WITH the EU, as NATO served its purpose?

[Lucky13]

....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]

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

That's the whole point of NATO
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

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

 

[pbehn]

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.

 

[stona]

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

 

[michaelmaltby]

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


You shutting this down, Jan.

 

[Lucky13]

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

 

[Milosh]

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.

 

[michaelmaltby]

jeezus .... very troubling

 

[Lucky13]

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]

No surprise in the defeated country
Sorry.

 

[stona]

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]

"... 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]

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]

..... 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]

Many thanks for your kind advice, MM

 

[Red Sailor]

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]

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]

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