The Future of NATO

Astute

New Member
After watching the recent intervention by nato in libya I must admit i feel the alliance is changing its becoming split between member countries who will act and quite a few who have no interest to get involed. Any alliance must be judged on its weakest link and I feel nato has quite a few, is nato cracking, the power of such alliance is that many countries speak as one i know this is not easy to do as every country has its own agenda, is it that nato has got to big that decissions on a course of action is taking longer to be implamented .are different fractions with in nato pulling in different directions instead of pulling together.

I feel a few countries are loosing faith in nato and are renewing old alliances for mutial defence eg, UK,France, who with the US lead the way in the recent libya effort, France i belive wanted a joint UK/France command to control the opperation not nato.

So what is the future of Nato. is the one in its present form. or will it change and if so in what way what do you think?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
You're ignoring the purpose of NATO. The Libya affair was outside its scope. I think the countries which declined to take part could, in theory, have vetoed the use of NATO assets (not, of course, the nationally-owned aircraft, ships, etc which were used), but didn't: they merely abstained from participation - and that was completely within their rights, & in accordance with the NATO treaty.

NATO is a geographically restricted defensive alliance. Libya did not attack the territory, ships, or aircraft of any NATO country within the NATO geographical area. There were therefore no grounds for NATO, as an alliance, to act. The NATO treaty could not be invoked, & wasn't. Individual members chose to act, & with the consent of the other members used the NATO command structure to co-ordinate their forces.

You're complaining that NATO isn't what it was never meant to be. It's like complaining that a ship can't fly, or that your bank manager won't cook your dinner. It's not part of the deal, & never has been. If you want dinner, go to a restaurant.

NATO will defend you if you're attacked in Europe, North America, the Mediterranean or North Atlantic. That's it. It's what it does. What it's for. What the treaty says. If you want more, you should sign a different treaty, or make ad-hoc arrangements - which, funnily enough, is exactly what happens.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
NATO hasn't begun to crack as an alliance yet, but it's close to it. At this point in time I'm not sure that the Baltic states would be defended against a hypothetical Russian invasion. That is a tipping point of sorts, because at this point if new members further east were to be accepted, they may be even less defensible, and there would be even less desire to defend them.
 

surpreme

Member
NATO hasn't begun to crack as an alliance yet, but it's close to it. At this point in time I'm not sure that the Baltic states would be defended against a hypothetical Russian invasion. That is a tipping point of sorts, because at this point if new members further east were to be accepted, they may be even less defensible, and there would be even less desire to defend them.
NATO is still strong as long as the US is involved and remain a member. During the Libyan conflict US sat back and let mostly UK and France which provided most of the aircrafts. When you have a alliance like NATO its prefer that individual can make opposite decision but just like someone said the Libyan conflict was a different action for NATO. One thing I learn from this is that if US drop out of NATO they wont be able to effective go against a Russia attack. They also have a civilian part of NATO which is different. That go back to how the west organize it alliances and its a procress that go back to how the civilians control the military. NATO still is needed at this time but be prepared in the future that US become so strong it can maintain its own interest from NATO which it does now.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think you're incorrect. The Europeans are capable of increasing defense budgets, and easily outmatching the Russian military. But I think they don't want to. They would much rather limit NATO expansion, and avoid having to babysit impoverished nations with dubiously democratic governments. That, I think, is where NATO begins to reach its limit. The major European NATO members want NATO to serve their interests, not American ones, and they see no reason why they should have to pay for the security of places like Georgia and Ukraine. They certainly don't want to get dragged into a military confrontation with Russia, which is a major trading artner for many of these nations and not in just oil and gas.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
NATO hasn't begun to crack as an alliance yet, but it's close to it. At this point in time I'm not sure that the Baltic states would be defended against a hypothetical Russian invasion. That is a tipping point of sorts, because at this point if new members further east were to be accepted, they may be even less defensible, and there would be even less desire to defend them.
That's why Georgia was told to go away when it applied for membership - and why there's a NATO air patrol in the Baltic states. They're as much a tripwire as for air policing.
 

legoboy

New Member
What do you guys think about the SCO which is similar to NATO and seems like the Chinese/Russian version? Obviously it's no where near as big or as powerful yet but with China's and to some extend Russia's rising power more and more countries will think about joining it.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Another thing to consider is the fact that NATO often get mixed up with the UN Security Council.
NATO itself is a strong and solid coalition/ alliance between geografical limted members.
It has the power, the resources, money/ cashflow and the political strenght to carry on even if hypothetical speaking the US would redraw.
True NATO will weaken alot if the US would redraw but NATO would still be agruebly the most solid and powerfull alliance around.
No disrespect to SCO but they are nowhere near NATO.
Yes the economic crisis and diplomatic ties between members might cause problems but NATO and all its members have agreed upon the fact that IF you are a member then you are bound to the fact that you will make every effort possible to help a other member in need (Lets say incase of an unprovoked attack) this is one of the core rules of NATO.
And this is not limited to the members you do like or do not like.
Some might say that NATO is a political fossil dating back from the cold war however its changing slow yes but its changing to adapt to the current problems and short/long term future.
And as we all know changes are causing problems, but in the end of the day its a alliance that will and above all can protect its members against anyone even without US help.

Cheers
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
That's why Georgia was told to go away when it applied for membership - and why there's a NATO air patrol in the Baltic states. They're as much a tripwire as for air policing.
Exactly. And in all honesty, thank god saner heads prevailed there. Then again it's hardly surprising that the major European players don't want an extra security burden.
 

NICO

New Member
I think for me the growing problem that has emerged since dissolution of Soviet Union is what role should NATO have and where does it "start or end"? I mean one could argue what did Libya operations have to do with NATO? Is it really NATO's job to guarantee Georgia's sovereignty? Even guaranteeing the airspace of Baltic states? They can't afford to band together and buy a few fighters? Just saying....Where does NATO end???
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I think for me the growing problem that has emerged since dissolution of Soviet Union is what role should NATO have and where does it "start or end"? I mean one could argue what did Libya operations have to do with NATO? Is it really NATO's job to guarantee Georgia's sovereignty? Even guaranteeing the airspace of Baltic states? They can't afford to band together and buy a few fighters? Just saying....Where does NATO end???
As already discussed, Libya was not, strictly speaking, a NATO operation. It was an operation by an ad-hoc group of countries, some of which are not NATO members, which used NATO command structures. This was permitted by the NATO members which didn't participate.

NATO does not guarantee Georgia's sovereignty.

The Baltic states are members of NATO, & all their territory is within the NATO area. It is therefore entirely proper for other NATO countries to assist them. Remember that unlike other former Soviet republics (e.g. Belarus, next door), they did no inherit the assets of Soviet units stationed within their borders. Just about everything was taken to Russia, & what couldn't be removed was mostly destroyed. They therefore had to start almost from scratch in building up new armed forces, with very few resources.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
They destroyed some of it themselves... like the early-warning radar (which they might've profitably leased to Russia for a decade and a half until the Voronezh-DM at Lehtusi was built). Also chunks of Soviet Army assets from Belarus and Ukraine were also returned to Russia (a prime example, the mobile Topol units in Belarus, which could've been kept by Belarus, and eventually destroyed, but instead were returned for free).

In all honesty NATO is a bit overstretched as is. I'm not sure Romania, or the Baltic states, made good additions, given how impoverished and militarily un-valuable they are.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
They destroyed some of it themselves... like the early-warning radar (which they might've profitably leased to Russia for a decade and a half until the Voronezh-DM at Lehtusi was built). Also chunks of Soviet Army assets from Belarus and Ukraine were also returned to Russia (a prime example, the mobile Topol units in Belarus, which could've been kept by Belarus, and eventually destroyed, but instead were returned for free).

In all honesty NATO is a bit overstretched as is. I'm not sure Romania, or the Baltic states, made good additions, given how impoverished and militarily un-valuable they are.
Feanor simple question you said in the last lines of ur reply that you are not sure about the baltic states mainly because of their crappy at best armies.
But does the umbrella of NATO not provide a security guarantee?
I mean yes the baltic states are ina relative bad shape army wise and to some degree in a political way but who is going to attack a NATO member knowing that by doing this the whole of NATO will come down on them?
Keep in mind the backbone nations of NATO, US, UK, France, Germany to name a few are not exactly little puppies combined they can muster a credible response and if everything else fails and the rest of NATO is going to commit their resources and assents to a crisis situation then honestly who want to face and fight that?
There are world wide only a few nations that have the strenght, resources and funding to pull such a thing off and imo those few nations must be completely out of their minds to do so....
On the otherhand honestly speaking i believe that NATO itself would love to walk away from any confrontation if it really comes down to it, however that is not saying that they will leave their members out to dry there...my point is NATO is a slow and massive body and disisions take ages....but ones they are made its FINAL we all know that.
Not sure if i am right but conventional no nation has the strenght to defeat NATO ( Well maybe i say it wrong but facing the whole of NATO is suicide....)
Even with the political and economic unrest in the EU which at this point is bad i mean greece, Italy, spain and portugal are 4 nations that put NATO and the EU in heavy water.....economic wise having that said NATO itself (With or without US) is a solid alliance and correct me if wrong but there are 2 things in the world you are not going to do: 1 attack the US, 2 attack a NATO member...doing that will end up in a huge war where given the technological, production, cash flow advantages that the average NATO members have will draw the line who is going to win or not..agree?

Infact i dare to venture to say that NATO (Without US) is nearly equal to the US army wise.
Sure the US might be a big better but numerical and overall i believe that NATO as a body (Not counting US itself) is pretty much on the same page as US.

And then again today things are differend ALOT differend with worldwide resources shrinking, economic unrest and so on...20 years ago there was a clear goal and a clear " enemy" which was russia and since the USSR did fall apart this enemy and goal faded away and NATO lost its true goals and beliefs.
My point here is that IF there would be a clear enemy then things within the EU and NATO would be alot easier as everyone knows what to do and whats on the table.
Nowadays even the US has trouble to oversee the many challenges worldwide and to monitor upcomming nations as others did say in the past its a dynamic fast changing world and i believe that this is what weakens the NATO alliance.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Feanor simple question you said in the last lines of ur reply that you are not sure about the baltic states mainly because of their crappy at best armies.
But does the umbrella of NATO not provide a security guarantee?
I mean yes the baltic states are ina relative bad shape army wise and to some degree in a political way but who is going to attack a NATO member knowing that by doing this the whole of NATO will come down on them?
That's just it though. The idea behind military alliances is that each member can count on the support of the rest. But how much support can Estonia offer to, lets say, Great Britain? In essence they're dead weight. That's why I'm not sure the Baltic States should've been allowed into NATO. They don't bring anything to the table.

Keep in mind the backbone nations of NATO, US, UK, France, Germany to name a few are not exactly little puppies combined they can muster a credible response and if everything else fails and the rest of NATO is going to commit their resources and assents to a crisis situation then honestly who want to face and fight that?
In other words, they would be quite capable of saving the Baltic States. This is very true. This also doesn't matter. See above.

There are world wide only a few nations that have the strenght, resources and funding to pull such a thing off and imo those few nations must be completely out of their minds to do so....
On the otherhand honestly speaking i believe that NATO itself would love to walk away from any confrontation if it really comes down to it, however that is not saying that they will leave their members out to dry there...my point is NATO is a slow and massive body and disisions take ages....but ones they are made its FINAL we all know that.
What's your point? That NATO is a credible threat? Yes. Of course. 2+2=4....

Not sure if i am right but conventional no nation has the strenght to defeat NATO ( Well maybe i say it wrong but facing the whole of NATO is suicide....)
Even with the political and economic unrest in the EU which at this point is bad i mean greece, Italy, spain and portugal are 4 nations that put NATO and the EU in heavy water.....economic wise having that said NATO itself (With or without US) is a solid alliance and correct me if wrong but there are 2 things in the world you are not going to do: 1 attack the US, 2 attack a NATO member...doing that will end up in a huge war where given the technological, production, cash flow advantages that the average NATO members have will draw the line who is going to win or not..agree?
Assuming NATO is unilateral in defending the Baltics, yes.

Infact i dare to venture to say that NATO (Without US) is nearly equal to the US army wise.
The US military has many capabilities that no other NATO member has.

Sure the US might be a big better but numerical and overall i believe that NATO as a body (Not counting US itself) is pretty much on the same page as US.
This needs substantiation.

And then again today things are differend ALOT differend with worldwide resources shrinking, economic unrest and so on...20 years ago there was a clear goal and a clear " enemy" which was russia and since the USSR did fall apart this enemy and goal faded away and NATO lost its true goals and beliefs.
My point here is that IF there would be a clear enemy then things within the EU and NATO would be alot easier as everyone knows what to do and whats on the table.
That's part of the point. Lets say Estonia picks a fight with Russia, over a disputed border area, or over a Russian province or town that attempt to secede. Will NATO want a military confrontation with a nuclear power over 20 sq km of swampland?

Nowadays even the US has trouble to oversee the many challenges worldwide and to monitor upcomming nations as others did say in the past its a dynamic fast changing world and i believe that this is what weakens the NATO alliance.
What weakens NATO is that the US oversees these nations, and NATO wants no part of it, most of the time.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
I think, now many in Europe, especially the big/original powerhouse should think more of their membership policy. This can be said whether it's in Nato or in EU/Eurozone.

Based on the assessment of current situations, I believe many in German or France already feel regret that they invited Greece or Portugal too soon to Eurozone. They don't have same Fiscal Discipline and emergency responses, that in sense they become dead beat for Euro.

In similar situations can be said for Baltic states. What they can bring to Nato that will put the German or the French willing to sacrifice their soldiers and military resources for those states ?

When you put a United Front whether in Economics/Monetary or Political/Militarily, with members that the capabilities and capacity are too much apart, this will create questions later on from people on stronger members, what's the point that those (smaller members) can benefited for me that I should sacrifice my resources for them.
And that questions usually come out on emergency and difficult situations when all the 'party' and comradely euphoria already gone.

It's just 'human' nature. The 'old' benefit and 'cost' argument.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Well, what does Luxembourg bring to the table (apart from the biggest AWACS fleet outside of the US...;))?

It's about wether you are willing to become part of such a defensive alliance or not. And the baltic states are just not able to bring more military might to the table. I for one am happy with the baltic states being part of NATO and I am more enthusiastic about them behaving like good allies than I am with other eastern NATO candidates...

And don't let us talk about the current EU crisis or I am probably going to say some things I will regret...
 

swerve

Super Moderator
They destroyed some of it themselves... like the early-warning radar (which they might've profitably leased to Russia for a decade and a half until the Voronezh-DM at Lehtusi was built). .
I think you fail to appreciate how the Balts saw the USSR & Russia. When the USSR occupied them in 1940 it killed or deported (to prison camps, Siberia, etc) 1-2% of their populations (IIRC Latvia was worst hit, Lithuania least). The majority of those deported died. When the Red Army returned in 1944-45 there were many executions, & more deportations. There were more large deportations in 1949, when 2-3% of Estonians & Latvians were snatched away, & >1% of Lithuanians..

In their view (& that of the UK, & many other countries), the USSR had illegally invaded them, overthrown legal sovereign governments, murdered a large number of their people, & tried to turn their countries into parts of Russia. They wanted nothing to do with the USSR or Russia, & most especially not the Russian armed forces. They wanted every Russian soldier out ASAP, not staying around to operate early warning radars.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
What do you guys think about the SCO which is similar to NATO and seems like the Chinese/Russian version? Obviously it's no where near as big or as powerful yet but with China's and to some extend Russia's rising power more and more countries will think about joining it.
The SCO is not a Military Alliance, it is far more of an economic community like the EU, but with a Security Dimension, unlike the EU which rests its security with NATO.

The SCO is developing its security and economic interests in tandem, led by the economic. As it develops deeper economic ties, the security element is beefed up to protect them. It may appear slow, but it is fact steady and being built on very firm foundations rather than idealism and empty rhetoric.

Last year it seemed as though the SCO might lose Kyrgyzstan to the US/NATO sphere of influence, but this year the SCO has reasserted itself and Manas Airbase is back on schedule to be closed.

As for NATO, it strength as an organisation has to be questioned as Financial Crisis engulf member nations on both sides of the Atlantic. I do not see members leaving, but I do foresee it becoming an increasingly hollow shell over the coming decades.
 
Top