Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Nato

This is a discussion on Nato within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; catchall for NATO issues...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old March 29th, 2017   #1
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,948
Threads:
Nato

catchall for NATO issues
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2017   #2
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,948
Threads:
CIMSEC op-ed

The Baltic: Grey-Zone Threats on NATO's Northern Flank
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2017   #3
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Boston
Posts: 5
Threads:
In light of recent Trump's steps towards NATO solving of internal problems is much more important. I mean the $400 billion bill handed to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.Dealing with this issue should be the priority. At least for the short term.
Enzo1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29th, 2017   #4
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,921
Threads:
If it really happened you think that it is justified. That Germany owes the US real money?

You really think the German defense spending had any influence on US spending whatsoever?
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2017   #5
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Boston
Posts: 5
Threads:
First of all I don't think that such claims should be made on public as it did Mr. Trump. This is purely internal problem and believe the Alliance can solve it along the way. It's bad idea to give a rise to whomever to think that the NATO is weak.
Second point. Why have the claims actually been done on Germany? This is the question. And what about other NATO countries which spend much less than 2% of GDP on defence?
Enzo1982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 30th, 2017   #6
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,948
Threads:
Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Macedonia, Kosovo, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. conducing SF Ex

Special Operations Troops From 15 Countries Conduct Allied Spirit VI | Defense Media Network
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 31st, 2017   #7
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,990
Threads:
Not holding my breath for a positive outcome on this latest US demand on NATO allies. As for the 2 month timeline for a plan to be outlined, in Canada's case, 2 years wouldn't be enough time, just look at our procurement record of late!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...dgets-46485084

Last edited by John Fedup; April 1st, 2017 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Wrong link
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #8
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,990
Threads:
I find the controversy over the issue of whether or not Trump and his team planned for a lifting of sanctions in return for whatever interesting ....then I read the attached link and have a WTF moment. Considering all the US/Euro high tech in this Russian aircraft, are the sanctions imposed really effective? Travel bans and financial restrictions, perhaps high tech restrictions would be more effective.

http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com...ft-unique.html
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3 Weeks Ago   #9
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,898
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
I find the controversy over the issue of whether or not Trump and his team planned for a lifting of sanctions in return for whatever interesting ....then I read the attached link and have a WTF moment. Considering all the US/Euro high tech in this Russian aircraft, are the sanctions imposed really effective? Travel bans and financial restrictions, perhaps high tech restrictions would be more effective.

http://www.intelligent-aerospace.com...ft-unique.html
This isn't new though. The SSJ-100 has also plenty of western tech. And there are western airlines flying the aircraft.

We're not in the middle of a new Cold War. And remember, western components, means contracts for western firms.

In general modern Russia is far less indigenous with their components then the USSR was. Morever all attempts to design primarily domestic aircraft have met with disaster (Tu-334, An-148, Tu-204SM, etc.). Meanwhile the two projects in the works with significant western involvement, the SSJ-100 and MS-21, are the ones with significant contracts to their name. Granted the contracts for the MS-21 are a little more nebulous, but it's an interesting pattern nonetheless.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #10
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,990
Threads:
This link lists some solid reasons why EU members should never allow the EU Commission to control defence. I particularly like the A400M example, just imagine the chaos of having 27 members in Brussels managing that program.

Opinion: Keep Defense Well Away from the EU’s Clutches
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Cologne, home of the real carnival
Posts: 102
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
This link lists some solid reasons why EU members should never allow the EU Commission to control defence. I particularly like the A400M example, just imagine the chaos of having 27 members in Brussels managing that program.

Opinion: Keep Defense Well Away from the EU’s Clutches
I don't see it. In my eyes this is an extremly biased article that ignores the very idea of the EU and uses a string of poorly thought out arguments that are rather subjective than factual.

The EU can't protect its own borders. Well, iirc the security of the US borders were prominently featured during the last US election.

The EU can't avoid corporate tax evasion? Well the US suffers from the same faite.

None of these problems are actualy problems that are linked to the structure of the EU but rather problems of a political nature. Problems which every nation on the globe has to face in one way or another (that is, unless the nation is an authocratie with an absolutistic leader...).

The only legitimate claims might be his citations of EU papers that seem to be false, but given the extremly biased nature and poorly thought out argument I wouldnt even be surprised if the author took those quotes out of a context in which they would actualy work.

Lets have a look at the MBT's:

in european armies we find:

1. Leopard 1 (and its variants)
2. Leopard 2 (and its variants)
3. M60A3
4. M48A5 MOLF
5. T-72
6. T-80
7. M-95
8. M-84A4
9. AMX-30
10. Leclerc
11. Ariete
12. PT-91
13. TR-85

Now that took me around 4 to 5 minutes looking over a wikipedia list and is only short of 4 MBTs. Maybe there are other types like T-55 and variants included which are held in storage or the wiki list is just incomplete.

I can't make a out a valid point. I mean:

"Operating a helicopter in summertime Greece or in wintertime Sweden requires different performance"

- jesus christ, does the US only operate helicopters that are capable of operations in sunny california but are totaly unable to operate in snowy wintertime alaska? Should the different states of the US therefore rather buy their own military equipment?

What kind of argument is that?
GermanHerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #12
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,990
Threads:
His argument is the Brussels bureaucracy (be it structural or political) would turn many defence matters into a total cluster. There is no way a France or Britain (Brexit aside) would ever allow Brussels to have control in defence matters. Other nations would likely have problems too. Arms sales comes to mind. As for tax evasion, tax avoidance is the issue. The former is illegal, the latter isn't. Avoidance is natural and as long as national governments leave these loopholes open any corporate CFO would be negligent not to take advantage of them for their shareholders. I would agree the helicopter argument is pretty weak. Perhaps submarines would be a better example. Can you imagine Brussels setting up a submarine policy for the EU members? No way.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #13
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,526
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanHerman View Post
Lets have a look at the MBT's:

in european armies we find:

1. Leopard 1 (and its variants)
2. Leopard 2 (and its variants)
3. M60A3
4. M48A5 MOLF
5. T-72
6. T-80
7. M-95
8. M-84A4
9. AMX-30
10. Leclerc
11. Ariete
12. PT-91
13. TR-85

Now that took me around 4 to 5 minutes looking over a wikipedia list and is only short of 4 MBTs. Maybe there are other types like T-55 and variants included which are held in storage or the wiki list is just incomplete.
Slovenia has M-55S, a heavily modified T-55, & Finland has some mine clearance T-55s. Romania has TR-580, a local variant of the T-55. It's possible that these are counted as three types. And the UK is still part of the EU, so one has to count the Challenger 2. That makes 17.

So "obviously false" is false. It's arguably false, but not obviously.

Quote:
"Operating a helicopter in summertime Greece or in wintertime Sweden requires different performance"
is obvious bollocks for the reason you give. One could also note that Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal & Sweden all operate the same type of US transport aircraft, Spain & Finland the same US jet fighters, etc.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Cologne, home of the real carnival
Posts: 102
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
His argument is the Brussels bureaucracy (be it structural or political) would turn many defence matters into a total cluster. There is no way a France or Britain (Brexit aside) would ever allow Brussels to have control in defence matters. Other nations would likely have problems too. Arms sales comes to mind. As for tax evasion, tax avoidance is the issue. The former is illegal, the latter isn't. Avoidance is natural and as long as national governments leave these loopholes open any corporate CFO would be negligent not to take advantage of them for their shareholders. I would agree the helicopter argument is pretty weak. Perhaps submarines would be a better example. Can you imagine Brussels setting up a submarine policy for the EU members? No way.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the current state of the Union and its momentum in general. The european unification is no goal that can be achived by one generation and the EU is not done growing. The goal is to creat a european superstate.

When you look at it from that perspective the whole argument about brussels extra layers of burocracy gets invalid as this layers of burocracy will end up replacing the levels of burocracy on the level of the member states.

Of cause a unification process like this is extremly complicated and has to overcome problems. There are no historical examples for such a progress that I'm aware of.

And you are right, one of the biggest problems is that member states have to give up certain sovereign powers. But this isn't just the case in defence matters but in all fields.

When you talk about the industrial sovereignty keep in mind that 19 states already came together and gave up the sovereignty over their currencies. The Federalisation of the EU is something that has been worked on for years now and which will take a lot more work but is ultimately something that is wanted by the ruling factions through most europe.

Part of that is the european army. An Idea that is also unpopular amongst the majroity of the european population but is nevertheless still pursued by politiciens for years and we see that there are processes of greater cooperation between european forces. To catch up to your submarine argument, the polish and german u boat fleets will be operated from a joint command center soon.

One should not look at developments like this and see them as unconnected to the european idea. An european army wont be created over night, just by the say so of some magical office in brussel. Something as complex as an european army needs to form bit by bit and that is exactly what we are seeing for quite some time now (at least in my opinion).
Someone who dosn't realise this misjudges the european situation gravely in my opinion.

After all, the article mostly aims at hurdles that have to be overcome on the way to form a european army. He dosn't critizes the idea of an european army. And he is smart by doing so because the pros out weigh the cons by a lot.
One just has to realize that the EU has comparable GDP, citizens to the USA while beeing industrialized and technological advanced. On paper, a unified EU would be able to build up a force comparable to that of the USA. Comparing the current power of any EU member state with the military might of the US shows what a huge step forward this would be.
Given the current inability of the EU to project power via force renders it diplomaticly almost nonexisting and cirples its ability to protect its own interests abroad.
An actual capable military force would give the EU this ability and the political and economical gains for its members outweigh the cons of a unified european army by far.

So the underlining point here is that I think everyone who looks at the whole situation from this isolated and shortsighted view misjudges the political realities.
The game played here in europe is a far bigger one and the ultimate goal much to promising to be simply thrown away because of some "burocratic hurdles" etc.

And yes, at the end I do think states like France will also give up military sovereignty.
GermanHerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Days Ago   #15
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,990
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanHerman View Post
I think a lot of people misunderstand the current state of the Union and its momentum in general. The european unification is no goal that can be achived by one generation and the EU is not done growing. The goal is to creat a european superstate.
Yes, I understand the ultimate goal and I agree it will take at least 2 generations to accomplish this, maybe longer given language and cultural issues. In fact, look at some of the US states or Canadian provinces and you can see how difficult things can be. Even with minimal language issues (this is changing somewhat in the US) and minimal cultural differences many polarizing issues pop up between states. In Canada we have interprovincial trade issues, as if we didn't have enough trade issues already internationally.

Quote:
When you look at it from that perspective the whole argument about brussels extra layers of burocracy gets invalid as this layers of burocracy will end up replacing the levels of burocracy on the level of the member states.
I don't buy that argument and the UK didn't.

Quote:
Of cause a unification process like this is extremly complicated and has to overcome problems. There are no historical examples for such a progress that I'm aware of.
Certainly none that were democratic.

Quote:
And you are right, one of the biggest problems is that member states have to give up certain sovereign powers. But this isn't just the case in defence matters but in all fields.
Yes, and maybe future generations will buy into this.

Quote:
When you talk about the industrial sovereignty keep in mind that 19 states already came together and gave up the sovereignty over their currencies. The Federalisation of the EU is something that has been worked on for years now and which will take a lot more work but is ultimately something that is wanted by the ruling factions through most europe.
One could say that giving up sovereignty over currency hasn't been so popular in certain countries, e.g. Greece, because it does restrict a national government's options. I wonder what government finance heads say in private regarding the Euro.

[Quote}Part of that is the european army. An Idea that is also unpopular amongst the majroity of the european population but is nevertheless still pursued by politiciens for years and we see that there are processes of greater cooperation between european forces. To catch up to your submarine argument, the polish and german u boat fleets will be operated from a joint command center soon.[/QUOTE]

Can't see the German and French doing the same with subs. Certainly the UK never would although this moot given the Brexit outcome.

Concerning the formation of a European army, yes it offers advantages. Probably the biggest obstacle is using an EU army for operations outside Europe. Lets face it, several NATO missions didn't enjoy total enthusiasm amongst all NATO missions. Perhaps this obstacle will disappear in 1-2 generations as a true EU state emerges without the local national interests. Won't be around to see how it all turns out.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 AM.