The other NATO threads have devolved into the usual pissing contests so I'm hoping for a (relatively) serious discussion. Peter Zeihan blogged today about what the president's speech at NATO really means, and he thinks that we've basically invalidated Article V (collective defense), which is just about the same as saying NATO is dead.

More interestingly, he makes the point that this has been a long time coming (goes back to ally actions/inactions during the last two administrations), it's bipartisan, and highly unlikely to be reversed.

The implications are interesting, and it's worth your time to read. Russia is pretty obvious. The much more interesting points, to me, were Germany ("...unless the Germans prove comfortable with Russian troops within a couple hundred miles of Berlin, the era of German pacifism is nearly over.") and Japan/China ("...Japan is highly likely to give the Chinese a drumming.")

Honestly, I want to say he's overstating some stuff here but I really have trouble making an argument beyond an emotional one.

I hope so.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-26-2017 06:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The other NATO threads have devolved into the usual pissing contests so I'm hoping for a (relatively) serious discussion. Peter Zeihan blogged today about what the president's speech at NATO really means, and he thinks that we've basically invalidated Article V (collective defense), which is just about the same as saying NATO is dead.
More interestingly, he makes the point that this has been a long time coming (goes back to ally actions/inactions during the last two administrations), it's bipartisan, and highly unlikely to be reversed.
The implications are interesting, and it's worth your time to read. Russia is pretty obvious. The much more interesting points, to me, were Germany ("...unless the Germans prove comfortable with Russian troops within a couple hundred miles of Berlin, the era of German pacifism is nearly over.") and Japan/China ("...Japan is highly likely to give the Chinese a drumming.")
Honestly, I want to say he's overstating some stuff here but I really have trouble making an argument beyond an emotional one.

Zeehan has been making this argument for quite some time now. He has a very interesting perspective.

I spent a lot of my military career working on NATO this or NATO that. For largely personal reasons, I would like to see the alliance survive in some fashion, although I agree that events make that a difficult proposition. I actually think that Brexit may have been the event that pushed things over the edge.

I have written quite a bit on here about US defense on here, and one thing I have advocated is more coordination with NATO in the procurement area. For example, right now we are looking to cut short the LCS pipeline (thankfully) and build some sort of new frigate, but we have no idea what. The Europeans have several designs that would fit our needs very well. Let US shipyards build some of them under license. That lengthening of the production runs results in lower unit costs for our European allies, enabling them to build more, or alternatively fully equip units that were built "for but not with" certain systems (space and support for certain systems built in, but the systems themselves not purchased or installed). Another idea I've had is to revive the old CVV concept instead of building all Fords at $12-14 billion a throw (a price that makes maintaining an 11-carrier force financially impossible). This version would include angled deck, two cats, arresting gear, and a ski jump, to accommodate CATOBAR, STOBAR, and/or VSTOL aircraft. This carrier would be slightly less capable than a Ford, but would be bushes and bunches cheaper, and one of them would still have more capability than any non-US carrier in the world. Plus it could offset some of the capability differential versus the Fords by being able to leverage forces in combined ops with French (CATOBAR), Indian (STOBAR), and British, Italian, and Spanish (VSTOL) naval air.

I've always been a supporter of NATO. I think NATO is important.

But then look at this mess. The Europeans are basically laughing and hooting at Trump....and then get upset when he doesn't promise them he'll come save their asses if needed. And gets upset that he doesn't jump on the climate change bandwagon as they demand.

What is wrong with them? Do they think thumbing their noses and laughing and not paying their bills is a good way to win friends and influence people? Do they think that America has to bail them out no matter how insulting and dickish they are?

I have to admit. I have no urge to send my son over to save their asses agaiin at the moment. And I'm a NATO supporter!

(05-26-2017 06:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Honestly, I want to say he's overstating some stuff here but I really have trouble making an argument beyond an emotional one.

Yet another Zeihan convert. And I end up feeling the same way after reading or listening to him most of the time.

I don't necessary want to believe what he even says some of the time ... but I have a very hard time arguing against it.

(05-26-2017 07:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I've always been a supporter of NATO. I think NATO is important.

But then look at this mess. The Europeans are basically laughing and hooting at Trump....and then get upset when he doesn't promise them he'll come save their asses if needed. And gets upset that he doesn't jump on the climate change bandwagon as they demand.

What is wrong with them? Do they think thumbing their noses and laughing and not paying their bills is a good way to win friends and influence people? Do they think that America has to bail them out no matter how insulting and dickish they are?

I have to admit. I have no urge to send my son over to save their asses agaiin at the moment. And I'm a NATO supporter!

8 years

One thing that has developed, and if you read Zeihan on Bretton Woods, it's easy to understand how and why things worked out that way, is that on many issues it has been a, "US is paying for it, therefore US will make all the decisions," evolution. I can say from experience that it has been nice to be able to walk out of more than one NATO conference with the knowledge that despite the complaints from, say, the Belgians, we were running the show and in the end things will get done our way.

Going forward, I don't think that's viable model. I think future viability depends upon the Europeans on the one hand to take more responsibility for defending themselves, with on the flip side the US to allow more input from allies instead of simply cramming something down their throats.

Also going forward, I don't think that every current member will, or should, or even could remain a member into the future.

NATO was formed after Europe dragged us in 2 World Wars. The Alliance is good but they are like they dudes who show up to the Frat parties and never join and pay the dues.

(05-26-2017 07:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that has developed, and if you read Zeihan on Bretton Woods, it's easy to understand how and why things worked out that way, is that on many issues it has been a, "US is paying for it, therefore US will make all the decisions," evolution. I can say from experience that it has been nice to be able to walk out of more than one NATO conference with the knowledge that despite the complaints from, say, the Belgians, we were running the show and in the end things will get done our way.

Going forward, I don't think that's viable model. I think future viability depends upon the Europeans on the one hand to take more responsibility for defending themselves, with on the flip side the US to allow more input from allies instead of simply cramming something down their throats.

Also going forward, I don't think that every current member will, or should, or even could remain a member into the future.

Trump's a big talker.

The bigger threat to NATO is the Europeans. Imagine that the Russians do a Crimea in Estonia. How many NATO members refuse to take part in throwing the Russians out of Estonia?

If our NATO "partners" aren't willing to pay their fair share into the pact then it should be finished. Scrap NATO, create a new alliance with the countries willing to do their part and let the rest of them fend for themselves.

(05-26-2017 07:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 06:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The other NATO threads have devolved into the usual pissing contests so I'm hoping for a (relatively) serious discussion. Peter Zeihan blogged today about what the president's speech at NATO really means, and he thinks that we've basically invalidated Article V (collective defense), which is just about the same as saying NATO is dead.
More interestingly, he makes the point that this has been a long time coming (goes back to ally actions/inactions during the last two administrations), it's bipartisan, and highly unlikely to be reversed.
The implications are interesting, and it's worth your time to read. Russia is pretty obvious. The much more interesting points, to me, were Germany ("...unless the Germans prove comfortable with Russian troops within a couple hundred miles of Berlin, the era of German pacifism is nearly over.") and Japan/China ("...Japan is highly likely to give the Chinese a drumming.")
Honestly, I want to say he's overstating some stuff here but I really have trouble making an argument beyond an emotional one.

Zeehan has been making this argument for quite some time now. He has a very interesting perspective.

I spent a lot of my military career working on NATO this or NATO that. For largely personal reasons, I would like to see the alliance survive in some fashion, although I agree that events make that a difficult proposition. I actually think that Brexit may have been the event that pushed things over the edge.

I have written quite a bit on here about US defense on here, and one thing I have advocated is more coordination with NATO in the procurement area. For example, right now we are looking to cut short the LCS pipeline (thankfully) and build some sort of new frigate, but we have no idea what. The Europeans have several designs that would fit our needs very well. Let US shipyards build some of them under license. That lengthening of the production runs results in lower unit costs for our European allies, enabling them to build more, or alternatively fully equip units that were built "for but not with" certain systems (space and support for certain systems built in, but the systems themselves not purchased or installed). Another idea I've had is to revive the old CVV concept instead of building all Fords at $12-14 billion a throw (a price that makes maintaining an 11-carrier force financially impossible). This version would include angled deck, two cats, arresting gear, and a ski jump, to accommodate CATOBAR, STOBAR, and/or VSTOL aircraft. This carrier would be slightly less capable than a Ford, but would be bushes and bunches cheaper, and one of them would still have more capability than any non-US carrier in the world. Plus it could offset some of the capability differential versus the Fords by being able to leverage forces in combined ops with French (CATOBAR), Indian (STOBAR), and British, Italian, and Spanish (VSTOL) naval air.

As someone in the contracts/procurement business, I disagree 100%. As much as we ***** about contract fraud here, you can't even fathom the amount and type of fraud that takes place on NATO bases.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-27-2017 01:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  If our NATO "partners" aren't willing to pay their fair share into the pact then it should be finished. Scrap NATO, create a new alliance with the countries willing to do their part and let the rest of them fend for themselves.

Why can't we just have an alliance with England without acronyms, laws, and bureaucracy? Why do we need an alliance with Belgium, Luxembourg, or the Czech Republic at all? We are obligated to protect them? Why? What do we get out of it? 12 troops and a box of frozen waffles in the next world war?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-27-2017 06:05 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 07:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 06:19 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  The other NATO threads have devolved into the usual pissing contests so I'm hoping for a (relatively) serious discussion. Peter Zeihan blogged today about what the president's speech at NATO really means, and he thinks that we've basically invalidated Article V (collective defense), which is just about the same as saying NATO is dead.
More interestingly, he makes the point that this has been a long time coming (goes back to ally actions/inactions during the last two administrations), it's bipartisan, and highly unlikely to be reversed.
The implications are interesting, and it's worth your time to read. Russia is pretty obvious. The much more interesting points, to me, were Germany ("...unless the Germans prove comfortable with Russian troops within a couple hundred miles of Berlin, the era of German pacifism is nearly over.") and Japan/China ("...Japan is highly likely to give the Chinese a drumming.")
Honestly, I want to say he's overstating some stuff here but I really have trouble making an argument beyond an emotional one.

Zeehan has been making this argument for quite some time now. He has a very interesting perspective.
I spent a lot of my military career working on NATO this or NATO that. For largely personal reasons, I would like to see the alliance survive in some fashion, although I agree that events make that a difficult proposition. I actually think that Brexit may have been the event that pushed things over the edge.
I have written quite a bit on here about US defense on here, and one thing I have advocated is more coordination with NATO in the procurement area. For example, right now we are looking to cut short the LCS pipeline (thankfully) and build some sort of new frigate, but we have no idea what. The Europeans have several designs that would fit our needs very well. Let US shipyards build some of them under license. That lengthening of the production runs results in lower unit costs for our European allies, enabling them to build more, or alternatively fully equip units that were built "for but not with" certain systems (space and support for certain systems built in, but the systems themselves not purchased or installed). Another idea I've had is to revive the old CVV concept instead of building all Fords at $12-14 billion a throw (a price that makes maintaining an 11-carrier force financially impossible). This version would include angled deck, two cats, arresting gear, and a ski jump, to accommodate CATOBAR, STOBAR, and/or VSTOL aircraft. This carrier would be slightly less capable than a Ford, but would be bushes and bunches cheaper, and one of them would still have more capability than any non-US carrier in the world. Plus it could offset some of the capability differential versus the Fords by being able to leverage forces in combined ops with French (CATOBAR), Indian (STOBAR), and British, Italian, and Spanish (VSTOL) naval air.

As someone in the contracts/procurement business, I disagree 100%. As much as we ***** about contract fraud here, you can't even fathom the amount and type of fraud that takes place on NATO bases.

You don't spend as much time around NATO as I did without being well aware of the kinds of fraud you are talking about. We could probably both tell stories that would make your hair stand on end.

But part of that IMO is that NATO never really functioned as what it was supposed to be--a combined defense agency. It was always more the US telling Europe what to do, and Europe sort of following along, not always enthusiastically. For one example, the UK restructured the Rpyal Navy away from the kind of force that UK's national interests needed and more toward fulfilling their role in NATO. This left them with a fleet that was really poorly suited to the job required in the Falklands (and if the Argies had waited six more months, that job would probably be impossible). But the intense professionalism of Jack Tar and Tommy Tucker saved the day for them.

In that environment, it sort of became every nation's mission to suck as much off the teat as they could. Belgians fought to get as much money for Belgian companies as possible, French fought to get as much for French companies as possible, and so did everybody else, because that was what they felt they had to do. And if anything untoward happened--and it did, every day--it was a point of national honor to protect our guys and our companies from scrutiny. It was nothing but one giant pork barrel.

I'm envisioning a somewhat different kind of alliance going forward. Fewer active members (probably just the major players), less form, more substance. Each country takes care of its own needs first, but we agree to work together on common interests. In that environment, the potential for the kinds of fraud (and in particular, the kinds of cover-ups) that have occurred would become much less.

The point, and Zeihan makes it well, is that since the end of the Cold War, NATO as currently structured does not meet the needs of the US well. Zeehan expects the result to be disintegration of NATO and of the Bretton Woods understandings that underlie it. I think that's a very likely possibility, but I would like to explore ways to restructure going forward to preserve some kind of cooperation.

(05-27-2017 06:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 01:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  If our NATO "partners" aren't willing to pay their fair share into the pact then it should be finished. Scrap NATO, create a new alliance with the countries willing to do their part and let the rest of them fend for themselves.

Why can't we just have an alliance with England without acronyms, laws, and bureaucracy? Why do we need an alliance with Belgium, Luxembourg, or the Czech Republic at all? We are obligated to protect them? Why? What do we get out of it? 12 troops and a box of frozen waffles in the next world war?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Unlike many of our NATO "partners" the Czech government didn't mandate non-combatant roles for their forces in Afghanistan. If they can get their defense spending up to the appropriate level I wouldn't have a problem entering an alliance with them.

I would certainly welcome an alliance with the Poles. They meet the NATO mandate and have assisted us in Iraq and most especially in Afghanistan.

(05-27-2017 07:21 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 06:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 01:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  If our NATO "partners" aren't willing to pay their fair share into the pact then it should be finished. Scrap NATO, create a new alliance with the countries willing to do their part and let the rest of them fend for themselves.

Why can't we just have an alliance with England without acronyms, laws, and bureaucracy? Why do we need an alliance with Belgium, Luxembourg, or the Czech Republic at all? We are obligated to protect them? Why? What do we get out of it? 12 troops and a box of frozen waffles in the next world war?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Unlike many of our NATO "partners" the Czech government didn't mandate non-combatant roles for their forces in Afghanistan. If they can get their defense spending up to the appropriate level I wouldn't have a problem entering an alliance with them.

I would certainly welcome an alliance with the Poles. They meet the NATO mandate and have assisted us in Iraq and most especially in Afghanistan.

But why do we need an alliance? Seems one-sided. They need it, we don't. We get nothing out of it at all. Besides, if muh Putin attacks Poland, we can come to their defense whether there is an alliance or not. If there is an alliance, our hands are tied. Why tie our hands?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-sells...1495755471

"...Here is what Mr. Trump said in the third paragraph of his speech: “This ceremony is a day for both remembrance and resolve. We remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 innocent people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on September 11, 2001. Our NATO allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the Article 5 collective defensive commitments.”
So let’s see: By speaking at an event commemorating Article 5, and explicitly citing and praising Article 5’s invocation on 9/11, Mr. Trump was really trying to send a message that he doesn’t believe in Article 5? Who knew Mr. Trump was capable of such messaging subtlety?
Mr. Trump did follow his reference to Article 5 with blunt demands for NATO burden sharing. Critics say this implied that the U.S. won’t come to Europe’s defense until all of NATO’s members spend at least 2% of their national GDP on the military, as NATO’s guidelines demand.
But if that’s what he was trying to say, consider Mr. Trump’s reference in his speech that “the NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders.” The reason that Article 5 was included in the NATO charter in the first place is the threat from Russia, and Mr. Trump mentioned that threat."

NATO resulted from what Zeihan describes as the unwritten understanding that came out of Bretton Woods. We'll fight the Cold War for you, and in return you'll subjugate your national interests to doing what we tell you to do. That paradigm pretty much fell with the Berlin Wall, but we're close to three decades since and we haven't updated it.

I think there's room and a need for a different sort of alliance, where each member concentrates on its national interests but we agree to work together on mutual concerns. Probably fewer members, less form, more substance.

Reads like a Clancy novel. What he forgets is this

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fact-s...ey-n548481

France and Britain having nukes on that continent complicates his calculus.

All this talk distracts from the real events that occurred following Trump's inauguration, when the US moved several tank brigades into the Baltics and up to the Russian border.

link

(05-27-2017 07:28 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 07:21 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 06:25 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 01:46 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  If our NATO "partners" aren't willing to pay their fair share into the pact then it should be finished. Scrap NATO, create a new alliance with the countries willing to do their part and let the rest of them fend for themselves.

Why can't we just have an alliance with England without acronyms, laws, and bureaucracy? Why do we need an alliance with Belgium, Luxembourg, or the Czech Republic at all? We are obligated to protect them? Why? What do we get out of it? 12 troops and a box of frozen waffles in the next world war?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Unlike many of our NATO "partners" the Czech government didn't mandate non-combatant roles for their forces in Afghanistan. If they can get their defense spending up to the appropriate level I wouldn't have a problem entering an alliance with them.

I would certainly welcome an alliance with the Poles. They meet the NATO mandate and have assisted us in Iraq and most especially in Afghanistan.

But why do we need an alliance? Seems one-sided. They need it, we don't. We get nothing out of it at all. Besides, if muh Putin attacks Poland, we can come to their defense whether there is an alliance or not. If there is an alliance, our hands are tied. Why tie our hands?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I agree 100% with this. I'm wary of an alliance with anyone. Our military is the most advanced on the planet and its not remotely close. We could wipe out everybody if we really felt like it. Why do we "need" allies? If we have a formal alliance with anyone I would only want western, English speaking nations.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app