# WITH the EU, as NATO served its purpose?



## Lucky13 (Apr 15, 2016)

EU members: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK...28 members all in all.

NATO members: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States....28 members as well, but two are outside Europe, so....26!

Now, I don't really remember correctly the idea for the NATO, but I'd guess that it would prevent another major European war, I'll imagine that the EU has the same function today, so....with 28 member countries in the EU and 26 (not counting the US and Canada, as they're outside Europe, just that....), has NATO served its purpose and therefor no longer necessary?

Just curious to everybody's opinion....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 15, 2016)

".... has NATO served its purpose and therefor no longer necessary?"

Has the EU been a "success" seems more the question, my friend.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 15, 2016)

Well, we haven't had any major conflicts in Europe since '45, which this year makes it 71 years....which is slightly better than the 21 years between WWI and WWII....

We did however have the war in former Yugoslavia, could probably be argued who should get the credit for not letting it spread any further, EU or NATO....

If it wasn't for NATO, would as many F-86's, F-104's, F-16's etc., etc, been sold?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2016)

The EU is more of an economic zone, trying to be the U.S. in many respects. Think of it as more of a club where senior members can dictate to the junior members and prospects have to jump through hoops to become a club member.

NATO is aimed at security and defense and has little to do with the economic-political posturing. Example: Bulgaria is a NATO member but is not an EU member, although they applied years ago and haven't been "approved", yet.

I think the bigger question is: why is the U.N. still around? That has to be just about the biggest failure since the League of Nations.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 15, 2016)

Three clubs doing almost the same thing?
Some countries are members in all three....
Neither is cheap or free, three membership fees, for what?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2016)

Well, the EU doesn't provide for defense...it's a paid member club. And just as well, too, because of the shenanigans that the leaders pull, it would be much like the League of Nations if it were in charge of Europe's defense. When countries don't wish to be members (Switzerland, for example), the EU bullies them. When Britain recently said it was considering washing it's hands of the EU, several EU leaders made smart-ass comments and one leader actually threatened Britain.

NATO is an alliance that is a security blanket for Europe and nations within the Atlantic sphere and remains free of that BS, fortunately.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2016)

Isn't that the latest with EU, provide defense as well, I think so....I could remember wrong though, if you jump one EU country, the others will come to your assistance.....


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2016)

European Defence Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not read it myself yet, just posting the link....


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2016)

Go ahead and read that, Jan...it's bullsh!t

Like I said before, the EU is a club and this "defense" venture only supports "member states" if they are in good standing, plus it's overseen by select civilians.

Members of NATO are free to employ their own hardware, as you'll see a blend of U.S., domestic and even former Soviet hardware in their inventories. They train under experienced military leadership and share a common defense goal.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 16, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Go ahead and read that, Jan...it's bullsh!t



Bullsh*t!? You sure it isn't just rubbish? 

Besides, with the Warsaw Pact gone....  

Isn't NATO an exclusive club as well?

European Union -EEAS (European External Action Service)

European Union -CSDP (The Common Security and Defence Policy)

Mind you just being curious here....


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2016)

Russia hasn't ceased to be a threat.

Look at the constant incursions on Swedish airspace and the constant encroachment of Estonian territory, by Russian aircraft. The Russian "war games" along Poland's border, the overflights of Finnish airspace and the submarine shenanigans that the Russians have been pulling around Sweden. The kidnapping of an Estonian border guard (and being tried by the Russians for being in Russia illegally and being a spy). The Crimean and the Ukraine go without mention...

NATO is still very much a factor in keeping things in check

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Apr 16, 2016)

Well I'm not as negative as others about the EU, I still think we need to come together as a European group if we want to have any influence on the world we live in. It's a time of big players now and none of the European countries can be considered a big player on their own.
Having said that there are two reasons to keep the NATO. 1: the EU is still not mature and too fragile. See if UK wanting to get out and even in my own country there is much resentment against the EU. As long as the EU is politically weak we'll not be able to do anything. And opponents intended try to keep it this way, so I don't foresee a change soon.
2. The big plus of NATO is the fact that the USA and Canada are in. For the USA it is beneficial to have bases in Europe and for Europe, it is good to have a strong friend on another continent. After all, many of the problems we have are the same for both EU and north America.

So no, I don't think NATO is obsolete. EU still has to prove itself as a working concept and up till now the are not doing a good job.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 16, 2016)

Yes, I agree, Nato still as a purpose as a collective defence mechanism; it enables dissimilar armed forces in the region to exercise and share experiences with allies, so serves to benefit those member states. Nato was one of a number of collective defence organisations created in the late 40 early 50s s as a buffer against Soviet expansion (actually Nato came before the Warsaw Pact, in 1949, with the WP in 1955), another was SEATO, the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, which dissolved in 1977, but served the same purpose.

Cynics argue that Nato is an excuse for the US to wield influence in Europe, but US forces have been in continual decline for many years now, being a mere shadow of their former selves on the continent. Like any treaty though, a certain amount is expected of member states, such as the ability to contribute to collective defence. To a degree the same is asked of the UN - member nations have to be able to provide adequate defence of other members' shipping and trade routes and vessels entering member nations' waters/territory etc and are welcome to contribute to peace keeping efforts, although the amount of effort is not specified. The UN's stance on defence is a tough one since there is no provision for members to have to provide collective defence, such as there is with Nato and if you look at the reasons why the UN was formed after the war, it's relevance could be put up for question (Truman and the threat of nuclear war - Truman originally wanted control of nuclear weapons to rest with the UN, but that was poo poohed by those in defense positions in Washington, quite rightly so, but it did mean the Commander-in-Chief makes the decision regarding their deployment).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 16, 2016)

"...if you jump one EU country, the others will come to your assistance....."

Remains to be seen. The EU is a bureaucracy .... for every "advantage" it offers it bestows regulation and controls. NATO has been tested .... and will be more so in the coming troubles.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 16, 2016)

Just adding to that. Fundamentally the EU is a good idea, idealistically speaking, but it's just badly run and the original intent has been lost along the way. The change of law and politics under the Lisbon treaty made considerable change to the original intent of the Maastrict Treaty in 1992. Militarily, the EU is not expected to provide collective defence - it's an economic and political alliance - defence is largely handled by Nato and when created in 1992, most of the member states were members of Nato, although some remain neutral with no Nato membership.


----------



## stona (Apr 16, 2016)

Many countries, Britain being the most obvious, do not want a European political union. They want, at best, a glorified free trade zone. There is a very real risk, or opportunity, depending on your point of view, that the UK will vote for a BREXIT. In my recent travels in Europe my European friends seriously underestimate the chances of this. Britain would never cut ties with the US and NATO. We are talking about two very different things.
The great Franco-German project that has evolved into the EU was originally intended as a means of preventing any more disastrous internecine wars between the European states by tying them together in an ever greater political union. 
NATO has an entirely different purpose in guaranteeing the security of all the European states and therefore that of the United States and Canada too, a role crystalised by the cold war . It was not founded to protect the European states west of the 'iron curtain' from themselves, as the Common Market/EU was.
It is not just the security of Europe which NATO guarantees. NATO's big stick is and always has been the military might of the USA, and their dollars.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Red Sailor (Apr 16, 2016)

The decision as to whether or not the UK exits the EU will be made on the 23rd June when the nation votes. Should we opt to remain then the EU mandarins will be free to progress with their long held desire to form a European Defence Force from its member states. Support is strong with Germany and France being the prime movers for such a venture which poses some concerns and questions about such a military coalition and how it would operate.

Germany being the largest financial contributor to the EU will expect to hold senior command positions in such a combined force. France would also hold similar aspirations to supreme command after which it would probably be rotated amongst the military of other members states as sometimes occurs within NATO. The UK already provides a large part of Europe's active defence under the NATO pact and no doubt the same contribution from us would be expected by the EU. Being amongst the top three of financial contributors to the EU budget the UK could reasonably expect its Generals, Air Marshals and Admirals to hold command roles at some future point.

If we look at the NATO led ISAF operations in Afghanistan as a benchmark we find that although many EU nations participated not all were actually combat roles in the true sense of the word. Germany for instance, under its laws forbids that its troops engage in combat except under very extreme circumstances. So whilst deploying a sizeable military presence its primary function was that of providing logistics support and training. Important roles to be sure but not exactly at the sharp end of operations. France provided a modern military force including substantial air and naval support elements. Smaller contingents of combat troops were provided by Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Belgium and Poland being amongst the few European states to serve on the frontlines alongside the UK/US in Afghanistan. Italy, Portugal and Spain also contributed but at lower levels that were not commensurate with the size of their much larger armed forces. It was left to the few, including non-European nations like Canada, Australia and New Zealand to pick up the butcher's bill at the end of the day.

Taking the above into consideration, I would not wish to see the baton of control over British armed forces eventually passed to the leadership of commanders from the remainder of former Communist bloc EU member states that have neither the military combat experience or prowess required for the task. This European Defence Force is nothing but another pipedream much like the federalist state that the EU aspires to become; but anything is possible if allowed to go unchecked. NATO is still the best and most effective option for the defence of Europe and the west, despite what those faceless politicians in the corridors of power within Brussels and Strasbourg may think.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 17, 2016)

There were a great deal of non-European nations that contributed in Afghanistan and as far as the former Warsaw Pact nations are concerned, they for the most part want little to do with the memory of the Soviet years.
Most have been extremely well trained by U.S. or NATO nations, participate in NATO exercises on a regular basis and are just as competent as any western nation's military.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 17, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Russia hasn't ceased to be a threat.
> 
> Look at the constant incursions on Swedish airspace and the constant encroachment of Estonian territory, by Russian aircraft. The Russian "war games" along Poland's border, the overflights of Finnish airspace and the submarine shenanigans that the Russians have been pulling around Sweden.



That's what happens, when you've got spineless c*nts in government!
....and that's all I've got to say about it!

 

Thanks for all the interesting replies gentlemen!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2016)

The European idea of collective defence is that someone else does it, there are very few EU nations the have a military worth discussing.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> ....there are very few EU nations the have a military worth discussing.



True that....me old country's military is a joke these days, if you ask me....


----------



## stona (Apr 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> The European idea of collective defence is that someone else does it,



That's the whole point of NATO 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Apr 17, 2016)

Red Sailor said:


> The decision as to whether or not the UK exits the EU will be made on the 23rd June when the nation votes. Should we opt to remain then the EU mandarins will be free to progress with their long held desire to form a European Defence Force from its member states. .



A BREXIT would compromise that completely. Why would Britain, now outside the EU and freeing itself of its former treaty obligations contribute to such a force? The British view, even now whilst still an EU member state, is that the security of Europe is guaranteed by NATO. That would be reinforced, not weakened, by a BREXIT. A BREXIT would also embolden the people of some other member states who are not quite as keen on the way things are going as some in their national governments and others on the Brussels gravy train like to believe.

The European states can't arrive at decisions and enact them on any major crises. Look at the current inability to do anything constructive (apart from building fences) about the illegal migration from Africa and the Middle East. Who seriously believes the panjandrums of Brussels would be capable of operating a military defence force?

Britain has a different relationship with the US to some other European nations, reflected within NATO. France has thrown her toys out of the pram and stomped out of the Alliance for precisely this reason in the past.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 17, 2016)

stona said:


> That's the whole point of NATO
> Cheers
> Steve


Belgium doesnt have a tracked military vehicle, Greece's biggest military expenditure is pensions. Regardless of whether NATO or the EU is in charge the whole of Europe needs to get its act together, If the EU is such a rich and prosperous trading area it should stop relying on Uncle Sam especially when it has leaders in charge who seem to love creating chaos all around its border.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Apr 17, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Regardless of whether NATO or the EU is in charge the whole of Europe needs to get its act together, If the EU is such a rich and prosperous trading area it should stop relying on Uncle Sam



As I said, the whole point of NATO is that Europe can rely on Uncle Sam, and the less than handful of European states that do have some meaningful military capability.
Without NATO, and without one of those few states (UK) the idea that the EU can defend itself is, frankly, laughable.
It's difficult enough to squeeze NATO members to expend the required percentage of GDP on military spending. Last year only 5 of the 28 members reached the 2% goal and they were_ U.S. and Great Britain (inevitably) along with Greece, Poland and Estonia._ Given Russian expansionism elsewhere it is easy to see why Poland and Estonia have payed up. Neither France, nor Germany are in the list which also lacks almost all other states which are members of both the EU and NATO. Defence spending would have to be hugely increased if Europe was to go it alone, ALL the other EU states are going to have to stump up a lot of cash at a time when all budgets are being constrained.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 17, 2016)

".....Thanks for all the interesting replies gentlemen!"


You shutting this down, Jan.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 17, 2016)

No, no, no....not at all buddy!


----------



## Milosh (Apr 17, 2016)

Well you can count Germany out with their new rules.

German army forced to lay down weapons due to 'overtime limits'

Pulled out of a 4 week NATO exercise after 12 days.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 17, 2016)

jeezus .... very troubling


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 17, 2016)

Milosh said:


> Well you can count Germany out with their new rules.
> 
> German army forced to lay down weapons due to 'overtime limits'
> 
> Pulled out of a 4 week NATO exercise after 12 days.



What the....?


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 17, 2016)

No surprise in the defeated country 
Sorry.


----------



## stona (Apr 17, 2016)

Well if Britain leaves, Germany won't, that leaves France, the rest are irrelevant (apologies to Spain and Italy, but that's how it is. Turkey, let's not go there). With all due respect to the French military, that won't work 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 17, 2016)

"... No surprise in the defeated country"

Are you saying that people who have been decisively defeated can't be motivated to defend themselves and their values, Shin?


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 17, 2016)

michaelmaltby said:


> Are you saying that people who have been decisively defeated can't be motivated to defend themselves and their values, Shin?



Yes half is true, MM.
Not all but most of our 'military' personnel are ordinary waged workers who expect stabler lives as civil servants BECAUSE our constitution clearly bans any war to solve the international issues. You may agree that this is not our fault but GHQ led by Gen. MacArthur.

Majority of the true patriots are among civilians like me.
I am ready to be enlisted as an officer anytime if necessary.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 17, 2016)

..... the Romans suffered catastrophic defeats several times in their early history .... pre Caesar .... and yet never faulted on their vision of Empire and destiny. This motivation was corrupted of course and the resulting corruption took the state down.

Your comparison between soldiers and hourly wage earners is a little to logical, IMHO, Shin.  _No_ soldier should be serving in the ranks ... entrusted with his country and culture's protection as he/she is .... and entertaining the fantasy of OT and such.

I think the post-war history demonstrates how far a society can be 'engineered' through guilt and shame .... or a MacArthuresque constitution for that matter.

Japan and Germany both demonstrate the ability of a ruined aggressive society to achieve its goals through commerce and excellence ..... but ... who will protect/defend these countries right to world trade, markets and commercial institutions if the countries themselves won't bear arms? ..... in a manner appropriate to winning and to the nature of the threats?


----------



## Shinpachi (Apr 17, 2016)

Many thanks for your kind advice, MM

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Red Sailor (Apr 17, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> There were a great deal of non-European nations that contributed in Afghanistan and as far as the former Warsaw Pact nations are concerned, they for the most part want little to do with the memory of the Soviet years.
> Most have been extremely well trained by U.S. or NATO nations, participate in NATO exercises on a regular basis and are just as competent as any western nation's military.



Grau Geist,

Training being the operative word here. However well trained the former Warsaw Pact member's military forces may appear to be on paper - they remain as yet untested in combat. You have to turn up in a war for a baptism of fire and except for Poland, the rest of them were no-shows when it really counted in Afghanistan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 18, 2016)

Red Sailor said:


> Grau Geist,
> 
> Training being the operative word here. However well trained the former Warsaw Pact member's military forces may appear to be on paper - they remain as yet untested in combat. You have to turn up in a war for a baptism of fire and except for Poland, the rest of them were no-shows when it really counted in Afghanistan.


Bulgaria - 608 troops plus Medics
Bosnia Herzegovina - EOD teams and Security forces
Czech Republic - Special Forces teams and transport aircraft
Estonia - 250 troops
Hungary - 360 troops
Lithuania - 286 and Special Forces teams
Macedonia - 244 troops
Poland - 2,500 troops, Combat engineers and10 helicopters
Romania - 1,843 troops plus a Special Forces squad
Slovakia - Demolitions teams and Combat Engineers
Slovenia - 90 troops plus AFVs and Armored transports
Ukraine - Security forces

I might point out that most of these nations I have listed above are not booming economies and have contributed as much as they can afford. Some nations could only contribute logistics and the use of their bases while the ones listed provided on the ground assistance.

Every little bit helps and if you add up the combined boots, you'll see that the former eastern bloc countries actually provided a great deal of support.

Let's look at the western European nation's contributions:
Belgium - 4 F-16 fighters and 1 C-130 transport
Denmark - 750 troops, 3 Leopard tanks and 6 F-16 fighters
France - 3,200 troops, Special Forces units, 12 fighters and 1 carrier battle group
Germany - Special Forces units, 3 Frigates and 1 medivac transport aircraft
Greece - various Naval assets
Ireland - 7 troops
Montenegro - 40 troops
Norway - EOD teams, Special Forces units, 6 F-16 fighters and several C-130 transports
Portugal - 145 troops and several C-130 transports
Spain - 2,500 troops, helicopters and transports
Sweden - 900 troops

Of course, the UK provided a considerable amount of manpower, material and logistics, but my point being, that the Eastern European nations provided a great deal more than they get credit for, especially when compared to comparable sized Western European nations...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2016)

I see the EU and NATO as serving two completely different purposes, and as a result have two completely different parameters. The EU should aim to be as inclusive as it can, which is why they should be worried the UK is considering her exist (something I think the brits should do). It doesn't really matter how bloated and amorphous the EU gets, the bigger the better.

NATO has opted to follow a similar path, which i think is a fatal mistake. really, what can nations like Luxembourg do to make it an effective alliance. alliances work best when the numbers of nations are lesser, not more. if NATO consisted of Britain France, Germany, Italy, the US and Canada, you would have an effective alliance that could move quickly enough to be effective. The other nations could be affirmation nations, but not members. There is no benefit to having Poland, the Czechs Greeks and Turks in the alliance. they have agendas too different to the west and military establishments too weak to make a difference to be considered effective members

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

