How Much Longer Does NATO Have?

[Feanor]

The idea that Afghanistan will defeat NATO is silly. The idea that Afghanistan defeated any of the powers that occupied it is silly. They all occupied it, demolished all resistance, murdered and pillaged the local population, all while taking many times less casualties then their enemies. The fact that the place happens to have little if any value, and as a result nobody actually stays there, seems to perpetrate the myth that nobody can conquer it.

 

[Grand Danois]

EU-27 has a pop of 500 million.

 

[kato]

499,093,000 to be a bit more accurate

 

[Grand Danois]

499,093,000 to be a bit more accurate

Don't spoil my moment of glorious pedantry.

 

[stoker]

Russia joins NATO & EU

That might depends on a lot of things, among then the relative power changes between the EU and Russia, as well as Russia and China. As it stands we can't even keep Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan in line. Nevermind invading the Baltics. What worries me is the potential for conflict there. Iirc there are still some unresolved border disputes between Russia and one of the Baltic states.

Feanor, I come from the land DOWN UNDER so my knowlege of European/Russia politics is very limited.

However, what do you think the chance would be of Russia joining NATO & the EU.

At the moment I think it would be fair to say that militarily speaking the whole of the Russian armed forces are in a terrible state, and Russia contary to Czar Putin's delusions, will never, ever, become a major World power ( military or economically).

I think it would be fair to say Russia's only claim now to world power status, is its nuclear arsenal, which it would have major problems in launching a major strike with.

Russia's only possible major 'conflict' in the future would be China's ambitions, on what is now, Russian territory.

If Russia joined NATO & the EU this would be a major step in World peace right across Europe and what was the old USSSR area, as there would no longer be any concern from countries like Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan about the potential of conflict with Russia over border disputes.

The Russian people over the centuries have not been well served by their in the main desotic, callous, and dictatorial tyrants who have killed of the average Russians in the tens of millions.
The Russians are great people and deserve far better than they have had in the past.

The Russian people would gain massive advantages living under the mores and safeguards of E.U. democracy and rule by Law, the major problem that Russia now faces with internal corruption would also be far easier to eliminate.

Russia's security and financial integrity would be basically solved for all the forseeable future, the combine military clout of NATO/Russia woulg give them the No 2 world super power status, countries like China would never again present any future security problems.

I understand this scenario is a bit of a pipe dream but if Russia did take this massive step forward the world would be a far better place to live in,

And Russia would be greatly admired for it.

 

[Feanor]

The problems in Russia are internal. Joining the EU is impossible for political reasons. And they day Russia joins NATO, is the day NATO becomes a gentlemens club devoted to smoking cigars and drinking scotch.

The truth is that first off Russia does have a chance at recovering status. It's not a good chance. And it's not all that likely. But most people in Russia see that as the logical step. Joining NATO would be unthinkable, unless the very nature of NATO changed significantly.

The near future will see Russia going it alone, with a motley collection of ex-Soviet states accompanying it in various formats like the CSTO, CIS, etc. In terms of internal politics bringing Russia to a state where it is ready join the EU is a daunting task. Especially given how corruption is a way of life in modern day Russia. On the day to day level the whole country lives on corruption. There are only two major sectors in the economy that are viable at the moment, and that's the Gas and Oil sectors. Heavy industry is starting to make a comeback, but it doesn't look significant in the near future (with the exception of a few enterprises). Will there be increased Russia-NATO cooperation? Yes. But only if a serious wedge comes between European NATO members, and the US. Or if the US gives Russia a blank check in the ex-USSR.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Feanor, I come from the land DOWN UNDER so my knowlege of European/Russia politics is very limited.

However, what do you think the chance would be of Russia joining NATO & the EU.

At the moment I think it would be fair to say that militarily speaking the whole of the Russian armed forces are in a terrible state, and Russia contary to Czar Putin's delusions, will never, ever, become a major World power ( military or economically).

I think it would be fair to say Russia's only claim now to world power status, is its nuclear arsenal, which it would have major problems in launching a major strike with.

Russia's only possible major 'conflict' in the future would be China's ambitions, on what is now, Russian territory.

If Russia joined NATO & the EU this would be a major step in World peace right across Europe and what was the old USSSR area, as there would no longer be any concern from countries like Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan about the potential of conflict with Russia over border disputes.

The Russian people over the centuries have not been well served by their in the main desotic, callous, and dictatorial tyrants who have killed of the average Russians in the tens of millions.
The Russians are great people and deserve far better than they have had in the past.

The Russian people would gain massive advantages living under the mores and safeguards of E.U. democracy and rule by Law, the major problem that Russia now faces with internal corruption would also be far easier to eliminate.

Russia's security and financial integrity would be basically solved for all the forseeable future, the combine military clout of NATO/Russia woulg give them the No 2 world super power status, countries like China would never again present any future security problems.

I understand this scenario is a bit of a pipe dream but if Russia did take this massive step forward the world would be a far better place to live in,

And Russia would be greatly admired for it.

A pipe dream indeed. I don't know how or why it's "fair" to say that Russia will never ever be a major world power, as by most estimations it already is and will only grow more significant. Its economy is already second largest in Europe behind Germany (by PPP calculations giving a more realistic picture of economy size than exchange-rate driven GDP),

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html?countryName=Russia&countryCode=rs&regionCode=cas&rank=7#rs,

and is set to become its largest in a not-so-distant future. Its military capability has traditionally been disproportionately high relative to economy size, barring the turmoil of the two post-Soviet decades, and, looking at the future of its long history from a perspective that includes more than just the last two decades, its military will be very major again. And I think it would be fair to say that, regardless of what one thinks of Putin as a good or bad leader, most would agree that the man is far from delusional, and, on the contrary, is an intelligent, calculating, and sophisticated strategist.
Regarding it joining NATO - whether it does or not, in whatever configuration NATO might be for that to happen, it will not be to gain "security" or protection from anyone, it's just not Russian mentality. That country, its people and its leaders, just by the virtue of its size and history has the mentality of an empire meant to dominate/compete its neighbors and adversaries, and that thinking is unlikely to change any time soon. So, IMHO, any reasons for joining NATO would include gaining strategic advantage not only against common Russian and NATO's potential adversaries but also against NATO itself, and it's very naive to think that it would make its neighbors like Poland any safer than they already are.
And the thinking that Russians deserve or need or want the standards of Western democracies is not only false but also dangerous, as it also is with regards to other non-western parts of the world (like the Muslim world for instance), leading to the polarizing black-and-white vision of the world that characterized the Bush administration's foreign policy. Every country needs financial and cultural prosperity, but the way to get there is not necessarily what the Western culture understands it to be. Russian common people certainly have had a rough history for longer than people in Europe did, and had periods of appalling tyranny, but thinking that all its leaders and history were like that is about as much of a truth as thinking that Australian culture was inherited from the unwanted criminal thugs that were once herded there by Europeans (I actually have heard people say stuff like that before).

 

[Feanor]

Physicsman the picture is nowhere near that rosy. We have huge internal problems in that corruption makes state run ventures almost impossible. The archaic Soviet-era bureaucratic apparatus has gotten larger since the collapse of the USSR, while the coutnry has half the population and 2/3rds the territory. There are also major structural problems, in regards to lack of skilled labor (S-400 production), problems with the supplier chains in industry (NAPO), and just plain inability to modernized inefficient and outdated industry that can't be sacrificed for strategic reasons (AvtoVaz).

There's a reason why the Su-34 is being delievered in 1-2 airframes annually. There's a reason why UVZ publicly suggests it has more production facilities for tanks, that the government should use.... there's a reason why the Bulava continues to experience major issues from what looks like basic quality control issues.

There is certainly a major resurgency compared to the 90s, but whether this will translate into stable long term growth is questionable. It depends on the ability to overcome industrial issues, and restore the research potential to a level if not close to the Soviet one, at least in the same league with contemporary European states. And those problems are just the defense related ones. If we start getting into the issues of social psychology (like the fact that investment still travels along social networks rather then through impersonal economic channels, or that siloviki are on boardsd of directors of the major companies, or that the mentality is inherently opposed to liberal democracy, normalization of corruption), just plain social issues (the healthcare system, urban development issues, the housing problems, mono-cities issues), structural economic issues (infrastructure, ridiculous construction costs, outdated transportation network/communications network)... etc. the picture will look even less pleasant.

I have strong patriotic feelings towards Russia and hope things get better. But the prospects are not good. And Putin and Co. are neither new Czars, nor shrewd politicians devoted to restoring Russian glory. They're figure-head representetives of certain economic interest.

 

[swerve]

Don't spoil my moment of glorious pedantry.

With an even greater one.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Physicsman the picture is nowhere near that rosy. We have huge internal problems in that corruption makes state run ventures almost impossible. The archaic Soviet-era bureaucratic apparatus has gotten larger since the collapse of the USSR, while the coutnry has half the population and 2/3rds the territory. There are also major structural problems, in regards to lack of skilled labor (S-400 production), problems with the supplier chains in industry (NAPO), and just plain inability to modernized inefficient and outdated industry that can't be sacrificed for strategic reasons (AvtoVaz).

There's a reason why the Su-34 is being delievered in 1-2 airframes annually. There's a reason why UVZ publicly suggests it has more production facilities for tanks, that the government should use.... there's a reason why the Bulava continues to experience major issues from what looks like basic quality control issues.

There is certainly a major resurgency compared to the 90s, but whether this will translate into stable long term growth is questionable. It depends on the ability to overcome industrial issues, and restore the research potential to a level if not close to the Soviet one, at least in the same league with contemporary European states. And those problems are just the defense related ones. If we start getting into the issues of social psychology (like the fact that investment still travels along social networks rather then through impersonal economic channels, or that siloviki are on boardsd of directors of the major companies, or that the mentality is inherently opposed to liberal democracy, normalization of corruption), just plain social issues (the healthcare system, urban development issues, the housing problems, mono-cities issues), structural economic issues (infrastructure, ridiculous construction costs, outdated transportation network/communications network)... etc. the picture will look even less pleasant.

I have strong patriotic feelings towards Russia and hope things get better. But the prospects are not good. And Putin and Co. are neither new Czars, nor shrewd politicians devoted to restoring Russian glory. They're figure-head representetives of certain economic interest.

I do think you have a tendency to be overly pessimistic on Russian issues
I don't think the picture is rosy, nut it certainly is not as grim as you fear it to be, and few will doubt that things will continue improving, at least economically. While I understand what problems you're referring to, and it sometimes is really hard to overcome the negative attitude that one inevitably gets on the prospects over there after encountering the problems first hand, BUT one has to look at the bigger picture. Corruption is a huge problem, but so it is in India (to a greater degree perhaps), so is political and economical set up in China, so is the socio-economic situation in Brazil, yet they are all set to grow tremendously. And so is Russia. And this statement is not my personal opinion, I would have been more pessimistic myself, but an opinion of most financial analysts from all the major investment houses in the world, who have been predicting inevitable and fast growth in Russia for the foreseeable future. And that is the real authority on such matters.

P.S. What is strategically important about Avtovaz? I'm not aware of them making anything other than crappy cars...
Also, Putin, figure-head... Smells like another conspiracy

 

[Feanor]

I'll make a separate thread in the Intro's and Off-Topic forum so we don't derail this one, and we can discuss it there.

EDIT: Made. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/intros-off-topic/russia-crisis-9828/#post186064

 

[Palnatoke]

Kato&GD

I stand, thoroughly and utterly, corrected. :splat

 

[Palnatoke]

A pipe dream indeed. I don't know how or why it's "fair" to say that Russia will never ever be a major world power, as by most estimations it already is and will only grow more significant. Its economy is already second largest in Europe behind Germany (by PPP calculations giving a more realistic picture of economy size than exchange-rate driven GDP)

I beg to differ with regard to the "by PPP calculations giving a more realistic picture of economy size than exchange-rate driven GDP".

If you want to answer the question: "How well off is a dane or a russian" then PPP is a sensible metric. F.ex. an average dane looks mighty rich by nominal GDP, while an average Russian looks poor by average GDP. Though the wealth of the dane is set off by having a high cost structure and he needs a lot more dope to make ends meet, than a russian living in russia with a lower cost structure does. Viewed by GDP_PPP (per capita) Denmark is not that much richer than Russia. Reflecting that on average the dane is not that much richer than the average russian. Since the average dane has to pay more for his services, than the average russian.

But if you want to compare the effect, power or production of the economy, per capita, then nominal GDP, filtered for spikes in the spot market exchage rate, is a far more senisble metric. That denmark has a much higher nominal GDP per capita is a very real reflection of the fact that danish economy is a far more well "creased" machine than the russian economy, that it has a much higher output, per capita, than the russian same.
Comparing the whole of scandinavia with Russia, we have that the two economies are in similar size meassured by nominal GDP, that simply means that the outcome of the effort of the scandinaviens are similar to the outcome of the effort of the russians - meassured by value. Now, you will probably see that Russia in many ways seems to out-produce the scandinaviens (Russia produces more wheat, more steel etc), but scandinaviens produces, perhaps, fewer goods/services, but goods/services of higher value.

I admit that it's a complex question and the comparison between something as complex as two socities economical performance can ofcourse never be summed up in a single number. But that Uganda has a low nominal GDP_PC is probably because people from Uganda are dirt poor - regardless that they manage to feed themselves (an operation that requires far more dollars per capita in my country than the GDP_PC of Uganda)

 

[PhysicsMan]

I beg to differ with regard to the "by PPP calculations giving a more realistic picture of economy size than exchange-rate driven GDP".

If you want to answer the question: "How well off is a dane or a russian" then PPP is a sensible metric. F.ex. an average dane looks mighty rich by nominal GDP, while an average Russian looks poor by average GDP. Though the wealth of the dane is set off by having a high cost structure and he needs a lot more dope to make ends meet, than a russian living in russia with a lower cost structure does. Viewed by GDP_PPP (per capita) Denmark is not that much richer than Russia. Reflecting that on average the dane is not that much richer than the average russian. Since the average dane has to pay more for his services, than the average russian.

But if you want to compare the effect, power or production of the economy, per capita, then nominal GDP, filtered for spikes in the spot market exchage rate, is a far more senisble metric. That denmark has a much higher nominal GDP per capita is a very real reflection of the fact that danish economy is a far more well "creased" machine than the russian economy, that it has a much higher output, per capita, than the russian same.
Comparing the whole of scandinavia with Russia, we have that the two economies are in similar size meassured by nominal GDP, that simply means that the outcome of the effort of the scandinaviens are similar to the outcome of the effort of the russians - meassured by value. Now, you will probably see that Russia in many ways seems to out-produce the scandinaviens (Russia produces more wheat, more steel etc), but scandinaviens produces, perhaps, fewer goods/services, but goods/services of higher value.

I admit that it's a complex question and the comparison between something as complex as two socities economical performance can ofcourse never be summed up in a single number. But that Uganda has a low nominal GDP_PC is probably because people from Uganda are dirt poor - regardless that they manage to feed themselves (an operation that requires far more dollars per capita in my country than the GDP_PC of Uganda)

If the Russian ruble was worth twice as much in dollar terms as it is now then the GDP would jump to twice the figure. And since the ruble is not a freely convertible currency (the central bank regulates it) the GDP measure is not very reflective of anything except that the ruble is not freely convertible. And from what I have read it's being kept from appreciating to its real market value, which has been estimated to be from 50% to 100% more than the value now - which would throw the GDP figure way off. Hence its limited usefulness.

 

[Feanor]

Actually I suspect that if the ruble was released, it would fall, not rise, in relation to the dollar. It's current cost was propped up during the financial crisis by the Central Bank. But we're again getting off topic. There's a reason I made a whole separate thread for this.

Back on the question of NATO, does anyone see continuing NATO expansion (I don't mean just Ukraine and Georgia, I mean beyond that) as viable?

 

[Palnatoke]

PH

\begin{Offtopic}
While I don't completely disagree with you, one has to ask the question (assuming that they do regulate); Why does they manipulate the currency? What does the economy gain/loose by the manipulation?
Though I do agree that is not so simple, But the PPP-metric has, in my oppinion, even greater problems. The obvious one's being that a batch of goods aren't remotely equal in two countries: Take Denmark vs. Uganda. A chicken in denmark is produced and handled to other standards (F.ex. bacteriological(spelling?)) than in Uganda. In fact a danish consumer won't eat an average chicken produced in Uganda, so from a danish point of view the Uganda-chicken has zero value as humane food, while from an Ugandian(?) point of view; well they have probably learned to deal with the microbes in their chicken, so they would say that a chicken is a chicken.

Also the PPP method, while attempting to take local circumstances into consideration, doesn't take into account sociological circumstances. Maybe a socity that have decided not to treat workers as dirt also places some hard value into the fact, that their "working class" aren't dirt?
And as long as a method doesn't take that into account it will remain highly biased against socities that f.ex. has high minimum wages - and faced with such I personally prefer to say, well let's meassure wealth in how many Armani suits (or onces of gold, or oil, or tanks, or or or...) you can buy, that the rest of the world also enjoy (and can but a price on).
\End{Offtopic}

 

[Palnatoke]

Actually I suspect that if the ruble was released, it would fall, not rise, in relation to the dollar. It's current cost was propped up during the financial crisis by the Central Bank. But we're again getting off topic. There's a reason I made a whole separate thread for this.

Back on the question of NATO, does anyone see continuing NATO expansion (I don't mean just Ukraine and Georgia, I mean beyond that) as viable?

Not really. Maybe the last scandinavien countries. I actually don't think that Ukraine or Georgia will ever make it into NATO.
Georgia won't because that part of the creation is riddled with troubles, and it would be stupid to get tied down with some people who's motives you really can't sort out.

Ukraine; mostly because it's unneeded. Ukranine should, in time, become strong enough to be able to fend for herself and she can always balance her two large neighbours against each other. Also in the case of Ukraine we have a situation in which it's difficult to sort out motives.
It would be infinately more easy to risc world war III and defend the freedom of, say, Finland. Than letting the nukes go hot, because some president got pissed because he was cut short in the latest gas-scam.

 

[Feanor]

Ukraine will not become strong in the next 10 years. Not with the current state of the Ukranian military. And not with the piss poor funding, internal corruption, economic desolation, and demographic crisis. The current power elites saw NATO as a way to guarantee that weakness from Russian expansion. Problem is that even the political elites can't agree on anything.

 

[Palnatoke]

Ukraine will not become strong in the next 10 years.

No, and neither will it become a NATO member in 10 years, if I am not much mistaking.

The current power elites saw NATO as a way to guarantee that weakness from Russian expansion. Problem is that even the political elites can't agree on anything.

Exactly. NATO shouldn't be tied down to a country that can't agree with it self, and a country in which the political motives appears "obscure". Should it be in our interest to help Ukraine if nation "X" invades we can choose to do so irrespectively of a NATO signature.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Exactly. NATO shouldn't be tied down to a country that can't agree with it self, and a country in which the political motives appears "obscure". Should it be in our interest to help Ukraine if nation "X" invades we can choose to do so irrespectively of a NATO signature.

I agree, they shouldn't. Nor, I may add, will they get a chance to do so, if things stay the way the are - if a pro Russian president gets elected in the upcoming elections, and there's a very solid chance one will, the whole NATO membership idea will be no more.