NATO's Multiple Frontiers?

[kato]

Are you referring to me?

Nah, i was thinking more of any Danish... Polish... Dutch... members etc.

a good example of what i think it would be a correct approach to these problems i would surely put YOUR own country (germany) defence model at the top.

Nah, not necessarily. The model (split of "fighting" and "peacekeeping" forces essentially) is something very much hated in the Bundeswehr itself. In particular as essentially, the "peacekeeping force" is losing all necessary stuff to fight as modern combined-arms forces really, and is becoming an infantry-centric second-rank army. Also, so far they haven't really been successful at "splitting the roles": Pretty much all deployments since the concept took off 2003 had both kinds of forces in it. And that's unlikely to change until way into next decade at least.
I wouldn't see the model as a good example for NATO personally.

 

[marcellogo]

Ooooh, see this is just a first difference...

n particular as essentially, the "peacekeeping force" is losing all necessary stuff to fight as modern combined-arms forces really, and is becoming an infantry-centric second-rank army

I would dare to say that's is a radical difference with other Nato member defence conception, in their case the "legacy" forces are the second class army, and all the investments going to the peacekeeping ones...:shudder

I wouldn't see the model as a good example for NATO personally

For all the Nato surely not, not a single one can be good enought for a more than 20 countries freealliance (the Warsaw pact was another business), but I still think that your almost spring forth from a preventive analysis of your own country role, goals, geostrategical positions and so on...
With the Fall of Soviet empire, your country regained back not only its own Unity and Liberty , but also its central position in an almost unified European continent , so you have now to match the aspectatives both of the West europe (peacekeepers, expeditionary forces) and of the East europe ( help us to keep them out again!). I know its hard to achieve it, but let's say so: the ones are still in, the other still out, but now you are not more down!:cheers

 

[Feanor]

With the continuing development of joint-EU missions (like the anti-piracy deployments) do you see EU and NATO merging, or one suprceding the other (primarily the EU), as European consolidation deepens?

 

[kato]

That's fluctuating in my opinion.

One year you're seeing everyone ready to spell doom on NATO; or everyone will derise the EU because say Poland and Spain refuse to work with the rest; or people start thinking badly of both institutions and are all "Core Europe".

I would say however that in the current environment, people seem to see NATO as simply a wider alliance than the EU. As in, NATO covers the initial-entry security angle within all of Europe - or, as an alternative, a UN mission does -, but once we got that straightened out, the EU steps up both on the military side and primarily on the civilian and judicial side. On this civilian side, the EU has an existing framework for joint/intermixed operations, and has work experience operating beyond national borders of course.
The latter is not being covered by NATO at all of course; NATO doesn't send in police or professional advisors to install a "EU-style" judicial and political system or coordinate purely civilian rebuilding measures (not CMC!). The EU does take over some roles and responsibilities that would have been covered by NATO in the last decade (and only then!), but in my opinion that's more like setting the record straight again.

This is not only a possible viewpoint of the situation at the Horn of Africa, but of course also in Bosnia (EUFOR BiH) and Kosovo (EULEX); there are a few ambiguous ones that fit in the pattern too somewhat, such as the Congo mission to protect the presidential election (EUFOR DRC), or the large EU involvement in UNIFIL (which of course also has non-EU contributors).

 

[marcellogo]

This new mission is something new...

Feanor was right to point on that point, this new mission is something very interesting indeed...
It probably the first that a such important and delicate mission (surely there will be fightings) has been given directly to Eu, without a preliminary Onu or Nato involvment...
It's also well outside its primary zone of intervention, so it will be a very interesting test about the capablities and the resolve (and I think it will be the critical point) of Europe to play its role in the global scenario indipendently (but not in opposition) from Usa.

 

[kato]

Ermm, there has been a NATO mission in place for 6 years now, with the same contributors now instead going with Atalanta and EU anti-pirace coordination?

 

[marcellogo]

May be i'm wrong

It seems that with the council resolution of yesterday, the Onu extended the allowed intervention area also to the land...
So surely i'll change my statement and i'll sayng instead that this time the Onu has given to the Eu a broader (and more active) mandate than the previous Nato one.
I think also Feanor intended his question something like so.

 

[Feanor]

I actually didn't have any intent behind my question other then to direct the conversation at a topic that I'm rather interested in. If anything I was thinking more along the long term potential, and eventual federalization of the EU. Could NATO become an extension of the EU?

 

[kato]

ESDP might (should?) eventually supercede NATO for EU nations, resulting in NATO then becoming a loose extension of ESDP essentially to bind non-EU states into the framework. Sorta like PfP works for NATO now.

 

[Feanor]

ESDP might (should?) eventually supercede NATO for EU nations, resulting in NATO then becoming a loose extension of ESDP essentially to bind non-EU states into the framework. Sorta like PfP works for NATO now.

Would you mind unfolding those acronyms? Thanks ahead of time.

 

[marcellogo]

Iy would be good, but i fear it would not happen

Sorry, Feanor , I didn't intended to speaking instead of you, only i thinked your very interesting question spring forth from the recent development of Atalanta mission.

About the real question, I think that the Eu surely should have an his own autonomous defence organization, but it will not happen for various reasons.
Only to cite the main one, the lack of political will, psicological strenght and above all money to build a military force really self sufficent and comparable to the Usa one.

Federalization of Europe? Look at the mess that it is happening right now about the Piran/Savudria Bay question, if a two million and an half state can block and mock all others, without any real retorsions possible, how it will be possible to achieve something like that?

The Nato and the Eu shares basically the same problems, too many members, too many divergent interest for work effectively ...
In same time there is so evident advantages to being a member that every state still crave to enter or to stay in

 

[kato]

Would you mind unfolding those acronyms? Thanks ahead of time.

PfP = Partnership for Peace.

NATO initiative involving the remaining European and all former Soviet non-NATO states since 1994. Enables these nations to take part in joint NATO operations and maneuvers if they want to pretty much, but without the mutual defense clauses or involvement in standing joint commands.

ESDP = European Security and Defence Policy.

Essentially, the EU Defence "Ministry", or rather that's what it's supposed to become; takes a huge chunk of the Western European Union defense pact and integrates it into the EU. ESDP within the EU is a subset of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
ESDP has nominal suborganisations that do pretty much the same as those of a national Ministry of Defence would do, such as:
- advising the EU Commission in defence matters (EU Military Committee)
- handling the deployments (EU Military Staff)
- commanding military forces (EU Operations Center, for a single EU Battlegroup; in wartime would likely take command of Eurocorps, Eurofor and other similar forces)
- coordinating procurement (European Defence Agency, EDA)
- coordinating strategic recon (EU Satellite Center)
- military schooling and think tanks (EU Security & Defence College, Institute for Security Studies)

 

[Grand Danois]

ESDP might (should?) eventually supercede NATO for EU nations, resulting in NATO then becoming a loose extension of ESDP essentially to bind non-EU states into the framework. Sorta like PfP works for NATO now.

The reality is that as long as Germany and France are unable to provide leadership and show solidarity (issuing guarantees) there will be only the United States - which means NATO with ESDP as an adjunct.

It's about 1) Demonstrated absolute capability; 2) demonstrated willingness or 'virility'.

France and Germany are not in a position to do so and has shown no willingness to commit; thus no one follows.

There are no deliverables.