The Future of NATO

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The EU does not "rest its security with NATO". With the treaty of Lisbon the former European military alliance WEU was enlarged to encompass the EU as a whole due to ESDP. There are however treaties between WEU/EU and NATO intended to optimize use of assets and forces. The WEU and now EU ESDP is an organization fully equivalent to NATO in structures and capabilities. It is actually tighter than NATO regarding commitments, in particular regarding mutual defense and joint action.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
The EU does not "rest its security with NATO". With the treaty of Lisbon the former European military alliance WEU was enlarged to encompass the EU as a whole due to ESDP. There are however treaties between WEU/EU and NATO intended to optimize use of assets and forces. The WEU and now EU ESDP is an organization fully equivalent to NATO in structures and capabilities. It is actually tighter than NATO regarding commitments, in particular regarding mutual defense and joint action.
Thank you Kato for the clarification.
Can you tell me which organisation would be the one to react physically in the event of a military attack against Europe?
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can you tell me which organisation would be the one to react physically in the event of a military attack against Europe?
Depends on the country attacked, the country attacking and primarily the scale of the attack. NATO would nowadays probably be called on for the plinking stuff with rapid forces up to a couple 10,000 men, while EU would react with larger forces in the case of anything really serious.

For the latter drawn-out conflict or operation type certain NATO assets can also be segregated, placed under DSACEUR (UK or GE) instead of SACEUR (US) and made available to the EU too, although to some extent this is more a scheme to keep NATO in the loop. This is currently the case for e.g. Operation ALTHEA (Bosnia).
 

swerve

Super Moderator
This with 40% population being Russian, as in Estonia, for example... when I was there in June 2010 for BALTOPS-2010, we got 3 days of liberty in Tallinn. I spoke Russian there, and was taken to be Russian. What I encountered (outside the tourist districts) was a neutral attitude from Estonians (most of whom spoke Russian) and a normal friendly attitude from Russians living there. In all honesty I think the political tensions between Russia and the Baltics are over-hyped by the political leadership of both sides. I suspect that the elites do feel the way you describe, but the ordinary population may have a somewhat different attitude.
I don't think there is a problem with individual Russians, but there was certainly hostility to the Soviet (& Russian) armed forces in the years immediately after independence. There was considerable anger about the Russian refusal to release Baltic conscripts immediately after the breakup of the USSR, for example, & that was an issue which affected a lot of families, not just elites. In those circumstances, it was completely unrealistic to expect to be able to keep a military installation in Latvia.

Many of the Russian officers who'd retired to Latvia were told they were unwelcome. I met the son of one in Riga in 1995. He'd had chosen to stay in Latvia (his father stopped talking to him for a while), & he told me that he'd never met hostility from Latvians (he was sharing accommodation with some) - but his father had a lot of it, because of his former position. Other Russians I came across also seemed to be interacting with Latvians happily.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't think there is a problem with individual Russians, but there was certainly hostility to the Soviet (& Russian) armed forces in the years immediately after independence. There was considerable anger about the Russian refusal to release Baltic conscripts immediately after the breakup of the USSR, for example, & that was an issue which affected a lot of families, not just elites. In those circumstances, it was completely unrealistic to expect to be able to keep a military installation in Latvia.
It was a rash populist decision, that ultimately cost them financially. I mean they could have at least preserved the radar, rented it out to NATO, not for actual use, but for analysis, etc. They could've sold it. They could've fenced it off and let it rot, in case anyone else at a later time wanted it. They could've turned it into a museum. There are a ton of better ways to use a sophisticated BMD radar, then just blowing it up. It wasn't smart regardless of how they felt about Russian presence.

Many of the Russian officers who'd retired to Latvia were told they were unwelcome. I met the son of one in Riga in 1995. He'd had chosen to stay in Latvia (his father stopped talking to him for a while), & he told me that he'd never met hostility from Latvians (he was sharing accommodation with some) - but his father had a lot of it, because of his former position. Other Russians I came across also seemed to be interacting with Latvians happily.
Surely not as much as "people of Caucasian nationality" face in Moscow... and yet plenty not just live there, but run entire criminal syndicates. The decision was made because the government wanted to symbolically tear down a Soviet military installation. And it certainly would've been hard for Russia to remain there. But it wasn't impossible. Anyways, this is all a moot point. The Baltic states are a security burden in absolute terms, and I think that they are part of the reason European NATO is unwilling to take on more East European pseudo-democracies, in the name of expanding US influence.
 

phrank

New Member
I wil tell you from a US point of view we feel that way about many of the current members on NATO. You talk about having to defend countries that are not maybe 100% democratic and we feel having to defend countries that feel their defense has no value to themselves. Many NATO countries military are little more then jobs programs. I am not sure allot of NATO countries can defend their airspace let alone their land. As for all those other countries coming in a getting a free ride. Why not many of the rest of you have.
 

Kayzar

New Member
Well The intervention in Libya was primarily not part of the treaty that the NATO countries agreed upon. Whis is why am still puzzled as to how did NATO end up intervening in Libya. NATO is still a powerful alliance but has now started to loose its valour status due to the post Cold War effects. That is why the former US defence secretary Mr Gates cautioned European states to start spending more on their military and technology. This he said mainly due to the fact that if the US was not to intervene in Libya, loopholes in the ability of other defenses such as the UK and France would have made the succes in Libya a dream or rather aprolonged one. The US possesed more advanced assets such as air refuelling capabilities, Unmanned aerial vehicles(UAV)e.t.c. NATO has continued to suffer to find its purpose post Cold War. The economic crisis of its members has also not helped a bit.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Well The intervention in Libya was primarily not part of the treaty that the NATO countries agreed upon. Whis is why am still puzzled as to how did NATO end up intervening in Libya.
This has already been explained. It was not, strictly speaking, a NATO operation.
It was a coalition of the willing, led by France & the UK. Some NATO members refused to take part, including Germany, & some non-NATO states participated.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
NATO did not intervene in Libya.

Some NATO member states did and used certain NATO assets for this purpose with silent approval of the other members.
 

surpreme

Member
NATO did not intervene in Libya.

Some NATO member states did and used certain NATO assets for this purpose with silent approval of the other members.
As I recall it mostly the French and United Kingdom Air Forces did most of the sorties over Libya
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Not most. Between them, they did just under half the strike sorties, & a smaller proportion of the others..
 

phrank

New Member
NATO only really took over command and control. I think mainly because that was a command and control structure that was already in place. As most of the countries involved where NATO countries. I think what it really showed to me is how little the countries involved could do on their own. Had they needed to do it without the US I am not sure they could have. NATO countries other than the US have little to no out of area abilities.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
NATO Allied Ground Surveillance (AGS), based out of Sigonella with Global Hawks, was heavily involved in the operation to my knowledge.

As for command of out-of-area operations, France would have had enough assets in place easily for the kind of operations that went on down there. Same for the UK. They just chose not to use them.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Had they needed to do it without the US I am not sure they could have. NATO countries other than the US have little to no out of area abilities.
Out of area? British & French aircraft flew out of their home bases for many strikes! Every airbase used was on the territory of a NATO member, even the one on Cyprus: it's in a British sovereign base area.
 

Kayzar

New Member
I agree with Phrank on this one. Yes NATO countries are capable of out of area capabilities but with limited assets compared to the US. Clearly Libya showed any loopholes. The air to air refuelling was done mostly by the US together with aerial surveillance. This the NATO even accpeted!
 

phrank

New Member
I am not sure they could have done it with out the US. As much as they have made of what they did without the US what percent of opening day targets would have been hit. There would have been almost no air refueling. The real time recon most of that would have been gone. The EW aircraft how many did they deploy and that was all through the fight. What we have in NATO without the US is a paper military. I am not saying they are not useful. What I am saying is that if the US gets attacked in the pacific which NATO country will be there with what?
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What I am saying is that if the US gets attacked in the pacific which NATO country will be there with what?
No NATO country would be obligated to assist in any war in the Pacific. Not part of the NATO treaty.
 

Astute

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #39
Yes i know the US has a monster of a large and very powerful armed forces with many capabilities .but the gaps which NATO has in its capability (with out the US) could be closed in the future if these areas were looked into in a serious way through cooperation of some of the leading members like the UK,France,Germany.etc. I believe this is a must and a priority has the US turns to focus on the pacific-asia theatre and the possible future threat of china,north korea etc , alot of its armed forces will be changing its forcus and will be redeployed, so other than a major conflict kicking off in europe i believe the US with be taking the back seat more and more and the rest of nato must adapt to this,
Nato needs to regroup and refocus its strategy , its seems the whole defence objective was based on a war with russia thats passed but threats remain in the world , but the armed forces of nato members seem to reflect that old cold war thinking ,every member had its part in to play in this old strategy , for example, the royal navy was to shut the door on russian subs trying to get through into the atlantic so its whole fleet was basicly designed for that purpose. what im trying to say is that every one had there part to play, and the US had a big part which would of course be missed, i think changes are underway to rebalance many european armed forces but this will take time.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Correct me if wrong, but after reading the many posts in the topic i noticed that most people are talking very bad about NATO and its members.
Like we do not have a army, we do not have enough selfrespect to keep a army.
And one guy even said that most armies are just beefed up job programs.

It annoy's me that these comments are being made.
Granted i am not the smartest here on the forum when it comes to army matters but i can say this:

Yesterday, Today and Tommorow NATO and its allies face numerous problems.
And yes the economic crisis is one big chunk of it.
However back in the 70's 80's and 90's the combined NATO force was huge, some nations did have a much bigger army then their population justified.
Now i am not sure about other NATO members and their numbers but i do know that for example one of the key members the Dutch did have: over +_200 Fighter aircraft, and nearly a +_1000 tanks. and 300k total personel.
Not to mention a very impressive naval fleet.
Thats HUGE for a small nation like the netherlands.

And so where most NATO members they where all beefed up for the possible confrontation with Russia.

Nowadays things have become more sophisticated more dynamic and alot more advanced not to mention the insane amount of money involved to keep a army around.
Yes its true that some nations like for example the netherlands have litterally eaten their army away i mean not to be funny but the dutch army is a very proffesional and hightech organisation but compared to the old days its just a fading shadow.

However does this indicate that the NATO organisation and its partners are weak? or that it cannot defend itself?
Keep in mind that for example the US has to keep a big army around and even they have to make painfull cuts and the US will also lose some of its former glory.
Look at the USSR ...ones a mighty big army and poof....gone...what remains are hundered of rotten boomers in the harbor.
Thing are changing and the systems of today can do jobs and tasks which use to be done by 100 people.
My point here is EU is a mess atm thats true and shifting priorities does not make things easier.
But if it happens that there is a real danger to NATO or the US i can guarantee that the EU will open their money pockets to face that new danger.
For example (And i do not want to go into politic's to much) but the dutch are cutting their bugets for the past 10 years claiming they do not have money and its best for the nation to cut a bit here a bit there and reform things, however if the *** hits the fan then suddenly they got a big bag of money flying around to use it when needed.
This is with nearly every NATO member the case.
I am not sure how to put this without making a fool out of myself here but do you guys really think that nations like France, UK, Germany, Netherlands and some other core members really are dumb? or that they do not see what is going on?
I do not have much faith in the EU granted that...but in case of war or a sudden all out conflict i know that NATO/EU is extreemly capable to face any danger.
And simple fact like it or not, the US needs EU/NATO just as bad as we need the US however that does not mean that the EU or the US cannot survive on its own in a real war situation.
The EU and NATO and all its allies IF pointed in the same direction is a very good organisation that does have the tools, will, knowlegd to get the job done.

And after the collapse of the USSR the NATO alliance did become a massive organisation that lost its main goal, and currently its shifting to meet todays challeges.
Which is a slow and costly proces.
Now i know that my tekst here leaves alot to talk about and perhaps my views are wrong but i believe that you guys understand what i try to explain.

Cheers:dance
 
Top