Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NATO

Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by gf0012-aust, Mar 29, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
  2. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    383
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    The US accounts for 75% of Canadian exports - pretty much your only show in town. Other than Potassium Chloride for Potash which Canada is the world's leading producer does Junior realise that the US can go elsewhere for everything.

    It is a very simple proposition. Lift defence spending by 0.1% p.a over the next 6 years or if not the "customer" for your goods and services goes shopping elsewhere. Ditto with Germany, Spain and Italy. The rules have not changed - it is just that they are now being enforced.

    One thing that is absolutely clear the US President who replaces Trump may not be so blunt and bombastic, but policy reset of trade and defence spending is locked in long term and now part of the US voter landscape. Smart countries like Australia and it seems now Poland realise that working with the US will work for them as well.

    This is weapons grade real politique in action.
     
    ozrock62 and ngatimozart like this.
  3. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    The simple proposition you mention might as well be The General Theory of Relativity when it comes to junior. As far as trade is concerned, having 75% in a single market was never a good idea even with a stable POTUS in office. As long as Trump is in office, any trade agreement with the US wouldn't be worth jack$hit IMO regardless of how much we increased defence spending. Any significant defence expenditures in the future by Canada will be directed to non-US suppliers whenever possible now because the anti-Trump mood here is huge.

    I don't know how much trade percentage NZ and Australia have with China but if the numbers are approaching 50%, Canada's situation should illustrate why such numbers are problematic.
     
  4. Hone C

    Hone C Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    4
    In the case of NZ the latest (2016) numbers RE China are 17% of exports and 16% of imports. NZs problem is less the trade profile and more that over 99% of our trade goes via SLOC we have no control over due to lack of naval power, and decades of failing to contribute meaningfully to those that do.
    US foreign policy seems to be becoming much more overtly transactional, and I can't see this changing much in substance post-Trump; or it turning out well for NATOs European members.
     
    recce.k1 and MrConservative like this.
  5. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,866
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Australia, 2016 exports/imports %
    China 28.3/18.1 (including Hong Kong 32.1/<19.6)
    Japan 12.7/6.6
    USA 6.3/12.7
    S. Korea 6.1/3.5
    UK 4.5/4.1
    India 4.5/1.8
    NZ 3.9/3.5
    Germany 1.2/4.8
    Thailand/Singapore/Taiwan/Indonesia/Malaysia combined 13.1/>15.3.


    2016:
     
    recce.k1 likes this.
  6. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    At the end of the day, Europe will have to look after themselves with regards to Russia as the US resources will be required to confront China which will be the main US concern going forward. Putin is the big winner, a weakened NATO and an increased US Asia presence to keep China busy thus minimizing any Chinese moves to influence eastern Siberia.
     
  7. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Certainly a much better distribution of trade than Canada.
     
  8. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,240
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    Will Putin be the big winner? They're still far weaker then a combined Europe, and without US backing the Europeans may be far more likely to act decisively on their own.
     
  9. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Hard to say but if Germany’s airforce is any indication of the rest of the EU then militarily the EU might be in trouble although economically I agree the EU is stronger. As for acting on their own, the Libya experience doesn’t inspire confidence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
    t68 likes this.
  10. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    383
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    I can well understand that Trump Derangement Syndrome is in full flight in Canada and with 95% of the MSM stories pushing the bad Trump narrative like in NZ and Australia.

    Nevertheless both NZ and Australia have both tactically recalibrated the narrative of their foreign policy since Trump. Both are smart enough not to poke an angry beer. Maybe distance gives us perspective. Justin needs to get over his hurty feelings and lead. And being a contrarian because he does not like Trumps personality or style is unfortunate. Turnbull got off to a very rocky start but was smart enough to allign OZ interests and US interests pretty quickly, signalled hard that OZ was doing its share and turned the relationship around.

    Hobe C is right - Trump is transactional. And he is personal relationship based. Chances are that Justin can only pick up and receive virtue signalling and is concentrating on how it is been said (the opposite of virtue signalling) and not in what is being said.
     
  11. Womble 47

    Womble 47 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2018
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Mr C
    I know it is a typo ,but being a home brew maker I have had considerable experience with angry beers .They are not nice .
    Please keep up the informed comments as I find it yours and the other members comments interesting .
    P.S If anyone has an issue with angry beers let me know and I will help them drink it.
     
  12. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,308
    Likes Received:
    383
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    Good one mate! Must have been a subliminal thing at the time even though it was first thing in the morning. Could have been worse ... poke an angry bare ;)
     
  13. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Junior and the electorate that supports him aren't smart enough to understand that even after Trump leaves, his policies will remain with regard to defence spending. As for trade, who knows. US business isn't instep with his NAFTA outlook, not that it matters. Bottom line is the trade war will cause immense damage to the Canadian economy thus giving junior the excuse to spend even less. Short of a Chinese or Russian attack on Canada, few here would notice. Same would apply to an attack on the US except for those owning vacation property in the US. The attitude is let the US worry about defence, we are too busy admitting phoney migrants and enhancing " &ucking multiculturalism" and the rights of the "religion of peace types" here. If US and Russian missile defences actually work, most of the interceptions of nuclear ordinance will land in Canada, karma perhaps.
     
  14. Ranger25

    Ranger25 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
    New report details poor state of German Military.

    This is beyond the bad situation I understood it to be for the German Military. Not good when the BMO can’t scrounge parts to keep,the fleet on the road. Readiness rates should be be below 95%



    Number of weapon systems ready for action:

    • Typhoon jets: 39 of 128
    • Tornado jets: 26 of 93
    • CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
    • NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
    • Tigre attack helicopters: 12 of 62
    • A400M transport aircraft: 3 of 15
    • Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
    • Frigates: 5 of 13
    • Submarines: 0 out of 6



    Less than a third of German military assets are operational says report
     
  15. kato

    kato Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,004
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Germany
    It's mostly a result of the privatization of the supply chain, and the shifting of funds towards the all-holy NATO 20% procurement goal (with maintenance obviously suffering from that). Spare parts are considered "just in time" assets by the private industry - stocks are dead material -, which in practice is not the case when your spare parts consist of one-off parts only built for that one model forty years ago.

    The fact that under von der Leyen and her conservative pro-business buddies the MoD has been rebuilt to include pretty much business consulting companies that "optimize" that kind of thing also doesn't particularly help. Her state secretary for procurement - throughout the last administration - used to work for McKinsey. She's since been replaced by a general from the troops, which is pretty unusual; the last time that happened was in 1992.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
    recce.k1 likes this.
  16. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,866
    Likes Received:
    41
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    We've suffered some of the same crap in the UK. For example, there are 'capital charges' on assets. This encourages the MoD not to sit on things it has no use for, such as prime land in city centres, but it also gives it an incentive to scrap perfectly good equipment if it's not needed at the moment. It's fundamentally incompatible with the need for armed forces which tick along in peacetime but have to ramp up quickly in an emergency, using assets which are lightly, or not at all, used most of the time, & need reserves to allow for wartime losses.

    Such systems can fail even in commercial environments, I once saw a case which could have cost my employer at the time millions. It operated a mobile phone network. Hardware would go out of production long before the installed base needed replacement, so there was a sensible policy of buying enough spares just before they went out of production to keep hardware working until it was due for replacement.

    One day, I was going home late, & met one of my colleagues also catching a late train, & looking tired & pissed off. He'd just spent hours chasing people up & arguing with them to stop hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of spares being sold as electronic scrap, because they'd been sitting in a warehouse for longer than the stores management turnover targets allowed. That would have meant that tens of millions of pounds of network equipment would have needed early replacement. Doh!

    One size fits all management principles can cause problems anywhere that doesn't exactly fit the circumstances they were designed for, & systems designed for a commercial manufacturing environment, like just in time parts delivery, are utterly inappropriate for armed forces.
     
    Rob c and recce.k1 like this.
  17. the concerned

    the concerned Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    1
    With the recent talk of developing a EU military force with regards to protection against all powers including the US. Could the US government under Trump argue that it is not in their best interest to supply Europe with cutting edge weapons.
     
  18. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    467
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Trump could but wouldn't because it would go against his overriding narrative of foreign sales and US jobs.
     
  19. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,352
    Likes Received:
    153
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    The new US House of Representives may be the brake on US military sales, both foreign and domestic. Annual trillion dollar deficits aren’t sustainable.
     
  20. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,305
    Likes Received:
    467
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Domestic military sales yes, but foreign sales would bring in export dollars, reducing said deficits.