2024 at 4:13 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, you actually have more US military personnel deployed in Florida than you do in the NATO catchment area. I mean I can entirely see why. We all have seen Red Dawn, and I bet those pinko bastards are just waiting to invade when you have your trousers down.

I guess this is supposed to be a joke, but it’s stupid. First, counting civil servants in with uniformed service members is stupid, and counting reserve components the same as active is just silly- of course reservists are generally going to be from where the population lives- that’s part of the reason why California, Texas, and Florida have such high numbers. Most of those active duty service members in Florida, especially Florida, but partilally in the other places you mentioned too, are there for training. It’s not like there are some sort of non-NATO missions taking place in Florida.

On 12/2/2024 at 3:57 AM, Ssnake said:

Also, military pensions included in US figures, not in most other countries.

I don’t think this is correct, but I need to do some digging.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, FALightFighter said:

 

Except that 11 of 12 US divisions are on “NATO soil”, so knock off the hyperbole.

You have no idea how NATO works, do you? All the members have to agree, there is an absolute veto by any member. So EVERYONE set this collectively.

WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you arbitrarily redefining parts of NATO countries as not NATO now?

I guess this is supposed to be a joke, but it’s stupid. First, counting civil servants in with uniformed service members is stupid, and counting reserve components the same as active is just silly- of course reservists are generally going to be from where the population lives- that’s part of the reason why California, Texas, and Florida have such high numbers. Most of those active duty service members in Florida, especially Florida, but partilally in the other places you mentioned too, are there for training. It’s not like there are some sort of non-NATO missions taking place in Florida.

I don’t think this is correct, but I need to do some digging.

Here is how the USAEUR now looks today. Now if you have a better source, please post it up, and Ill be happy to acknowledge my failings.

Im counting a grand total of 6 Divisions on European soil. Which sounds a whole lot, until you realise,

They are primarily headquarters, with the vast bulk of their forces on the other side of the Atlantic. 2 Divisions are make up primarily of   logistics and communications troops.  One seems to control intelligence equipment. One is an air defence unit. One is made up of light infantry and a Strike Brigade, and the other division is largely keeping all its stuff on the other side of the Atlantic.

The Units that are here, are primarily support units. There are just 4 Brigades permanently that can be used in combat. 2nd Cavalry Regiment at Vilseck. 41st Field Artillery Brigade at Grafenwhor, 12th Combat Avn Bde at Ansbach, and 173rd Airborne in Vicenza.

I would include the Air Defence brigade at Sembach, but as about a third of it is in Turkey and Israel, Im not sure that really counts.

There IS the Atlantic resolve rotational forces you see on the chart. But they dont all seem to deploy at once, and seem to amount to no more than 6000 troops deployed at any one time. Which working it out, would seem likely to be part of the 64000 troops Ive already indicated.

https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/AtlanticResolve/

In any case, it seems to amount to 2 whole Brigades and an artillery brigade and a logistic brigade slated to Europe. Perhaps thats been enhanced since, but if so, Ive yet to see a source on it.

Yes, you could have maybe 1 whole division turn up after 'Reforger'. The point is, they are not there now, and as far as deterrence, clearly not contributing anything like what the Europeans are.  I keep hearing the huge amounts US taxpayers are spending on European defence. Can someone point it out where it please?

 

Yes, including the US. Which is, demonstrably, not spending the 2 percent its demanding from everyone else. You are perfectly right in slamming everyone not spending 2 percent on NATO, right after you acknowledge that you cannot possibly be doing it yourself when you look at where the bulk of your expenditure is going.

Fairly self evidently  the NATO catchment area is everywhere that isnt inside the area defined by the NATO treaty. Meaning, not Afghanistan, or poncing about in Africa or the middle east. USAEUR is split between Europe and Africa. Only the Spanish bits could possibly qualify as a NATO concern.

Reservists are part of your armed forces too, right? If a reservist in Europe can be counted as part of the Armed Forces, then why shouldnt we count yours? You presumably would be calling them up in any war with Russia. Fact remains, you have most of your forces in CONUS. All the Europeans have the vast majority of ours here. So Its far easier to calculate what we are putting into NATO than it is America. It looks entirely like the DOD is fudging its contribution when you look at where the vast majority of the troops are, the Pacific rim.

Even the UK until very recently was counting military pensions as part of its defence expenditure. Im reaasonably certain the US is doing the same thing. Its probably where Cameron got the idea from.

Edited December 3, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Norway is already associated to the EU military structure. Canada and the UK could be allowed to do the same. But what you need, is a back-up plan. Obviously most NATO installations are in Europe, so they would be available and a lot of the people working there would be, too.

But why do we need to, when we have all we need in NATO?

What is the pressing need to reinvent the wheel here?

[Murph]

The US has global committments, and in time of war, those get sent where they are needed.  That includes Europe, plus the nuclear umbrella which does deploy in small amounts (tac nukes), and ICBM/SLBM so you need to include that money in the "defense" of Europe.  So, yes, Stuart, we pay far more than just the 2%.  I do not include all the B-52/B-1/B-2 bombers sitting in the US, ready rush, rush I tell you! to the defense of NATO.  So sorry, the 2% argument does not hold up.  

 

Even in the bad old days of the cold war, we had deployable from the US units,  we did station 4 full divisions in Germany, but we had others in the US earmarked for defending our ungrateful European allies who were just happy that the Greens, Communists, and other Soviet pawns were constantly protesting our deployment of weapons to keep NATO safe from the godless commies.  Pershing II, GLCM anyone?  I was there for that.  I sat at Ayers Kaserne with the rest of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Armored Division while the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament wanted the West to unilaterally get rid of Nukes so that the Soviets could be the only ones to have them, since they were the "Good Guys" according to the Western Left.  

 

 

[R011]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here is how the USAEUR now looks today. Now if you have a better source, please post it up, and Ill be happy to acknowledge my failings.

Im counting a grand total of 6 Divisions on European soil. Which sounds a whole lot, until you realise,

They are primarily headquarters, with the vast bulk of their forces on the other side of the Atlantic. 2 Divisions are make up primarily of   logistics and communications troops.  One seems to control intelligence equipment. One is an air defence unit. One is made up of light infantry and a Strike Brigade, and the other division is largely keeping all its stuff on the other side of the Atlantic.

The Units that are here, are primarily support units. There are just 4 Brigades permanently that can be used in combat. 2nd Cavalry Regiment at Vilseck. 41st Field Artillery Brigade at Grafenwhor, 12th Combat Avn Bde at Ansbach, and 173rd Airborne in Vicenza.

I would include the Air Defence brigade at Sembach, but as about a third of it is in Turkey and Israel, Im not sure that really counts.

There IS the Atlantic resolve rotational forces you see on the chart. But they dont all seem to deploy at once, and seem to amount to no more than 6000 troops deployed at any one time. Which working it out, would seem likely to be part of the 64000 troops Ive already indicated.

https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/AtlanticResolve/

In any case, it seems to amount to 2 whole Brigades and an artillery brigade and a logistic brigade slated to Europe. Perhaps thats been enhanced since, but if so, Ive yet to see a source on it.

Yes, you could have maybe 1 whole division turn up after 'Reforger'. The point is, they are not there now, and as far as deterrence, clearly not contributing anything like what the Europeans are.  I keep hearing the huge amounts US taxpayers are spending on European defence. Can someone point it out where it please?

 

Yes, including the US. Which is, demonstrably, not spending the 2 percent its demanding from everyone else. You are perfectly right in slamming everyone not spending 2 percent on NATO, right after you acknowledge that you cannot possibly be doing it yourself when you look at where the bulk of your expenditure is going.

Fairly self evidently  the NATO catchment area is everywhere that isnt inside the area defined by the NATO treaty. Meaning, not Afghanistan, or poncing about in Africa or the middle east. USAEUR is split between Europe and Africa. Only the Spanish bits could possibly qualify as a NATO concern.

Reservists are part of your armed forces too, right? If a reservist in Europe can be counted as part of the Armed Forces, then why shouldnt we count yours? You presumably would be calling them up in any war with Russia. Fact remains, you have most of your forces in CONUS. All the Europeans have the vast majority of ours here. So Its far easier to calculate what we are putting into NATO than it is America. It looks entirely like the DOD is fudging its contribution when you look at where the vast majority of the troops are, the Pacific rim.

Even the UK until very recently was counting military pensions as part of its defence expenditure. Im reaasonably certain the US is doing the same thing. Its probably where Cameron got the idea from.

At least at the moment, and realistically for a long time to come because the US isn't leaving Nato, the US is a Nato country so any US troops in CONUS are on Nato territory.

[seahawk]

3 hours ago, Murph said:

The US has global committments, and in time of war, those get sent where they are needed.  That includes Europe, plus the nuclear umbrella which does deploy in small amounts (tac nukes), and ICBM/SLBM so you need to include that money in the "defense" of Europe.  So, yes, Stuart, we pay far more than just the 2%.  I do not include all the B-52/B-1/B-2 bombers sitting in the US, ready rush, rush I tell you! to the defense of NATO.  So sorry, the 2% argument does not hold up.  

 

Even in the bad old days of the cold war, we had deployable from the US units,  we did station 4 full divisions in Germany, but we had others in the US earmarked for defending our ungrateful European allies who were just happy that the Greens, Communists, and other Soviet pawns were constantly protesting our deployment of weapons to keep NATO safe from the godless commies.  Pershing II, GLCM anyone?  I was there for that.  I sat at Ayers Kaserne with the rest of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Armored Division while the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament wanted the West to unilaterally get rid of Nukes so that the Soviets could be the only ones to have them, since they were the "Good Guys" according to the Western Left.  

 

 

Think about how long ago that was and how much the US taxpayer paid for nothing in return since then.

[Murph]

8 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Think about how long ago that was and how much the US taxpayer paid for nothing in return since then.

Sadly so true.  

[Murph]

18 minutes ago, R011 said:

At least at the moment, and realistically for a long time to come because the US isn't leaving Nato, the US is a Nato country so any US troops in CONUS are on Nato territory.

The same applies to Canadian Troops, French, Italian, etc, etc.  Just because we do not have massive numbers of divisions ready to leap into action at the behest of the EU and NATO we are somehow wrong.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

21 minutes ago, R011 said:

At least at the moment, and realistically for a long time to come because the US isn't leaving Nato, the US is a Nato country so any US troops in CONUS are on Nato territory.

But that is shaky logic. By definition any US military base is US territory, yet self evidently those based on Guam or Japan are not going to defend Europe. Neither is anyone on the west coast or Alaska.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 minutes ago, Murph said:

The same applies to Canadian Troops, French, Italian, etc, etc.  Just because we do not have massive numbers of divisions ready to leap into action at the behest of the EU and NATO we are somehow wrong.  

I'm saying your sums are wrong, self evidently so.

[Murph]

Perhaps, perhaps not, I just do not look that deeply into it.  But it also does not count all of the money the US spent propping up European governments and military forces during the Cold War.  I think we have done our fair share, and paid enough.  

[rmgill]

On 12/2/2024 at 10:09 AM, Murph said:

The US has a special relationship with Japan, WE made them adopt Article 9, so therefore it is incumbent upon us to live up to the obligation (giri) that we have to defend Japan.  Pure Giri in the sense of we made it, we own it.  Europe, not so much.  Europe can defend itself.  

So desune!

[R011]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But that is shaky logic. By definition any US military base is US territory, yet self evidently those based on Guam or Japan are not going to defend Europe. Neither is anyone on the west coast or Alaska.

Maybe so, but you said "NATO" territory when the continental US is very much that.  If you mean "Europe", then you should say that instead.

[Sinistar]

17 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh my,

 

 

triggered sass patterns detected

 

see also:

 

my goodness

 

my stars

 

i feel like

 

o no you di- int

 

recommend:

 

further viewing. way way too much estrogen-

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, R011 said:

Maybe so, but you said "NATO" territory when the continental US is very much that.  If you mean "Europe", then you should say that instead.

Im sorry, this is pure semantics. The US defends itself not as part as NATO, but as an action of its own Soverignty. It would continue to do so without a blip if it left NATO.

NATO was hardly setup to defend CONUS from attack. Unless you mean Canada, although that was very much a case of protecting the US from Strategic bombers. Nobody really conceived the Russians were going to invade it, anymore than they might invade the US.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Murph said:

Perhaps, perhaps not, I just do not look that deeply into it.  But it also does not count all of the money the US spent propping up European governments and military forces during the Cold War.  I think we have done our fair share, and paid enough.  

No Murph, but you happily round on people that do that tell you you are wrong that certainly have delved deeply into it. For my sins Ive spent a lifetime reading up on the cold war, and NATO's part in it. I dont consider myself graduate standard, but I can see all the holes in your arguments.

You didnt spend any money propping up European Governments. By the 1960's they were more than able to prop themselves up, and repay what you spent on the Marshall plan by being good customers, in all kinds of goods, not least military equipment.

The problem with you guys, you think purely in fiscal terms. You forget there is a structure to the international security order that goes far beyond what money is spent on it. My father said it best, defence is the insurance policy you never want to pay out. You are calculating on purely fiscal cost, and forgetting the alternative, war, and what the lack of security that follows will mean to your economy, maybe even your lives.

 

Edited December 4, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, R011 said:

At least at the moment, and realistically for a long time to come because the US isn't leaving Nato, the US is a Nato country so any US troops in CONUS are on Nato territory.

And you know its not that simple.

Trump in his first term said he would not be minded to defend some of the smaller countries. If the whole pillar on what NATO rests is that its indivisable security backed by an article 5, then he chipped away at that pillar. Largely because the man is so goddam stupid he doesnt realise that NATO isnt there to fight wars, but to avoid them.

America can stay in NATO and its so invalidated by the Presidents utterances it becomes worthless. And that certainly Is possible, even if physically leaving the treaty is impossible. And as far as Im concerned, that is yet to be proved also.

[RETAC21]

27 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im sorry, this is pure semantics. The US defends itself not as part as NATO, but as an action of its own Soverignty. It would continue to do so without a blip if it left NATO.

NATO was hardly setup to defend CONUS from attack. Unless you mean Canada, although that was very much a case of protecting the US from Strategic bombers. Nobody really conceived the Russians were going to invade it, anymore than they might invade the US.

 

Not at all, isn't it easier to say "I was wrong and I meant Europe"?

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

So, an attack on San Diego is an attack on NATO territory, and attack on Hawaii is not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Are you supporting the notion that the US defending its own airspace and coastline is contributing in a meaningful manner to collective defence? That would mean that every single minuteman silo in the US, not to mention air force units defending US Airspace, not to mention naval bases on the West coast, are all in fact contributing directly to NATO defence, when they are not pledged to NATO at all, and almost certainly wouldnt be used to defend Europe in any circumstances. Its a ridiculously broad distinction and meaningless. All the NATO treaty is saying is an ATTACK on those installations will warrant NATO defence, not that they are inherently belonging TO NATO defence. I think thats very clear.

If you look at the NORAD agreement between the US and Canada from 2006, there are just 2 mentions of NATO, and one so thin it could be the plastic vineer on a kitchen worktop.

'NOTING that this cooperation is conducted within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty and is an important element of their contribution to the overall security of the NATO area;'

'K The North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall continue to be kept informed through national NATO policy staffs, or other designated representatives, of arrangements for NORAD’s role in the defense of North America.'

https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105060

Does that actually sound like a NATO command, or what it actually is, a bilateral agreement between two NATO members, where they agree to let NATO know whats they are doing after they did it?

If you insist on standing by the distinction, and I note American politicians themselves do not make that distinction when they talk about NATO, there remains a huge difference between what the US spends to defend the CONUS and its interests globally outside Europe, than its presently spending to defend Europe. That was obviously my  point, and one you made yourself if im not mistaken.