Meriv90

Active Member
May I remember that the presence in Europe is benefitting the US?

If the US pulls back it means an increase in defense spending from the EU.

This means higher efficiency in both the products and where that product will be sourced.

If the smaller EU countries had to buy let's say the double the amount of fighters than the F-35 bought that capital investment would start justifying programs that benefit the national industry, in place of buying off-the shelf.

Not only, an increase in military power ask also a more efficient use of that power.

That means foreign political policies in the style of France, and not a sleeping armed forces as we got right now.

The moment we start spending we will ask for a return on that investment, and thus we would increase our world intervention level.

Is what the US wants? A stronger EU that starts acting like a power pole and that buys less American defense products?

A stronger Euro? Because currency goes with power (let's think of the pound and British empire).

Nah it is way more beneficial for the US to stay in Europe and for Europeans politicians to have the US umbrella that allows them to not play real politik and just play the victim of what's happening on the global stage (just think of Syria and refugees crisis or Libya chaos).
 

swerve

Super Moderator
NATO selects Boeing E-7A Wedgetail for I-AFSC - Australian Defence Magazine
NATO is the latest to select the E-7A Wedgetail, for its I-AFSC capability to replace the E-3, initial order is for 6 aircraft. NATO joins the RAAF, Turkey, ROK, RAF and USAF as operators of the type. There are still 3 operators of the E-3 Sentry AWACS system in France, Saudi Arabia and Japan (E-767) who could possibly select this system at some time.
Also, the RAAF currently have a E-7 deployed to Germany in support of Ukraine, so plenty of opportunities for NATO crews to get some familiarisation.
Japan has the newest aircraft, I think, & certainly the one with best availability of spares. Its replacement could be driven by obsolescence of the radar.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Japan has the newest aircraft, I think, & certainly the one with best availability of spares. Its replacement could be driven by obsolescence of the radar.
The French and Saudi's are going to find it increasingly difficult to operate the 707. They are over 30yo and the youngest 707s still flying.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Indeed. The 707 was no longer in production when the Japanese ordered the 767. They've been flying since the 1990s, I think.

The French aircraft were ordered at the same time as the RAF's. I think they & the Saudi ones have CFM56 engines, giving them longer range/more time on station than the older USAF & NATO fleets, & engine spares should be readily available from commercial sources, but apart from that yes, they must be getting harder to support.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is sending ships to increase protection of infrastructure in the Baltic Sea:
Joint statement by Joint Expeditionary Force ministers, November 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

JEF consists of Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and is led by the UK.
This is the first time a JRO (Joint Response Option) has been triggered, and therefore makes it a notable event. Most likely one of the reasons for this happening now is that a Hong Kong-flagged ship damaged gas pipelines and communication cables in October. JEF sending ships to increase protection of Baltic Sea undersea infrastructure | News | ERR
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
From the CNN report:

However, on Tuesday, Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban said he had invited his Swedish counterpart Ulf Kristersson to visit Hungary to negotiate the terms of Sweden’s accession.
So it seems Orban will try to squeeze more from the Swedes before letting them in to NATO. I think "blackmail" is an appropriate phrase to describe what is happening. This is not how you should treat a future ally in my opinion.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
From the CNN report:


So it seems Orban will try to squeeze more from the Swedes before letting them in to NATO. I think "blackmail" is an appropriate phrase to describe what is happening. This is not how you should treat a future ally in my opinion.
Absolutely agree and let’s face it, Hungary with Orban leaving NATO, probably a positive.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Danish analyst agrees with those that we might see a war between Russia and NATO within 5 years -- he explains in this short video why he thinks so, and how it might play out: NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen? (youtube.com)

I think he is right -- Russia would need to make sure NATO falls apart before they try to annex e.g., the Baltics, and he describes one way they could try do that. I think he is wrong about attacking Finland being a way for Russia to challenge article 5 though. The Finnish armed forces are quite strong, and will become even stronger in the near future. (for those that cannot access twitter: Thread by @minna_alander on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App )

I can think of other, easier targets for Russia than Finland...

In any case, Russia would have to wait for the right time to attack -- for instance when the US is busy fighting wars in the ME and SEA, and/or when the US has an anti-NATO president (e.g., Trump).

All the hybrid war attacks, and disinformation campaigns against NATO and NATO members should also been seen in light of this. Russia will of course aim to weaken NATO as much as possible before they openly challenge article 5.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Russia’s only real opportunity for any action against NATO is when and if China invades Taiwan. Either event might trigger a nuclear exchange but both events together, 99% likely. For this.reason China would instruct Russia not to try anything until afterwards. Putin is Xi’s bitch and he will have to obey.
 

d-ron84

Member
Russia’s only real opportunity for any action against NATO is when and if China invades Taiwan. Either event might trigger a nuclear exchange but both events together, 99% likely. For this reason China would instruct Russia not to try anything until afterwards. Putin is Xi’s bitch and he will have to obey.
Comments such as these will merely empower a psychopath like Putin. Trump's risky manoeuvres on the global platform, aimed at securing votes domestically, is playing a perilous game

 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Trump advisor proposes tiered system for NATO countries -- he says those that don't pay up should lose protection under article 5.

Exclusive: Trump adviser proposes new tiered system for NATO members who don't pay up | Reuters

I think this would be a mistake -- on the other hand I think it's depressing and concerning to see that in spite of Russia's aggressions the last few years, and in spite of unrest other places, many European countries are still dragging their feet when it comes to investing in defense. It will take years to re-build just a fraction of the capabilities that were lost after the cold war ended. Europe (and Canada!) don't have the luxury to "wait and see" how things develop. Not anymore.

Things are slowly moving in the right direction though: 18 NATO countries are on track to reach the minimum 2% target, a six-fold increase from 2014.

More than half of NATO countries hit defense spending target – POLITICO

I am ashamed to report that Norway, one of the richest countries on the planet, is still not reaching the target. However there is finally more focus on this in Norwegian media (took some time!) and I am hoping we will see a significant increase in investment in defense in Norway during 2024. Finland already has a very solid defense force, Sweden is rapidly ramping up. Norway is the weak link on the Scandinavian peninsula right now. Hopefully this will be addressed with some urgency!
 
Top