kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can't see the German and French doing the same with subs.
Wouldn't make much sense either. Operationally, you have a group of five European NATO members in the North operating submarines (UK, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Poland - ~27 subs) and five European NATO members in the South (France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal - ~27 subs). The only submarines "inbetween" those are the French SSBNs.

I particularly like the A400M example, just imagine the chaos of having 27 members in Brussels managing that program.
Do people even realize that A400M is first and foremost a procurement programme for the EATC, which will be its sole dispatching user? And the EATC does have that little coat of arms with all that blue and the 12 stars...
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well the refugee situation is a prime example for the benefits of a unified european union. I think most people are not into german politics enough to know and understand how the decisioun arose to open the borders with all its consequences so here we go:
In fact germany wanted to seal of its border. Police had orders prepared and were in present in the area in seizable numbers. When the order to close the border was to be issued how ever Merkel didn't want to take personal responsibility and asked if one of her ministers could give her a guarantee that this action was legal and wouldnt be brought before a court. Of cause no such guarantee can be given and no one else wanted to take the responsibility.
That the orders were not given and the borders left open was the sold to the public as a humanitarien deciosion because, well, what else is a politician supposed to do?

At this point a majority of euorpean leaders already voiced their concern and a majority of the european population was clearly against taking in more refugees. A centralized european government would have voted / ruled against taking in more and no one in germany would had to take responsibility for closing of the border. The whole situation would have been avoided thanks to good old brussels.

So yeah, the problem is infact that there is no such thing as a centralized goverment and especialy now countrys like hungary and polan understand it. As a single state they can be bullied and forced by a more powerfull german state but as a block they are strong. But they can't project their power as single states they need brussel as a tool to project their power in the EU.

People on the street might hear a different tune and sing a different song, but the logic of realpolitik points straight this way.

I think this answers also your argument about the anti-democratic EU. And after all, democracy will always leave to a big minority of people beeing unrepresented. Look at the last US election once again. One half of the country was happy while the other was disappointed. All those who voted for HRC are surely dont feel represented by trump, but would you consider them oppressed and unfree?
Then how do you explain the continued attempts by Germany to try and force some of the eastern European EU members to take on migrants?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Bleeding heart lawyers that think Western countries are bottomless wells of money and spineless pollies that don't have the balls to say enough. Even if there was a functioning EU government that wasn't subject to former sovereign interference, pollies and lawyers would still stuff things up. The USA has the same problem as a unified government, mind you these days the functioning part is debatable. Canada isn't much better.
 

vldbzh

New Member
What if? The nightmare scenario.
A nightmare would be if Russian jet was not shot down by NATO forces.:p:
CIMSEC op-ed

The Baltic: Grey-Zone Threats on NATO's Northern Flank
A very nice article about situation in the Baltic Sea region. Some new circumstances are underlined.
The European unification is no goal that can be achieved by one generation and the EU is not done growing. The goal is to create a European superstate.
From my point of view, the goal itself is a pure fantasy.
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?
Not only on Germany. And, after all, Germany is the second economy power in NATO after USA. If Latvia spends less than 2%, nobody worries much. But If Germany, Italy, Canada and Spain spend significantly less than 2%, it becomes a problem of a strategic scale.
 
Bleeding heart lawyers that think Western countries are bottomless wells of money and spineless pollies that don't have the balls to say enough. Even if there was a functioning EU government that wasn't subject to former sovereign interference, pollies and lawyers would still stuff things up. The USA has the same problem as a unified government, mind you these days the functioning part is debatable. Canada isn't much better.
As one of the lawyers, I think you grossly mischaracterize us. Rember that favorite Shakespeare quote: "first kill all the lawyers?" Problem is that it isn't the entire sentence: "If you plan on revolution, first you must kill all the lawyers." We keep people honest. Legislatures pass laws which on occasion governments violate their constitution or laws, and we are ultimately the gate keepers. Without a thriving legal system you get Tyrnanery.

Art
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This link suggests great improvement in member nations committing to the 2% GDP goal by 2024. I can only see Canada meeting this goal by maintaining our current defence budget and shrinking GDP output. Junior is certainly doing his best on the latter. Unless there is major movement on the CSC and fighter replacement, the 2% goal is not realistic.

NATO Says More Members Plan to Reach Spending Goal by 2024
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Poland and Canada have joined a NATO program for a joint acquisition of maritime surveillance aircraft. France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey are the other nations involved and the program was launched last June (2017). Canada has also joined the NATO AWACS project. Also NATO has an AAR project underway and NATO is part of an European Movement Coordination Centre Europe (MCCE):

"The MCCE is a progressive organisation, officially established in 2007 to address the recognised shortage of Strategic Lift (air and surface) by providing a multi-national coordinating body to optimise efficiency throughout the full spectrum of movements and transportation In simple terms, the main purpose of the MCCE is to provide cost saving alternatives for member nations by utilising air,(M&T) land and sea transport assets owned or leased by national militaries of our members or supported agencies."

I think that in the long run this will be quite an efficient method for acquiring and utilising expensive platforms.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Continuing on from the RCN thread which I first posted the above link, I agree developing a new MPA from commercial airliner is no easy task. A C-Series MPA would have been a better way to subsidize the program than government loans even if the program was “fake”. Too late now. If Airbus were to develop a MPA, might as well use the A320/321. However, from a commercial point of view, all the key export potential has been lost to the P-8. Most of Euro NATO could make do with small MPA platforms. IMO only Spain, France, and Italy need the larger platform. I can’t see such a small requirement being in Airbus’s interest, even more so given the A400M history. Better to opt for a mixed fleet of small MPAs and a few P-8s. I left Canada out as I feel a low end MPA is the likely replacement for our P-3s.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I read somewhere recently that Airbus have a new MPA proposal utilising the A320 aircraft. Think that I posted the link on DT somewhere.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Canada has re-signed to the NATO AWACS program because of its increasing commitment to NATO. Belgium has signed up to the NATO A330-MRTT program as well. Maybe Canada should look at that too.

NATO’s tanker, AWACS programs see membership increase
Well if we ever get new fighters, joining the NATO A330-RRTT would be a good idea as would actually buying some for the RCAF. The chances of the latter have been enhanced by Boeing’s trade dispute with Bombardier assuming the GOC decides to renew this capability.
 
Last edited:

ChrisLee1971

New Member
Following the Arctic’s transformation into the most important region of the world economy and politics, its rapid militarization naturally follows.

United States and NATO have repeatedly indicated in both word and deed their intention to lay claim and to extend their military presence in the Arctic. As early as 2009 Washington clearly stated its position: “The United States have broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region [which] include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence and maritime presence.”

Over the past years NATO member states have dramatically accelerated their individual and collective efforts to increase military presence and warfighting ability in the High North. The Alliance conducts major military drills here on a regular basis. Among the participants are Navy, Air Force, Army, and Special Forces personnel of the member states. A demonstrative example of this largest build up in the region is recent five-week American-British military exercises ICEX conducted in the Arctic Ocean.

In the current situation, statements by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about the need to demilitarize the Arctic are just rhetoric. Over the last decade NATO has expanded its military capabilities in the Arctic on a scale far grater in depth and scope than anything it has done in any other place of the world.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Russian efforts to enhance their Arctic presence far exceed those of NATO. They have more bases and personnel. Currently the US and Canada only have two heavy icebreakers, Russia has over a dozen, several of them are nuclear. Considering its size, Denmark is really the only player really in NATO pulling its weight wrt the Arctic IMO.
 

ChrisLee1971

New Member
Russian efforts to enhance their Arctic presence far exceed those of NATO. They have more bases and personnel. Currently the US and Canada only have two heavy icebreakers, Russia has over a dozen, several of them are nuclear. Considering its size, Denmark is really the only player really in NATO pulling its weight wrt the Arctic IMO.
The icebreaking capability is just a small part of the issue. But if we consider capabilities of the US, the UK, and Canada in such areas as submarine warfare and aerial surveillance in the High North the picture will be completely different.

As for the supporters of the NATO’s wider engagement in the Arctic I would say that the greatest one is Norway. Oslo eagerly seeks the creation of separate NATO Arctic Command and contributes to all Alliance’s activities in the High North for a great while. On the other hand the scale of the NATO presence in the Canadian Arctic is still controversial issue for Ottawa.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yes, once Norway gets their P-8s to FOC, they will be an important player. Same applies to the UK. However, the Russians have submarine capability too and their recent missile announcements and actual use in Syria are significant. As for Canada, all talk and this won't change until junior and his fellow Liberals are removed from office.
 
Top