NATO
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
France and Germany are meeting today to "discuss" the election. And not the governments in general, but the ministers of defense in particular.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Eu Parliament is now auditioning the new defence commisioner Andrius Kubilius.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Junior is probably stocking up on toilet paper. The only positive, from a Canadian perspective, is the Liberal party must finally realize junior has to go. The Trump-Junior relationship is toxic.
I don't disagree with that sentiment. It won't be long however before P.P finds himself in the same situation as he won't commit to meeting the NATO spending targets either, Oh Canada.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Don’t have a lot of expectations for P.P. but he will be better than junior for no other reason than junior has set the bar at zero. As for 2% GDP on defence, a tough sell to the electorate but doable if Trump threatens trade to force the issue. There is also the possibility Trump follows through with his tariffs which will damage our economy to the point where defence spending goes down.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Another article suggesting the obvious but it fails to mention a couple of key points. First, Canada’s economic situation sucks. Massive cuts will be needed on junior’s questionable socialist programs, politically difficult, even for P.P. should he become PM. Who can realistically deliver the kit we need fast enough to get to 2%. State-of-Art missiles, F-35s, P-8s, and frigates take time. SKorean SSKs, probably require even more time. Hopefully we don’t end up buying useless and/or unnecessary kit in response to trade threats by Trump in order to reach 2%.
According to the PBO, spending would have to rise substantially, but is doable while still staying within the current government's debt-to-ratio goals. So, it can be done, if the will is there. The current stated goal is to get to 2% by 2032. Realistically, I can't see how we could ramp up defence spending much faster given the current constraints around procurement.
I think it is also important to counter the narrative that Canada is somehow not contributing to collective defence that some on this forum seem to delight in doing. Here is a list of current operations:
www.canada.ca
The best bang for the buck, given we can't buy stuff fast enough, is to boost the O&M budget to increase training, and address maintenance and spare parts shortages. However, that would still be nowhere enough to get us to 2% in the short term.
I think it is also important to counter the narrative that Canada is somehow not contributing to collective defence that some on this forum seem to delight in doing. Here is a list of current operations:
Current Operations list - Canada.ca
Discover where the Canadian Armed Forces are currently deployed on operations in Canada, North America and around the world.
The best bang for the buck, given we can't buy stuff fast enough, is to boost the O&M budget to increase training, and address maintenance and spare parts shortages. However, that would still be nowhere enough to get us to 2% in the short term.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
GDP predictions may well have been low-balled for ONSAF but with Trump's tariff threats, the numbers may actually become more realistic if he follows through. Future interest rates on our debt, WTF knows but it will likely become an even bigger expenditure in the budget. While maintenance and spares are very important, don't really want to see this being applied to old close to obsolete kit. Better to spend money on new infrastructure for future new kit needed for the Arctic .
Absolutely - I don't disagree. My comment was in light of getting to 2% rapidly. Infrastructure takes time.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
With Elon Musk openly calling for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO you would have to think it is only a matter of time.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Elon Musk backs US withdrawal from NATO alliance
Elon Musk, head of the United States Department of Government Efficiency, has backed calls for the United States to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Populist talk does not assure action or results. It only assures talk. When the US leaves NATO is when I'll believe it happens. For now, the US has every reason to shake Europe up and threaten to abandon their defense, and no reason whatsoever to leave NATO.With Elon Musk openly calling for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO you would have to think it is only a matter of time.
Elon Musk backs US withdrawal from NATO alliance
Elon Musk, head of the United States Department of Government Efficiency, has backed calls for the United States to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Another thing for NATO members to consider when they contemplate the future form NATO will take.
www.nbcnews.com
Trump considering major NATO policy shift
The president has discussed possibly favoring members of the alliance that spend a set percentage of their GDP on defense, sources told NBC News.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Pretty crazy that the leader of the only country that had ever called for help via Article 5 and received it says that no one is going to come for help if they call for it.
These guys are simply insane.
These guys are simply insane.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Tom Goffus, NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Operations, was speaking at the Air and Space Forces (AFA) Air Warfare Symposium in the U.S.
Talked about five big lessons.
What is just as interesting is his discussing the wait time for weapons, if you order right now.
Worse than I thought.
www.twz.com
Talked about five big lessons.
What is just as interesting is his discussing the wait time for weapons, if you order right now.
Worse than I thought.
NATO Operations Chief's Five Lessons Learned From War In Ukraine
NATO is taking note of opportunities and glaring deficiencies in its ability to wage war, some of which are harder to capitalize on than others.
www.twz.com
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
That's a populist take and you know it.
1. Participation in Afghanistan is commendable but the EU has failed to address security issues since then, including the many wars that happened between then and now between frontier and axis nations.
2. The EU is incapable of addressing even domestic threats right now, let alone answer an Article 5 invoked in another continent.
3. NATO is about mutual defense, not "save me daddy Trumpy".
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Wondered whether this or the MENA thread is more appropriate, but I think it's more relevant here.
Turkey vetoes Israeli participation in a NATO exercise.
This actually isn't the first time. Israel also had dialogue with NATO in the past about whether it would join and on what level (not necessarily full member). Israel does participate in NATO missions when required, and is a member of the Mediterrannean Dialogue. And it participated in some exercises as well, including on European soil. But Turkey put its effort to torpedo all connections between Israel and NATO.
Now, I'm NOT saying the US is going to leave NATO. To the contrary, I think the US stands to benefit a lot from it after the reforms pass.
But it would also be wrong to look at NATO as this rigid, eternal solution to the north atlantic problems.
Intertwining alliances between member and non-member nations could allow members to retain their sovereignty and still benefit from the alliance.
One possibility for the MENA/Mediterrannean region is a bloc containing the US as sponsor, and Greece, Cyprus, Israel, as the core. And other members being Italy, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain.
If EuroNATO were to help form such alliance and co-sponsor it with the US, it could better maintain interests in areas outside its zone of control, without spending disproportionate treasure and overstretching its forces. For example, such alliance could utilize local forces to meet challenges in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.
India and France are potential observers who'd be interested in the outcome of such endeavor. France has cultural influence in Morocco and ties to Egypt, and Lebanon which neighbors multiple potential members. India stands to benefit from increased energy security.
Other potential alliances could be formed if NATO is not disbanded, but culturally downgraded. For example it can be argued that the defense of the small baltics, deterring Russia, and collective defense - are all similar but somewhat different missions that may require different levels of attention and resources, in turn putting different responsibilities on NATO members depending on geography.
The theoretical alliance I described earlier is a straight geographical line going from the west med to the gulf.
Turkey vetoes Israeli participation in a NATO exercise.
This actually isn't the first time. Israel also had dialogue with NATO in the past about whether it would join and on what level (not necessarily full member). Israel does participate in NATO missions when required, and is a member of the Mediterrannean Dialogue. And it participated in some exercises as well, including on European soil. But Turkey put its effort to torpedo all connections between Israel and NATO.
Now, I'm NOT saying the US is going to leave NATO. To the contrary, I think the US stands to benefit a lot from it after the reforms pass.
But it would also be wrong to look at NATO as this rigid, eternal solution to the north atlantic problems.
Intertwining alliances between member and non-member nations could allow members to retain their sovereignty and still benefit from the alliance.
One possibility for the MENA/Mediterrannean region is a bloc containing the US as sponsor, and Greece, Cyprus, Israel, as the core. And other members being Italy, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain.
If EuroNATO were to help form such alliance and co-sponsor it with the US, it could better maintain interests in areas outside its zone of control, without spending disproportionate treasure and overstretching its forces. For example, such alliance could utilize local forces to meet challenges in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.
India and France are potential observers who'd be interested in the outcome of such endeavor. France has cultural influence in Morocco and ties to Egypt, and Lebanon which neighbors multiple potential members. India stands to benefit from increased energy security.
Other potential alliances could be formed if NATO is not disbanded, but culturally downgraded. For example it can be argued that the defense of the small baltics, deterring Russia, and collective defense - are all similar but somewhat different missions that may require different levels of attention and resources, in turn putting different responsibilities on NATO members depending on geography.
The theoretical alliance I described earlier is a straight geographical line going from the west med to the gulf.
Last edited:
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Are you referring to my post or to what I am referring to in my post?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
To your post.
You assume that what was, is what is today and will be in the future, and ignore the decline of EuroNATO which prevents it today from properly supporting the US without at least several years of maximal rearmament effort.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Thought:
Trump's presented Europe with the stick. Now it's time to present the carrot - American MIC.
While it is important that Europe develops its own MIC, the US can still benefit greatly if it expedites deliveries to Europe to attract more contracts and enjoy. Europe rearms faster, American MIC expands. Win-win situation.
Trump's presented Europe with the stick. Now it's time to present the carrot - American MIC.
While it is important that Europe develops its own MIC, the US can still benefit greatly if it expedites deliveries to Europe to attract more contracts and enjoy. Europe rearms faster, American MIC expands. Win-win situation.