WITH the EU, as NATO served its purpose?

[Lucky13]

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]

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

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

 

[Lucky13]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

European Defence Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

 

[GrauGeist]

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]

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]

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

 

[Marcel]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

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]

"...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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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]

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]

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