A Moderator was kind and didn't use green or red ink in his guidance. Don't back chat Moderators.
NATO
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
May I remember that the presence in Europe is benefitting the US?
If the US pulls back it means an increase in defense spending from the EU.
This means higher efficiency in both the products and where that product will be sourced.
If the smaller EU countries had to buy let's say the double the amount of fighters than the F-35 bought that capital investment would start justifying programs that benefit the national industry, in place of buying off-the shelf.
Not only, an increase in military power ask also a more efficient use of that power.
That means foreign political policies in the style of France, and not a sleeping armed forces as we got right now.
The moment we start spending we will ask for a return on that investment, and thus we would increase our world intervention level.
Is what the US wants? A stronger EU that starts acting like a power pole and that buys less American defense products?
A stronger Euro? Because currency goes with power (let's think of the pound and British empire).
Nah it is way more beneficial for the US to stay in Europe and for Europeans politicians to have the US umbrella that allows them to not play real politik and just play the victim of what's happening on the global stage (just think of Syria and refugees crisis or Libya chaos).
If the US pulls back it means an increase in defense spending from the EU.
This means higher efficiency in both the products and where that product will be sourced.
If the smaller EU countries had to buy let's say the double the amount of fighters than the F-35 bought that capital investment would start justifying programs that benefit the national industry, in place of buying off-the shelf.
Not only, an increase in military power ask also a more efficient use of that power.
That means foreign political policies in the style of France, and not a sleeping armed forces as we got right now.
The moment we start spending we will ask for a return on that investment, and thus we would increase our world intervention level.
Is what the US wants? A stronger EU that starts acting like a power pole and that buys less American defense products?
A stronger Euro? Because currency goes with power (let's think of the pound and British empire).
Nah it is way more beneficial for the US to stay in Europe and for Europeans politicians to have the US umbrella that allows them to not play real politik and just play the victim of what's happening on the global stage (just think of Syria and refugees crisis or Libya chaos).
Japan has the newest aircraft, I think, & certainly the one with best availability of spares. Its replacement could be driven by obsolescence of the radar.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The French and Saudi's are going to find it increasingly difficult to operate the 707. They are over 30yo and the youngest 707s still flying.
Indeed. The 707 was no longer in production when the Japanese ordered the 767. They've been flying since the 1990s, I think.
The French aircraft were ordered at the same time as the RAF's. I think they & the Saudi ones have CFM56 engines, giving them longer range/more time on station than the older USAF & NATO fleets, & engine spares should be readily available from commercial sources, but apart from that yes, they must be getting harder to support.
The French aircraft were ordered at the same time as the RAF's. I think they & the Saudi ones have CFM56 engines, giving them longer range/more time on station than the older USAF & NATO fleets, & engine spares should be readily available from commercial sources, but apart from that yes, they must be getting harder to support.
The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is sending ships to increase protection of infrastructure in the Baltic Sea:
Joint statement by Joint Expeditionary Force ministers, November 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
JEF consists of Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and is led by the UK.
This is the first time a JRO (Joint Response Option) has been triggered, and therefore makes it a notable event. Most likely one of the reasons for this happening now is that a Hong Kong-flagged ship damaged gas pipelines and communication cables in October. JEF sending ships to increase protection of Baltic Sea undersea infrastructure | News | ERR
Joint statement by Joint Expeditionary Force ministers, November 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
JEF consists of Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and is led by the UK.
This is the first time a JRO (Joint Response Option) has been triggered, and therefore makes it a notable event. Most likely one of the reasons for this happening now is that a Hong Kong-flagged ship damaged gas pipelines and communication cables in October. JEF sending ships to increase protection of Baltic Sea undersea infrastructure | News | ERR
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Turkish parliament has approved Sweden’s entry into NATO. Sultan Erdogan will ok it when the US approves the F-16 upgrade. The real potential roadblock is Hungary’s Victor Orban. Erdogan and Turkey leaving NATO, not great, Orban and Hungary, perhaps a positive as long as Hungarians think Orban is their future.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Absolutely agree and let’s face it, Hungary with Orban leaving NATO, probably a positive.
Danish analyst agrees with those that we might see a war between Russia and NATO within 5 years -- he explains in this short video why he thinks so, and how it might play out: NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen? (youtube.com)
I think he is right -- Russia would need to make sure NATO falls apart before they try to annex e.g., the Baltics, and he describes one way they could try do that. I think he is wrong about attacking Finland being a way for Russia to challenge article 5 though. The Finnish armed forces are quite strong, and will become even stronger in the near future. (for those that cannot access twitter: Thread by @minna_alander on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App )
I can think of other, easier targets for Russia than Finland...
In any case, Russia would have to wait for the right time to attack -- for instance when the US is busy fighting wars in the ME and SEA, and/or when the US has an anti-NATO president (e.g., Trump).
All the hybrid war attacks, and disinformation campaigns against NATO and NATO members should also been seen in light of this. Russia will of course aim to weaken NATO as much as possible before they openly challenge article 5.
I think he is right -- Russia would need to make sure NATO falls apart before they try to annex e.g., the Baltics, and he describes one way they could try do that. I think he is wrong about attacking Finland being a way for Russia to challenge article 5 though. The Finnish armed forces are quite strong, and will become even stronger in the near future. (for those that cannot access twitter: Thread by @minna_alander on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App )
I can think of other, easier targets for Russia than Finland...
In any case, Russia would have to wait for the right time to attack -- for instance when the US is busy fighting wars in the ME and SEA, and/or when the US has an anti-NATO president (e.g., Trump).
All the hybrid war attacks, and disinformation campaigns against NATO and NATO members should also been seen in light of this. Russia will of course aim to weaken NATO as much as possible before they openly challenge article 5.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Russia’s only real opportunity for any action against NATO is when and if China invades Taiwan. Either event might trigger a nuclear exchange but both events together, 99% likely. For this.reason China would instruct Russia not to try anything until afterwards. Putin is Xi’s bitch and he will have to obey.
d-ron84
Member
Comments such as these will merely empower a psychopath like Putin. Trump's risky manoeuvres on the global platform, aimed at securing votes domestically, is playing a perilous game
Trump advisor proposes tiered system for NATO countries -- he says those that don't pay up should lose protection under article 5.
Exclusive: Trump adviser proposes new tiered system for NATO members who don't pay up | Reuters
I think this would be a mistake -- on the other hand I think it's depressing and concerning to see that in spite of Russia's aggressions the last few years, and in spite of unrest other places, many European countries are still dragging their feet when it comes to investing in defense. It will take years to re-build just a fraction of the capabilities that were lost after the cold war ended. Europe (and Canada!) don't have the luxury to "wait and see" how things develop. Not anymore.
Things are slowly moving in the right direction though: 18 NATO countries are on track to reach the minimum 2% target, a six-fold increase from 2014.
More than half of NATO countries hit defense spending target – POLITICO
I am ashamed to report that Norway, one of the richest countries on the planet, is still not reaching the target. However there is finally more focus on this in Norwegian media (took some time!) and I am hoping we will see a significant increase in investment in defense in Norway during 2024. Finland already has a very solid defense force, Sweden is rapidly ramping up. Norway is the weak link on the Scandinavian peninsula right now. Hopefully this will be addressed with some urgency!
Exclusive: Trump adviser proposes new tiered system for NATO members who don't pay up | Reuters
I think this would be a mistake -- on the other hand I think it's depressing and concerning to see that in spite of Russia's aggressions the last few years, and in spite of unrest other places, many European countries are still dragging their feet when it comes to investing in defense. It will take years to re-build just a fraction of the capabilities that were lost after the cold war ended. Europe (and Canada!) don't have the luxury to "wait and see" how things develop. Not anymore.
Things are slowly moving in the right direction though: 18 NATO countries are on track to reach the minimum 2% target, a six-fold increase from 2014.
More than half of NATO countries hit defense spending target – POLITICO
I am ashamed to report that Norway, one of the richest countries on the planet, is still not reaching the target. However there is finally more focus on this in Norwegian media (took some time!) and I am hoping we will see a significant increase in investment in defense in Norway during 2024. Finland already has a very solid defense force, Sweden is rapidly ramping up. Norway is the weak link on the Scandinavian peninsula right now. Hopefully this will be addressed with some urgency!
Finally!
Hungary's parliament clears path for Sweden's Nato membership - BBC News
They are not NATO members quite yet -- the Hungarian president needs to sign off on this, and then a formal invitation will be sent to Sweden from NATO. This process will take a few days.
This is extremely important also for Ukraine -- Sweden will be much more willing to send more equipment to Ukraine. In particular Gripen fighter jets can soon be on the table, to supplement the small number of F-16s that is expected to start flying in Ukraine either this spring or this summer. The opposition parties in Sweden already started to push for Gripen shipment to Ukraine, post NATO membership: Trycket ökar om Jas till Ukraina (aftonbladet.se)
Hungary's parliament clears path for Sweden's Nato membership - BBC News
They are not NATO members quite yet -- the Hungarian president needs to sign off on this, and then a formal invitation will be sent to Sweden from NATO. This process will take a few days.
This is extremely important also for Ukraine -- Sweden will be much more willing to send more equipment to Ukraine. In particular Gripen fighter jets can soon be on the table, to supplement the small number of F-16s that is expected to start flying in Ukraine either this spring or this summer. The opposition parties in Sweden already started to push for Gripen shipment to Ukraine, post NATO membership: Trycket ökar om Jas till Ukraina (aftonbladet.se)
Hungary's new president has finally signed the approval papers for Sweden to become NATOs 32nd member. Hungary's new president finally signs Sweden Nato approval (thelocal.se)
Sweden is expected to formally become NATO member later this week. Swedish Leader Heads to Washington With NATO Entry Imminent (yahoo.com)
In other news, Sweden is co-hosting the NATO exercise Nordic Response, taking place in Norway, Sweden and Finland. 20,000 soldiers, 100 aircraft and 50 sea vessels from 13 countries participate. Allied Air Command | Allies prepare for collective defence exercise in Nordic environment (nato.int)
Sweden is expected to formally become NATO member later this week. Swedish Leader Heads to Washington With NATO Entry Imminent (yahoo.com)
In other news, Sweden is co-hosting the NATO exercise Nordic Response, taking place in Norway, Sweden and Finland. 20,000 soldiers, 100 aircraft and 50 sea vessels from 13 countries participate. Allied Air Command | Allies prepare for collective defence exercise in Nordic environment (nato.int)
While I understand the sentiment, I think this is absolutely not true. I want to point out that many NATO members were pretty unhappy with "sultan" Erdogan a few years ago. The reality is that Orban isn't going to be around forever, and countries exiting NATO could set an ugly precedent for other political figures. We now have Slovakia and Hungary actively making noises against continued support for the war effort in Ukraine, and we have opposition parties in several NATO member states making similar claims. What happens if any of them win elections? Certainly the example of Hungary exiting NATO would embolden them. And you would be delusional if you didn't realize champagne corks would be popping in the Kremlin the day the first NATO member exits the alliance because of disagreements over politics. I think the direction other NATO member states have taken with regards to Erdogan, and now with regards to Orban, show much more wisdom and intelligence in their approach then to merely expel them from NATO. Trust me, Russia would love to see NATO fracturing across areas near Russia.
Well many NATO members are still very unhappy with Erdogan... Still, the threshold for kicking out a NATO member is pretty high. Turkey has been moving in the "wrong" direction for quite some time, and not just due to Erdogan. Let's wait and see if they continue to move in the wrong direction or if they will adjust course. If they keep "moving away" from NATO objectives in the end there will be a breaking point. I hope it will not happen.
Hopefully the situation with Hungary is more Orban-specific and not linked to a general trend in the Hungarian society.
Ironically the main concern in many European countries right now is neither Turkey nor Hungary, but the US... if Trump becomes president, it could pose a huge risk to NATO. He has signaled more than once that he intends to significantly weaken NATO. Hopefully this will not happen. Russia would celebrate and both Europe and the US would lose. Also, China may become much bolder if (mainland) US is not protected by article 5.
I think it's more complex then that. A country like Turkey brings a lot to the table in terms of control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, in terms of their own domestic defense industry, and in terms of their position on the war in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, etc. Remember even a fairly friendly to the US country like Egypt got caught selling munitions to Russia during the current war. How much easier would it be for a country like Turkey, especially given their connections with Azerbaijan? Having Turkey in NATO and somewhat tied to the collective west even if they make some moves the rest of the group is not happy with is much better then having them float around as a free agent.
It's hard to say. I've come across Hungarians who say exactly this, but I've come across Hungarians who completely support him. I suspect Orban is a populist, meaning he is able to tap into some section of society for a fairly broad base of public support.
There's nothing ironic about that. The EU and the US have objectively different interests. What's ironic is that Russia stupidly brought two closer then they have been in a long time through aggressive behavior. Germany acted quite against their own economic interests because they were so unhappy with Russia. Russia's best move was to continue to build trade relations and economic integration with Europe while competing with the US in far away regions (Middle East, Africa, Latin America). There's no way you could get an EU consensus on wide sanctions against Russia over support for Venezuela, or over kicking the French out of parts of Africa. And the gains would have been much more significant for Russia.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I want to add that:
1. Removing or admitting a nation to NATO is a long process, not a switch. And that is preceded by a perhaps even longer process of getting a consensus on the issue. This makes it prone to exploitation. So "flipping the switch" every time a country has a change of government is not a viable strategy.
2. Constant removal and admission of a nation to NATO may alienate the general pro-NATO population and set a new understanding that access to NATO's support and benefits is a lot more conditional than originally planned.
1. Removing or admitting a nation to NATO is a long process, not a switch. And that is preceded by a perhaps even longer process of getting a consensus on the issue. This makes it prone to exploitation. So "flipping the switch" every time a country has a change of government is not a viable strategy.
2. Constant removal and admission of a nation to NATO may alienate the general pro-NATO population and set a new understanding that access to NATO's support and benefits is a lot more conditional than originally planned.
Yes of course it is complex and of course currently it benefits NATO to have Turkey as a member. However there are limits. We are still quite a bit away from those limits, no doubt about. The benefits outweigh the costs.
It's hard to say. I've come across Hungarians who say exactly this, but I've come across Hungarians who completely support him. I suspect Orban is a populist, meaning he is able to tap into some section of society for a fairly broad base of public support.
I disagree I find it ironic. The US was one of the founding members, has been the undisputed leader of NATO since it started, is the only country that has actually triggered article 5. Also I disagree that the US would leave NATO due to "the EU and US have objectively different interests" (which also somewhat contradicts the point you made in the previous paragraph about Turkey.) Most people who who study foreign policy would say that the US benefits tremendously from having NATO, and could benefit even more in the future, now that Russia's aggression in Ukraine is finally motivating EU countries to take defense more seriously and start to invest. The main driver for the US leaving NATO would be Trump. Whether he does not understand how the US benefits for NATO, or if he just don't care, or if Russia has kompromat on him, or a combination, who knows. But his previous statements about NATO scared both Democrats and Republicans so much that they reached a bipartisan agreement (extremely rare these days) to implement legislation stating that the US President cannot take the US out of NATO without support from the Senate or an act of Congress. Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO | The Hill
In all the decades of the US being a NATO member this question of implementing such a legislation never came up! Until Trump became president...
However even with this legislation in place Trump can find ways around it, and potentially weaken NATO to a point where his best buddy Putin decides to e.g., go for the Baltics -- with Trump's silent blessing. Trump is purely transactional and just like he traded Kurds in Syria, he could potentially trade former European allies in a deal with Putin. Therefore Europe must step up asap, in case Trump becomes the next US president. European allies must work together and become so strong that we can deter Russia even without the US. It will be very expensive but definitely achievable, and also worth it. In my opinion.