NATO

[SolarisKenzo]

Apparently we are heading towards Stoltenberg confirmation as NATO's SG.
Ben Wallace's race was vetoed by EU contries ( I assume western EU ) as a retaliation for Brexit, as confirmed by various sources.

UK’s Ben Wallace: I won’t get NATO top job

UK defense secretary has pitched himself for the position in recent months.

www.politico.eu

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Well, I guess I dont need to say how important this is..

Turkey agrees to back Sweden’s NATO membership bid

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan agrees to drop his resistance to Sweden joining the alliance.

www.politico.eu

 

[John Fedup]

Well, I guess I dont need to say how important this is..

Turkey agrees to back Sweden’s NATO membership bid

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan agrees to drop his resistance to Sweden joining the alliance.

www.politico.eu

Yep, wonder how long it will take Hungry to get on board? The Putin gang is likely low on bribery cash these days so I guess this entry will happen soon.

 

[IHFP]

Yep, wonder how long it will take Hungry to get on board?

Does anyone have any idea what changed since Erdogan high balled with the EU entrance bid " Erdogan links Sweden's NATO membership to Turkey's EU accession (msn.com) "? This was really recent too.

Edit: Just read,

Turkey agrees to back Sweden’s NATO membership bid

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan agrees to drop his resistance to Sweden joining the alliance.

www.politico.eu

and that pretty much explains that Sweden may assist Turkey in joining the EU.

 

[KipPotapych]

^ Not providing any links here, sorry, but a few reports I read earlier suggest they’ll be getting the F-16’s they were after as well (or at least a push from the Biden’s side for them to get those planes). The latest was referencing Jake Sullivan.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well if Australia was to ever announce giving its f18 to ukraine it would be while at nato this week.

I imagine the only thing that would stop that is f16s from elsewhere.

If f18s are given by Australia that would pressure f18 donations by other nato states, Finland, canada and Spain. Pressure for Spain to commit to f35, perhaps some shuffling of Finland f35 allocation towards the front.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Does anyone have any idea what changed since Erdogan high balled with the EU entrance bid " Erdogan links Sweden's NATO membership to Turkey's EU accession (msn.com) "? This was really recent too.

Edit: Just read,
and that pretty much explains that Sweden may assist Turkey in joining the EU.

Turkey will not join the EU.
Erdogan knows he has the same chances of joining the EU as I have of winning the gold medal in skating at the olympics: Zero.
He probably wanted funds from the EU to help stabilizing his disastrous economy and F16s from the US.

Since he said he will support Sweden, I guess they got some kind of deal.

 

[ngatimozart]

^ Not providing any links here, sorry, but a few reports I read earlier suggest they’ll be getting the F-16’s they were after as well (or at least a push from the Biden’s side for them to get those planes). The latest was referencing Jake Sullivan.

Links are a requirement. Just because you can't be bothered posting them is no excuse.

 

[John Fedup]

Increasing domestic news stories about Canada's dismal defence expenditures. Of particular note in this story is Canada's doubling of the Latvia deployment with insufficient kit, similar to the Afghanistan mission where soldiers were sent with useless camouflage uniforms. Twenty years later and Liberals are still just as stupid....except for junior. Stupid doesn't do him justice.

EDITORIAL: Time for straight talk on our military funding (msn.com)

 

[John Fedup]

This link discusses NATO’s article 3, a perhaps a better indicator than 2% GDP. In any event having finance ministers justify their government’s commitment to defence, not sure how useful that would be. I for one would have zero confidence in any finance minister junior sent to a NATO meeting explaining why Canada can’t meet commitments.

Someone’s missing from NATO’s spending debates

Finance ministers—much more powerful in almost every non-U.S. member government—need a seat at the table.

www.defenseone.com

 

[KipPotapych]

Links are a requirement. Just because you can't be bothered posting them is no excuse.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678671558951223298

US to move ahead with transfer of F-16 jets to Turkey

U.S. President Joe Biden's administration will move ahead with the transfer of F-16 fighter jets to Turkey in consultation with Congress, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on Tuesday, a day after Ankara gave the green light for Sweden to join NATO.

www.reuters.com

 

[MARKMILES77]

No wonder everyone wants to join NATO:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678883791262167040

 

[ngatimozart]

NATO Sec Gen opening remarks for Day 2 of the Vilnius Summit.

NATO Se GEN answering journo questions 12/7/23

NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania - Day 2, stream 1/2, 12 JUL 2023

In July, NATO Leaders will meet to address the most pressing challenges for the Alliance, further strengthen NATO's deterrence and defence and bring Ukraine ...

www.youtube.com

.

 

[oldsig127]

Well if Australia was to ever announce giving its f18 to ukraine it would be while at nato this week.

No F-18s, but PM Anthony Albanese announced the provision of another tranche of 30 Bushmasters.

'Best in the world': Australia donates 30 more Bushmaster armoured personnel carriers to Ukraine

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announces the commitment following a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the NATO summit in Vilnius.

www.google.com

Oldsig

 

[Vivendi]

I don't think article 5 deters China at all. China doesn't want to invade NATO, it wants NATO to bend its knee to it. Ultimately, it probably expects NATO to place its security arrangements with China, and kick the US out of NATO.

China isn't going to launch a tank charge through the Fulda gap. They are quite able to make devastating strikes from China without ground forces. China throwing its soft and grey power around is a real thing, and something that would on its own, likely crush some NATO states.

Its clear any action China takes on Taiwan would bring the US in immediately, and likely US allies, which include the UK and Canada and US and Canada are way down on the threat list to China behind things like South Korea and Japan.

Take the US, Canada and the UK out of NATO, and what extra expeditionary capabilities does NATO field that would be able to rock into China's doorstep in a meaningful way. Would they even be able to make it there if China encouraged some other actors to annoy NATO forces outside of NATO territory.

And how happy would NATO nations do that if the the US is loosing 50 fighters a day and 5 destroyers a week, Guam being laid waste and bare taking heavy losses, while Korea, Japan are taking loses in the thousands per day.

This is assuming Russia is just sitting there, doing nothing in Eurasia while the rest of the world breaks out in chaos. NATO may find it strategically more comfortable to only put Russia on its war list.

Since we were quite off-topic I would like to elaborate a bit more here. No doubt European NATO countries are still lacking quite a lot in terms of military capabilities. However, there is still significant military capabilities available.

Currently European countries have approx. 116 major surface combatants, 5 aircraft carriers and 66 submarines. Are European Navies Ready for High-Intensity Warfare? - War on the Rocks

These are not huge numbers however when combined with the navies of the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Turkey, it adds up and becomes significant.

Europe also has some air capabilities, for instance, currently 120 F-35 in 6 countries, and this number is rapidly increasing with more than 10 European countries having ordered a total of more than 550 F-35. Germany (f35.com)

Europe also has a few thousand of older F-16, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Mirage 2000, Gripen, but these are probably not suitable for a peer fight with China. Nevertheless it means that if F-35s are sent to Asia Pacific, Europe will still be well protected by aircraft of an older design, but still very capable fighter jets.

What is perhaps more significant is that Europe has a huge latent manufacturing capabilities, spread across the continent. Take ship yards as an example. The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey all have significant naval ship building capabilities. In addition many smaller countries including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Poland, Greece, also have various degrees of capabilities of building naval ship. Submarine building capabilities exist in the UK and France (nuclear subs), and Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy and Turkey.

In a multiyear war with China, manufacturing capabilities will be key. Since the shipyards are spread across Europe, neutralizing them will be quite a daunting task.

Europe also manufacture many other key products including cruise missiles, a2a missiles, air defence systems (many of which have been highly appreciated by Ukraine), ammunition, AEW&C systems, etc.

 

[John Fedup]

Since we were quite off-topic I would like to elaborate a bit more here. No doubt European NATO countries are still lacking quite a lot in terms of military capabilities. However, there is still significant military capabilities available.

Currently European countries have approx. 116 major surface combatants, 5 aircraft carriers and 66 submarines. Are European Navies Ready for High-Intensity Warfare? - War on the Rocks

These are not huge numbers however when combined with the navies of the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Turkey, it adds up and becomes significant.

Europe also has some air capabilities, for instance, currently 120 F-35 in 6 countries, and this number is rapidly increasing with more than 10 European countries having ordered a total of more than 550 F-35. Germany (f35.com)

Europe also has a few thousand of older F-16, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Mirage 2000, Gripen, but these are probably not suitable for a peer fight with China. Nevertheless it means that if F-35s are sent to Asia Pacific, Europe will still be well protected by aircraft of an older design, but still very capable fighter jets.

What is perhaps more significant is that Europe has a huge latent manufacturing capabilities, spread across the continent. Take ship yards as an example. The UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey all have significant naval ship building capabilities. In addition many smaller countries including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Poland, Greece, also have various degrees of capabilities of building naval ship. Submarine building capabilities exist in the UK and France (nuclear subs), and Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy and Turkey.

In a multiyear war with China, manufacturing capabilities will be key. Since the shipyards are spread across Europe, neutralizing them will be quite a daunting task.

Europe also manufacture many other key products including cruise missiles, a2a missiles, air defence systems (many of which have been highly appreciated by Ukraine), ammunition, AEW&C systems, etc.

I agree Europe has significant capacity to build great military kit but some serious investment is needed to fully realize that capability. More importantly, the political will needs to be present. The US backing away somewhat might provide the impetus, backing away too much, potentially a bend over moment to Xi.

 

[Vivendi]

I agree Europe has significant capacity to build great military kit but some serious investment is needed to fully realize that capability. More importantly, the political will needs to be present. The US backing away somewhat might provide the impetus, backing away too much, potentially a bend over moment to Xi.

I completely agree, serious investment is needed. We are seeing some increases now due to Russia's attack on Ukraine. However this would pale in comparison to an Article 5 situation initiated by China, which would put the whole of Europe on a war footing. Defense spending could go from 1.55% of GDP today, to 5-10% of GDP (similar to the US during Korea and Vietnam wars). Would China be ready for that?

In 1943-1944 the US spent more than 40% of GDP on defense. Europe could potentially go as high if China decided to escalate in a response to a NATO response. Would China be ready for that?

I think the Chinese leaders are wise enough to make sure they avoid trigger Article 5 since they probably realize things could very quickly spin completely out of control.

 

[John Fedup]

I completely agree, serious investment is needed. We are seeing some increases now due to Russia's attack on Ukraine. However this would pale in comparison to an Article 5 situation initiated by China, which would put the whole of Europe on a war footing. Defense spending could go from 1.55% of GDP today, to 5-10% of GDP (similar to the US during Korea and Vietnam wars). Would China be ready for that?

In 1943-1944 the US spent more than 40% of GDP on defense. Europe could potentially go as high if China decided to escalate in a response to a NATO response. Would China be ready for that?

I think the Chinese leaders are wise enough to make sure they avoid trigger Article 5 since they probably realize things could very quickly spin completely out of control.

The problem is timing. Given the reports of depleted inventories of important munitions and the time it takes to ramp up production, China seems to have an advantage assuming they want Taiwan badly enough to incur the resulting $hitstorm. Given the capacity of the Americas (most of South America and Mexico would likely be onboard) along with Europe and India, that’s huge output, even more so if Australia, South Korea, and Japan are still in the picture. First strikes are great is they are totally successful, not so such if they are not. WW1 Germany is a good modern example. Darth Putin should have known this…of course that assumes no corrupt minions shovelling BS.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Since we were quite off-topic I would like to elaborate a bit more here. No doubt European NATO countries are still lacking quite a lot in terms of military capabilities. However, there is still significant military capabilities available.

Currently European countries have approx. 116 major surface combatants, 5 aircraft carriers and 66 submarines. Are European Navies Ready for High-Intensity Warfare? - War on the Rocks

These are not huge numbers however when combined with the navies of the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Turkey, it adds up and becomes significant.

I would say its not just significant. Its hyper critical. While China can probably find naval and air parity with the US, or the US in the Pacific, matching the total Western Firepower is another question. The US can't build more ships and planes, well not enough in the time needed to make a difference to the equation. Nor can Japan, Nor can Korea, nor can Australia. But the European forces committing to global security would make a difference.

Which is why Germany, and particularly Germany, recent participation in Indo-pacific exercises is so important.

But is NATO expeditionary enough to project power to Asia? Would they commit? Is there any evidence they would?

Would the Europeans just prefer the US to leave Europe entirely?

Would China striking Guam trigger article 5?

What type of contribution would NATO nations, like Germany, make to a war in the Pacific? Would they be interested in keeping trade flowing through Malacca straits? Would they even be free to act if Russia decided to capitalise on the Chaos and make moves in eastern Europe.

 

[Vivendi]

I would say its not just significant. Its hyper critical. While China can probably find naval and air parity with the US, or the US in the Pacific, matching the total Western Firepower is another question. The US can't build more ships and planes, well not enough in the time needed to make a difference to the equation. Nor can Japan, Nor can Korea, nor can Australia. But the European forces committing to global security would make a difference.

Which is why Germany, and particularly Germany, recent participation in Indo-pacific exercises is so important.

But is NATO expeditionary enough to project power to Asia? Would they commit? Is there any evidence they would?

Article 5 has so far been triggered only once, by 9/11. Norwegian Special forces were operating in mountainous regions of Afghanistan in December 2001, after receiving a request from the US in November 2001. Afghanistan - Forsvaret Norwegian SFs are perhaps not the most trained in tropical climates however I am sure Italy, France, Spain, the UK, Turkey, Greece, and the Netherlands have SFs that are better prepared to operate in such climates. Besides, a war between China and NATO would rapidly expand and some parts would no doubt happen in climate more "suitable" to SFs from e.g. Scandinavia.

Would the Europeans just prefer the US to leave Europe entirely?

Not going to happen.

Would China striking Guam trigger article 5?

No. But striking mainland US would trigger article 5, as demonstrated by 9/11.

What type of contribution would NATO nations, like Germany, make to a war in the Pacific? Would they be interested in keeping trade flowing through Malacca straits? Would they even be free to act if Russia decided to capitalise on the Chaos and make moves in eastern Europe.

Norway adapted their frigates to hot climates (beefing up A/C etc) before sending them off the coast of Africa to fight pirates some years back. I am pretty sure they would be able to move much further east, as would destroyers and frigates from other European countries.

As for Russia: you must be joking!? Ukraine has managed to hold their own against Russia in spite of having extremely limited air power, and no naval power. With NATO entering the fray, there would be plenty of both. I am quite sure Finland, Poland and Turkey would (together with Ukraine) be able to handle what's left of Russian armed forces on their own, if some of the European F-35s could just do a little bit of SEAD/DEAD first... The main issue would of course be to avoid Russia going Nuclear. Russia's Master China would probably forbid Russia to do so, but would Russia listen after losing their surface fleet and significant parts of their air force?