Once insisted on by the US, EU defense spending now a concern

Lerxst said:

This is a very interesting discussion. Many different opinions on the usefulness (and future) of NATO, the concept of shared European defense - still in it's infancy, but Germany is taking steps with some neighbors, and the current state of military power in the region.

I'm on the fence about the usefulness of NATO currently. Clearly post WW2 strategy dictated that the US wrap western Europe in a blanket of geopolitical influence. Marshall Plan vs. Molotov/COMECON. Things have changed dramatically since the inception of NATO, and the Soviet response to it (Warsaw Pact).

The U.S. has always been the primary benefactor and force behind the effectiveness of NATO in it's mission to guard against the (former) Soviet threat. Given the economic burden that the U.S. bears with regard to their position in NATO, does it still make sense, at least in terms of right now, that we continue with this level of commitment? Can Germany, France, and other nations collectively or individually pick up some of the cost of offsetting a rolled back U.S. commitment? And if not what does that mean in terms of the military and economic balance of power over there?

Is NATO still a necessity? If so, is it still America's responsibility to lead? Is it worth it from a geopolitical ROI?

All opinions welcome.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the relevence of NATO today, beyond the negative fact of the encouragement certain countries would feel from it's disbanding. Probably America doesn't need NATO, and probably it could survive just with European and Canadian participation. In a smaller context, sure, but NATO without the US wouldn't be unimaginable.
It's worth remembering, though, that two Portugese soldiers died in Afghanistan because America had been attacked. That's the only time the mutual defense thing was invoked.
2 Finns, too, and 4 Latvians.

Grand Mal said:

I don't know about the relevence of NATO today, beyond the negative fact of the encouragement certain countries would feel from it's disbanding. Probably America doesn't need NATO, and probably it could survive just with European and Canadian participation. In a smaller context, sure, but NATO without the US wouldn't be unimaginable.
It's worth remembering, though, that two Portugese soldiers died in Afghanistan because America had been attacked. That's the only time the mutual defense thing was invoked.
2 Finns, too, and 4 Latvians.

Click to expand...

I have this feeling we are seeing a current of withdrawal in terms of U.S. political and military leadership in Europe. Maybe it's time?

Lerxst said:

I have this feeling we are seeing a current of withdrawal in terms of U.S. political and military leadership in Europe. Maybe it's time?

Click to expand...

Probably. The Evil Empire isn't there anymore and Putin, for all he gets a chubby thinking about it, won't be able to rebuild it.
I'd use this as the benchmark- NATO isn't necessary until Russia rolls into the Baltic states. If that happened, an emphatic response would be called for.

Grand Mal said:

I don't know about the relevence of NATO today,

Click to expand...

Don't you think it is important to aid and abet the US in the commission of their war crimes? Like in Iraq and Afghanistan?

camlok said:

Don't you think it is important to aid and abet the US in the commission of their war crimes? Like in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Click to expand...

Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? You haven’t made a true statement in the entire time you’ve been on this board.

And now the US fears that it's long standing influence in European defense affairs may be receding.

Click to expand...

Where that "fear" appears to be primarily centred is on "defence procurement" (read as "the sale of American weapons"). If the Europeans stop buying American weapons then that will "tip the trade balance" toward a more unfavourable US position and will require Mr. Trump to impose tariffs on imported French Fries, Germanium, Belgian Waffles, Dutch Courage, Telephone Poles, and Spanish Omelettes - for "National Security" reasons, of course.

Who seized Crimea in 2014?

Click to expand...

When did Crimea become a part of Russia?

When did Crimea cease to be a part of Russia?

Was there a plebiscite in Crimea at the time it ceased to be a part of Russia wherein the residents of Crimea could express their wishes on whether or not to remain a part of Russia?

When did Crimea rejoin Russia?

Was there a plebiscite in Crimea at the time it rejoined Russia wherein the residents of Crimea could express their wishes on whether or not to rejoin Russia?

Franco-German rule over the EU has always been checked by the UK and American influence. Both those obstacles are now gone.

Click to expand...

Once the US is out of NATO (assuming that that happens) and since the UK has left the EU, Germany will have (essentially) fulfilled all of its WWI "war aims" and "The 105 Year War" will be over.

Do you really think that France or Germany believe that in the extremely unlikely event of a Russian invasion, the United States would leave them high and dry?

Click to expand...

Both the French and the Germans might just possibly remember 1914-17 and 1939-41 when considering whether "the United States would leave them high and dry". They might also remember the contribution that the United States of America made to fighting Napoleon's attempt to conquer Europe or the contribution that the United States of America made to opposing Franco in Spain. And then, of course, there is always the reaction of the United States of America to Japan's actions in 1894-5 and 1937-41.

To base their defence planning on "The United States of America will rush to the defence of Europe if it is invaded." would be foolish. To consider that there was a possibility that "The United States of America will rush to the defence of Europe if it is invaded." is rational.

Grand Mal said:

Probably. The Evil Empire isn't there anymore and Putin, for all he gets a chubby thinking about it, won't be able to rebuild it.
I'd use this as the benchmark- NATO isn't necessary until Russia rolls into the Baltic states. If that happened, an emphatic response would be called for.

Click to expand...

A lot of Europe is currently dependent on Russia for natural gas supplies. Ukraine is currently having the taps turned off. Pipeline diplomacy.

Jredbaron96 said:

Yes, because 58% is an overwhelming majority. Great job.

Click to expand...

You are the one that claimed the majority rejected it. Then I show you are wrong, and you reject that as well.

So there is really nothing more to say. It does not matter how many International organizations they join, or if they become full members of the UN (expected in 3-5 years), you will still reject it because for some reason you do not think they are worthy.

Myself, I do not care much for Kosovo myself. But that is beside the point, personal opinions have little to do with facts.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Both the French and the Germans might just possibly remember 1914-17 and 1939-41 when considering whether "the United States would leave them high and dry". They might also remember the contribution that the United States of America made to fighting Napoleon's attempt to conquer Europe or the contribution that the United States of America made to opposing Franco in Spain. And then, of course, there is always the reaction of the United States of America to Japan's actions in 1894-5 and 1937-41.

To base their defence planning on "The United States of America will rush to the defence of Europe if it is invaded." would be foolish. To consider that there was a possibility that "The United States of America will rush to the defence of Europe if it is invaded." is rational.

Click to expand...

OK, now for some more accurate history.

The Napoleonic Wars were actually a very near thing. But as a neutral nation, the US almost got involved but did not due to negotiations after several near incidents.

But the effects of the US-British "War of 1812" can not be overstated for Napoleon. The US and UK fighting was the difference between the Napoleonic Wars being a certain French route, and a rather close war. No, they did not get involved directly, but they did pull off quite a bit of British forces and attention form Europe.

Same with the World Wars. The US was neutral in both of those wars (but supported their UK alliance - even through illegal arms transfers). But as a neutral nation they could not get involved until something brought them to war.

In WWI, that was the Zimmerman Telegraph. In WWII, it was Germany declaring war against the US.

Unlike all the other conflicts, this time the US actually has armed forces directly in the potential theater of conflict. And a firm Mutual-Defense Treaty with multiple countries. In both WWI and WWII Germany knew the extent of the treaty demands then in place, and also tried to skirt it, to just stay at the point of not being in a war with the US.

If Russia or some other country was to invade NATO, there is no doubt the US would react to the letter of the agreement (if not over).

Do not forget, much of the NATO agreement rests upon the fact that the US has a large nuclear stockpile. And many nations in Europe have given up their own, because the US has pledged their own use in retaliation if any of them is nuked.

That is the problem with over-simplification. No, the US will react, no matter who invades Europe. About the only time they might stay out is if for some reason one NATO country attacked another. At that point they would probably respond by sending forces to a neutral nation and act as a deterrence to prevent the conflict from spreading to other nations.

Say if Germany and France go to war (again), they might flood troops to Belgium to prevent it from getting invaded (again).

Oozlefinch said:

You are the one that claimed the majority rejected it. Then I show you are wrong, and you reject that as well.

So there is really nothing more to say. It does not matter how many International organizations they join, or if they become full members of the UN (expected in 3-5 years), you will still reject it because for some reason you do not think they are worthy.

Myself, I do not care much for Kosovo myself. But that is beside the point, personal opinions have little to do with facts.

Click to expand...

And you have seized upon Kosovo as though your entire argument rests on that load bearing point, even though you haven't addressed anything else. Enjoy your meaningless victory.

Jredbaron96 said:

And you have seized upon Kosovo as though your entire argument rests on that load bearing point, even though you haven't addressed anything else. Enjoy your meaningless victory.

Click to expand...

No, my comment was actually on the large number of countries in Europe that do not belong to the EU. You are the one that seized upon a single country. Which once again is not part of the EU.

Which is why many in Europe tend to look upon the EU as primarily a "Western Europe Organization".