The Future of NATO

[tafka999]

I doubt you know what every Estonian wanted.

Relative vs absolute comparisons. In absolute terms Estonia is a security burden, in an era of shrinking military expenditures among key NATO players.

The only one Estonia could possible need military defense from is Russia, and what you list would be a speed bump for them. Estonia is attempting to build a small modern military, but where this leads remains to be seen.

It's not that you're expecting that, it's that you can't help but have that state of affairs. Best case scenario, there will never be a war with Russia, and Estonia will continue to contribute token forces to NATO missions abroad, which will allow the bigger NATO states to contribute slightly less. Worst case scenario, Estonia requires a huge NATO commitment to fend of Russia. I would argue that this is not worth it. I'd argue that the better solution would have been to leave the Baltics out of NATO.

What I personally saw from the Estonian Army Scout Btln during our stay at Tapa was not terribly impressive,

The only air-defense I saw were ZU-23-2s, and even then only on photos (there was also one on display in front of the barracks). The trucks they used were civilian-looking Mercedes trucks painted green, with makeshift wooden benches for troop transport (I doubt those trucks could go off-road). The Galil of one of the soldiers I got to play around with for a little bit was dirty, lacked optics and anything similar to our PEQ-15/16s. Granted these are just personal observations, but they were quite troubling.

I know that 95 % of Estonians wanted every russian out, you can believe it or not that is up to you.

Yes of course you can say that we are a burden but consider the fact that if for whatever reason Russia decided to invade europe the Baltic states would be a buffer zone for the west if we wanted to or not, in NATO or not in NATO.For this reason some probably find that it is good to have us on board so maybe we would be a slightly stronger buffer and buy more time. And the few soldiers are not the most importart part of our contribution to the international operations, more important perhaps is our solid political support to the US.

As for being mearly a speedpump that depends on the situation. Each Baltic countrie can become a considerable speedpump if there is sufficient political motivation. Some time ago Estonia proved itself a speedpump too high for the Russian army. Estonia does not want to develop a "small and modern" army, the only purpose of our army is defence agaist large numbers of russian cold war era weapons and for this we need considerable numbers not 4000 professional soldiers like some other Baltic nations have chosen.

Your experience with our poor training is a surprise to me, our soldiers have recieved a lot of praise from many allies on international missions and many of the soldiers there are straight out of conscription. However surely there are some who are better than others and some who are not.

Currently air deffence consists of the same ZU23-s you saw and short range mistral missile system. There is a lot of ZU23-s, too few of mistral though but more will be acquired soon. Mistral has proven very reliable in practice at least, ZU of course is not effective against fixed wing but can be used very well against lighter armour or rotary wing.

Just for information here are other more common weapons in the Estonian defence forces : Zu23 23mm AAA, Mistral short range AA missile, Mapats and Milan II anti armour missile systems, 155mm howitser FH-70, 122mm howitser D-30, 81mm and 120mm mortars, machinguns 12,7 mm Browning, 7,62 mm KSP-58 and MG3, 5,56 mm Negev, rifles AK4 and Galil.And different grenade launchers/ anti armour shots like carl gustav etc. The only armour is APC-s PASI XA180 EST and XA188.

All trucks should be awd so they have limited offroad capabilities, some more some less.

 

[Beatmaster]

( QUOTE FROM BEATMASTER)
Basicly because germany is one of the very few nations who adopted the zero config industry and has made some last minute changes in the past years to adapt to a more automated industry.
However with Germany as number one producing powerhouse in EU, the number 1 in army and the most powerfull economy atm? i seriously doubt that Russia with all its might would be stupid enough to face Germany.
Another thing is Russia would not only face Germany it would also face the EU, the US and a number of nations that feel outraged by such a attack.
Germany in its current from would be perfectly capable of holding its own against Russia.
And regardless what some people say about germany but in the past 20 years they have come a very long way in every degree of their army which is very well equipped very well trained and very well supplied.
And this hard effort by the germans and the EU to help germany back on its feet has given them this big avantage over france and the uk.
No i do not want to praise the germans into heaven, but appearently you do not know in what badshape the UK and france (economicly) are right now.
If you watch the economic news a bit then the UK alone has lost over 35% of its former economic power and production so yes rebuilding that up takes time and will demand for some drastic cuts and reforms.
These mass scale cuts and reforms has been done by the germans 10 years ago...thats why they are overall so far ahead.
Their army is being cut true but they have still one of the biggest (if not the) and one of the best equipped armies around.

Its its wiki lol but it gives a pretty good view.
In case of a war i would love to have the germans to fight along our sides.
Imagine what would happen if the Germans would redraw.....
If the UK or france would redraw then its going to be a major pain and a serious blow to the Eu and its military strenght......however if the germans redraw, then France will not be able to stop russia, and the UK will find them selfs in the same position as in WOII locked up on their island and struggeling for resources from the US.
Not saying that the UK is weak and i am not saying that Germany is super but like it or not the germans have a absolute key role and starting to play a ever increasing role in the EU while the role of UK is being overruled by France and Germany (As the latest news did show when sarkozy slammed the door on the UK ..i believe that was for saving the euro...)
And that would not have happened 15 years ago..back then it was always UK and Germany/US dictating EU policy (Or largely influence it) while today France and Germany are the main talkers...

Yeah you are right and no i am not a fan of germany.
Also i did not mean to discredit the UK in any way.
Fact remains that the situation at this very moment favores the germans in nearly every aspect.
This to the credit of the US, UK, France Netherlands and several others who did a huge job to get Germany back on track.
Keep in mind after woII germany did have a very bad image and they payed for this in a brutal way.
After 1975 it did become clear that old east germany and west germany would cause problems sooner or later and after the fall of the wall germany did become a major player in the EU.
Which is good.
Because germany is a frontline nation and basicly they door to the EU it is vital that Germany remains strong and that Germany is in a position to at least delay any agression till the whole EU comes into action.
This was the cold war strategy and it is still a large part of the strategy of the EU.
For this very reason its save to say that the german armed forces are a dominant force within the EU and always will be.
Due the econmoic crisis alot of nations within the EU are doing not so good, for example Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland.
This is having a big impact on tommorow's EU and it might even cause the euro to collapse.
So yes problems problems problems on the other hand each single of those nations will eventually make it back and eventually get their stuff sorted.
It not all their own fault its largly due the way EU was build up with the cold war in mind.
Some nations did not have the option to adapt to a new EU with new challenges while US is also in economic problems and for example asia is booming.
The EU economy was largley linked to the US and still is.
But you see today that more and more nations are also looking at asia to make money.
So will the US eventually recover from the economic crisis.
However this all does not affect their capabilities in the long run.
Sure less money means less money to spend but if you see today how many billions of euro's flying around to save nation a to save nation b and still have enough euro's to do it again and again...there are talks to increase this fund even more.
My point here is 75% of the total potential of the EU is hidden in those funds and can be released at any time.
I do not know what the EU war fund is called but what i do know that each EU member is paying a heafty contribution to it since the day that EU and NATO where formed.
This money is never used in a serious conflict but from what i have been told and from what i did read on the net is potentially the biggest fund on earth.
Eventually it comes down to this there are 5 major players in the EU:
UK, Germany, France and then Turkey as the door to middle east and Poland as upcomming powerhouse each and single one of these nations play a major part in the EU, but the main rule within the EU that allowes them to have a huge flexibility is that if one nation cannot keep up a other nation does a step forward till the previous nation is recovered.
This is how germany was builded up, this is how poland could start to grow, this is how turkey could step up, and now its the UK who can take a back seat and deal with their economic problems....this is the whole idea of the EU sharing the burdon and spread the load over other countries....7

Anyway again there is not a single bad word i can say about the UK and yes they should be considered as one of the top dogs but at this very moment there are others who doing a much better job then the UK and this is just a fact.
And this has nothing to do with the UK's army or the things they have done in the past.
Its just the fact that if the UK does not start to change things at this point (Talkes between UK and Netherlands are being done) to revamp their economic system and to change their production plants then this might become a really serious problem for the UK and every nation that has the UK as a partner.
Economicly there are 3 nations within the EU that play a vital role within the EU.
The Netherlands for their harbor and their massive logistic system, Belguim same reason and the UK as being the western gateway to the EU and because the US is struggeling of its own the biggest hit will land on the UK.....which direclty affects the nations that need the UK iie: NL, Bel, France, Norway....the rest do the math.

 

[Astute]

The way i look at it is no one country is really doing well in the current climate every one is in trouble because every one is linked in Europe i feel this economical nightmare is the biggest threat, bigger and more dangerous than any potential foe like russia is to Nato,EU,, just hope they sort it out,
And i think thats why the US is redirecting and turning away from Europe to get in to the asian-pacific markets the european markets are just to risky, the missile sheild will be the USs last big play in europe,they are just making sure the back door is shut before they move out.
I do feel its make or break for Europe a clear military and economical plan is needed but can member countries put aside there own interests to make this happen i guess time will tell.

 

[Astute]

i was just thinking about the concept of a European armed forces and was wondering what ideas or thoughts you have on this, how big would the army have to be what units would be picked in the make up of a european army, how many ships,subs etc would the european navy need what aircraft and how many for the airforce , would one armed force for nato/europe be cheaper to fund maybe than each member having its own defence budget does it look more appealing now in these tough economical times i would like to hear your thoughts,

 

[t68]

If you take the 3 major nations within the EU lets say UK, France and Germany.
How far would they be able to raise the GDP before the economic system collapses of their nations? and how would that look like in terms of army numbers compared to what they have right now? Hypoteticly speaking?

I cannot say how far country X could go, in theory every nation could increase defence spending. There is only so much money in the pot, if country X is willing to limit supply of other areas of need or decrease the level of spending of vital infrastructure which in turn could lead to improved levels of production methods be it roads, rail, port, research projects or health for one's own citizens. Look at the former USSR and the lines for which its citizens had to line-up for basic living commodities. During the Vietnam War Australia defence spending went up to 2.6% of GDP, in years gone by Prime Minister Howard promised increase defence spending and adjusted the defence budget in line with inflation there are so many variables to justify defence spending and the creative accounting of those in treasury to say look we have increased spending, but those in power give on one hand and take away with another.

An old article but gives an insight on the complexities of how to sustain a budget now and in the future.
Can Australia afford a big increase in defence spending? - theage.com.au

 

[Astute]

In previous posts i said many times about the US taking a back seat in the future of Nato well in european matters any way ,and the missile sheild will be the last US play in europe, well it seems Nato have seen the light (or have they been pushed by the US)and now understand they will be standing on there own more i read today a statement about nato pooling resources and looking to plug the gaps in its capabilities which were expossed during the libya confict,
It states nato will be looking into pooling missiles(tomahawk etc) and other munitions for fighter jets and inproving inflight refueling , using unmanned drones, and aquiring special aircraft equipped with electronic jamming tec, as well as targeting specialists,( basically every job the US forces did in libya).
Gaining these capabitlities is a must for europe and im very happy they have seen what needs to be done.

 

[Beatmaster]

In previous posts i said many times about the US taking a back seat in the future of Nato well in european matters any way ,and the missile sheild will be the last US play in europe, well it seems Nato have seen the light (or have they been pushed by the US)and now understand they will be standing on there own more i read today a statement about nato pooling resources and looking to plug the gaps in its capabilities which were expossed during the libya confict,
It states nato will be looking into pooling missiles(tomahawk etc) and other munitions for fighter jets and inproving inflight refueling , using unmanned drones, and aquiring special aircraft equipped with electronic jamming tec, as well as targeting specialists,( basically every job the US forces did in libya).
Gaining these capabitlities is a must for europe and im very happy they have seen what needs to be done.

Well it might look like the US is taking a back seat.
But with all the crap in the middle east and asia going on atm its not so suprising that the US might shift some priorities.
Imo the EU is a very save place to be its almost boring.
So the US can redraw as the EU is perfectly capable to handle themself.
However because of the long history between the EU and the US and the combined strategic intrests even if the US would disband all bases within the EU and redraw all forces then still the EU is more interconnected to the US in terms of strategy, army and defense/security.
And vice versa.
Another thing to consider is that the US has some issues of their own for example the massive cuts in their own armed forces.
So there are multiple reasons why the US would disband some bases in the EU.
Simply they cost money (Lots of it) and they are not exactly needed anymore.
Besides that the EU is more powerfull then people would give it credit for.

Back on topic you asked what the EU national army should look like well, honestly i really cannot tell you because i simply do not know ask Kato or one of those guys here on the forum they can lay it out for you in a flash.
However what i do know is that given the quality, expertise, available tech within the EU i believe that a national army would be not overly large, but robust, flexible and capable of matching any agressor both in offence as defense.
Imo each nation within the EU has unique abilties and unique units/systems and such so perhaps they could assign particular nations to do what they can and do best, to combine the various advantages within the EU to their max of their abilties.

But in detail i honestly cannot tell you.

Cheers

 

[Beatmaster]

I cannot say how far country X could go, in theory every nation could increase defence spending. There is only so much money in the pot, if country X is willing to limit supply of other areas of need or decrease the level of spending of vital infrastructure which in turn could lead to improved levels of production methods be it roads, rail, port, research projects or health for one's own citizens. Look at the former USSR and the lines for which its citizens had to line-up for basic living commodities. During the Vietnam War Australia defence spending went up to 2.6% of GDP, in years gone by Prime Minister Howard promised increase defence spending and adjusted the defence budget in line with inflation there are so many variables to justify defence spending and the creative accounting of those in treasury to say look we have increased spending, but those in power give on one hand and take away with another.

An old article but gives an insight on the complexities of how to sustain a budget now and in the future.
Can Australia afford a big increase in defence spending? - theage.com.au

thx for the reply and the good info, but i believe that either i did not ask the right question or you did read it wrong, i mean to say are their any limits within the EU that a nation is allowed to spend on their defense.
Or is every nation free in choice if they want to spend for example 10%+ of their gdp?

 

[t68]

thx for the reply and the good info, but i believe that either i did not ask the right question or you did read it wrong, i mean to say are their any limits within the EU that a nation is allowed to spend on their defense.
Or is every nation free in choice if they want to spend for example 10%+ of their gdp?

I cannot really answer that, but I would imagine they could spend whatever they think they could afford.

If you look at Argentina before the Falkland Islands invasion under a military rule they had large amounts of money spent on defence, but once the military junta was thrown out and came under civilian rule defence spending has dropped to below 1% of GDP

 

[swerve]

thx for the reply and the good info, but i believe that either i did not ask the right question or you did read it wrong, i mean to say are their any limits within the EU that a nation is allowed to spend on their defense.
Or is every nation free in choice if they want to spend for example 10%+ of their gdp?

No limits. The EU is a free association of sovereign states. None of the agreements which bind its members together set a ceiling on military spending.

If a member did decide to spend 10% of GDP on its armed forces I think the other members would start wondering what it was intending to do with all that weaponry, though.

 

[Feanor]

No limits. The EU is a free association of sovereign states. None of the agreements which bind its members together set a ceiling on military spending.

If a member did decide to spend 10% of GDP on its armed forces I think the other members would start wondering what it was intending to do with all that weaponry, though.

You'd be hard pressed to find a democratic nation that's capable of spending 10% of GDP on weaponry in peace time.

 

[kato]

You'd be hard pressed to find a democratic nation that's capable of spending 10% of GDP on weaponry in peace time.

The only one close was Israel at above 9% in the late 90s.

The only countries currently exceeding 10% are Timor-Leste and Saudi-Arabia. Oman and the UAE used to spend around 10% up to a couple years ago. Eritrea went up to 40% during the war in 1999.

The highest "offender" in the EU is Greece, which has been bouncing around 4% for the past two decades, and shows no signs of cutting that (yet).

As for spending limits see E-003917/2011 (google it). The EU Council refers to the previous decision that duplicate military capabilities within the EU should be reduced but does not give its members any limits or guidance in defense-related spending.

 

[Feanor]

The only one close was Israel at above 9% in the late 90s.

There's a Russian saying "the exception proves the rule". This is that exception.

The only countries currently exceeding 10% are Timor-Leste and Saudi-Arabia. Oman and the UAE used to spend around 10% up to a couple years ago. Eritrea went up to 40% during the war in 1999.

North Korea too, right? What a club. In the case of Eritrea, that's interesting. Do you have any material on it?

Back on topic, the real issue is how to get the EU members to spend more on defense, not less.

 

[Astute]

I think the only real way to get europe to increase its defence budget , would be if there was a real time credably threat to europe and at this time i dont think there is one or will be one for the foreseeable future, and i think nothing else would really get them to budge on this matter,
i can see some member countries improving there capabilities which will then add to natos capability but large scale defence budget increases through out europe i cant see happening, unless nato thinks it might be getting involved in a future conflict in asia?

 

[Beatmaster]

I think the only real way to get europe to increase its defence budget , would be if there was a real time credably threat to europe and at this time i dont think there is one or will be one for the foreseeable future, and i think nothing else would really get them to budge on this matter,
i can see some member countries improving there capabilities which will then add to natos capability but large scale defence budget increases through out europe i cant see happening, unless nato thinks it might be getting involved in a future conflict in asia?

I think you are right because given the economic crisis and other "high" value projects within the EU every bit of money they can gain they will get.
Obviously noone wants to spend more then needed.
I mean defense and security is one but having a zillions of troops and armor is just waisting money which can be better used in these difficult times.
Another thing to consider is that some EU nations still have some outdated assets which they can scrap now by justified cuts.
In return they keep their "top" stuff while be able to save money for future projects and upgrades.

In regards to asia, asia is having a big stick atm and can form a real danger in terms of a conflict, however that "might" is equally fragile as their economy.
So its in their own intrests to keep their heads down.
As in size they might have the upper hand but when it comes to tech and actual available toy's to play around with they are not a real match (offensive speaking)
Perhaps that they can land some killing blows regionally but anything beyond their direct sphere would be suicide.

So hypo speaking as long the status quo remains none is able to even try anything funny.

 

[Beatmaster]

The only one close was Israel at above 9% in the late 90s.

The only countries currently exceeding 10% are Timor-Leste and Saudi-Arabia. Oman and the UAE used to spend around 10% up to a couple years ago. Eritrea went up to 40% during the war in 1999.

The highest "offender" in the EU is Greece, which has been bouncing around 4% for the past two decades, and shows no signs of cutting that (yet).

As for spending limits see E-003917/2011 (google it). The EU Council refers to the previous decision that duplicate military capabilities within the EU should be reduced but does not give its members any limits or guidance in defense-related spending.

Ty for the solid reply kato.
However i would assume that lets say for example (Hypothetical speaking) the UK or any nation (pick one) would suddenly buy/build 500 attack aircraft and lets say 1000 tanks, that at the next EU/NATO meeting that nation has some explaining to do.
Infact ill bet that if the UK would do such a thing (just giving a example) that both merkel and sarkozy would be on the phone and start asking nasty questions...
In other words you will need a damn good reason to do such a thing, as it could be seen as some form of provokation or pre-plans.
As a saying goes you are not putting on a condom unless you are going to peeeep lol.

 

[Beatmaster]

The only one close was Israel at above 9% in the late 90s.

The only countries currently exceeding 10% are Timor-Leste and Saudi-Arabia. Oman and the UAE used to spend around 10% up to a couple years ago. Eritrea went up to 40% during the war in 1999.

The highest "offender" in the EU is Greece, which has been bouncing around 4% for the past two decades, and shows no signs of cutting that (yet).

As for spending limits see E-003917/2011 (google it). The EU Council refers to the previous decision that duplicate military capabilities within the EU should be reduced but does not give its members any limits or guidance in defense-related spending.

kato a side question why did greece spend so much anyway? was that because of their problem over cyprus? with turkey? or did this have other reasons?
Because i am just re-reading your post and i cannot find a good reason for a relative small nation as greece to have such a spending, given the fact that other nations within the EU are alot more capable and spend much less.

 

[swerve]

Greece arms against what it thinks is the Turkish threat.

 

[Beatmaster]

Greece arms against what it thinks is the Turkish threat.

Alright thx.
Well seems they have lost that arms race...poor greeks..

 

[Astute]

I was just reading the posts about if one eu country started to build up its forces, questions would be asked but i dont believe for one second any one in europe wants,needs or could imagine another european war not between the major players anyway , it will not happen it cant happen, i think the result of such a build up would just play in to the hands of countries who want to cut there armed forces and defence budgets, as one countries cuts are balanced by another countries build up, the thinking of why do we need to have and pay for tanks for example if they are building them we could save money by cutting ours and nato isnt losing out ,let them pay for them,

Ive just been looking at some of the cuts to armed forces through out europe and ive got to say alot of the cuts are older equipment and alot of heavy armour Austria,Uk are some examples, i do think heavy armour has had its day as impressive challanger 2, leopard 2s etc are i would hate to be in one in a modern conflict espesialy with the fire power AT infantry teams have in todays armys and the thought of attack helicopters flying around and seeing what damage these can cause on armoured formations makes you think is there still need for nato/eu countries to have such a force specialy with apaches/tigers etc in natos armoury, the full on clash of mass armour as east and west clashed is no longer a possibility i think the structure of the future armed forces of the eu will be alot more balanced, experditionary, and rapid reaction forces new tech and modern equipment will make up for numbers and the loss of such older capabilities,