Is NATO a military dinosaur?

[USNavySEAL3310]

I like the idea of seperating it. However, if you do so, that would just alienate the 'less active' countries and they'll cry out for reform. It'd just be easier to kick them out of the treaty for not participating at an adequate level.

Personally, I, as well as many people I know, have always considered NATO a league of nations that support each other militarily without too much political bickering... that was left to the U.N.. That's an opinion. What is a fact is that the NATO treaty is out of date and many of the nations in it are losing sight of the changing situation. There is no longer a threat of Russia invading the Eastern Bloc countries. As someone said, much of Russia's military is obsolete. They don't have the resources or the funds at the moment to improve their military. However, for some reason, Eastern Bloc countries still cling to the alliance because they still 'fear' a Russian invasion that will never come, or at least not come anywhere in the near future.

I personally think that countries that don't help in today's world in the alliance should be removed. They are using the alliance as military protection without contributing (i.e. France). They need to be told how important the alliance is and how important it is that the members support one another all the time, even if it doesn't satify all of that nations' needs. It's a treaty. They should respect that.

As for why NATO still exists even though the threat of the USSR is gone? The alliance is still nice to have today. Even though the war with the Soviets was over for years, a new threat came up on 9-11-01 in the U.S.. A day later, NATO members met and agreed support the U.S.. Most, that is. There were still those countries that used the excuse for protecting their eastern borders from the Russians to not send forces to help the U.S. in the Middle East.

Bottom line: there are several countries that don't participate as much as they should and they should be asked to do something about it or leave the alliance. That is why NATO isn't performing to the best of its abilities. And those parts of the treaty that refer to the Soviet invasion in the east should be changed to any new threat that arises for any of NATO's members.

 

[Waylander]

Which are these countries and what are they doing or not doing?

Except for direct conventional attacks on one of the members NATO missions will always be a political compromise.

 

[.pt]

Why separate it and why not reform it and its objectives.
True, NATO founding objective, that of being a military alliance against SU and its Warsaw pact satellites, is now pointless, but it still remains a military alliance for western countries, with little controversy.
Also don´t forget NATO is not only a pure military alliance, but also a political one, in a sense, hence French, and other nations membership. These countries might not always agree in foreign policy issues around the world,leaving those diplomatic confrontations to the UN, as USnavyseal noted, but they share a common interest in their security, specially in Europe, the preferred would be battleground for WWIII, in cold war days, and in a similar way, today, altough the threats are different.
As for different efforts in some cases, one must note that sometimes this would be a matter not only of political will, but of military capabilities of each country. also some countries contribute not only with fighting units, but with suport units, logistical suport and access to airspace, ground, and naval bases, etc. etc. Wich are also very wortwhile contributions, i think.
Of course the countries that suplied the bulk of weapon systems and units are the ones with more weight in decision process inside the alliance, as it should be. If US reduces its effort significantly, it must also realize that this will lead to an inevitable loss of decision power within the alliance, as it is normal, in these cases. It ´s a question of priorities.
As for mutual suport all the time, that would be outside the scope of the treaty. Its a compromise only in the case of a signing nation being attacked by another non member nation, this to be understood in the case of a conventional or WMD attack. at the time the treaty was drafted they didn´t think terroprism would be such a problem, in the form it exists today, but this could be changed, reforming the alliance.
Also, US must not confound this, with a blank check, signed and endorsed by NATO menbers, as to entering other conflicts, in the pursuit of its national foreign policy...
.pt

 

[Waylander]

Many members here said it already before and I really like the idea.

Why not invite Japan, Australia and NZ.
I think it is time for a global NATO (Maybe with another name ).

 

[LancerMc]

It would be a good idea especially for the war on terrorism since organizations like SEATO (Does it still exist?) and NATO merge to fight terrorist groups. I would think such a group would be better able to respond to natural disasters like the ones that have hit Thailand and Pakistan in recent years.

 

[Ths]

I'm a bit disturbed to see the lack of long time perspective on Russia. I'm perfectly on line with Waylander.

This may be due to the fact that Europe has experienced war on our soil much to much for comfort.
If we are talking alliances we are talking long term commitment. We want Russia to remain unable to threatned it neighbours, we want Russia to stop putting submarines to sea with ICBM's (to mention one thorn in the US side). All this is patient long term work.
The constant referrals to the Russian strength at the moment is all right; but the potential is far more important. May I point out that there is a mutual defence treaty between England and Portugal from the 14'th century that is still occationally invoked.

In this discussion we have to observe on which level we are debating:
Grand strategy
Strategy
operational
Tactical
Mechanical

Nothing wrong with each level - and we don't have to be on the same page; but it is a distinct advantage if we are referring to the same volume.

 

[Big-E]

We want Russia to remain unable to threatned it neighbours, we want Russia to stop putting submarines to sea with ICBM's (to mention one thorn in the US side). All this is patient long term work.
The constant referrals to the Russian strength at the moment is all right; but the potential is far more important.

I suggest you look at the issue of Russian disarmament another way. We want Russia to stop putting SLBMs in the water but they waste billions on Bulava. When the US and EU pay billions for them to scrap their rusting radiation disaster that they couldn't afford they go and spend that money on new SSBNs. We are paying for the Russians to rearm their strategic nuclear option. If we let them continue to try and maintain it without helping them decom obsolete units then they will truly become impotent. Stop helping them and there military will be useless.

 

[Ths]

There is something to be said for Big E's argument - and it might be a lever in some negotiation. The only problem up to now is that the Russian could with some justification claim that they are not arming them with SLBM - in so far as they seem to have problems getting the damned things working.

 

[eckherl]

There is something to be said for Big E's argument - and it might be a lever in some negotiation. The only problem up to now is that the Russian could with some justification claim that they are not arming them with SLBM - in so far as they seem to have problems getting the damned things working.

But do you really think that Western Europe will try really hard to use any leverage against Russia at this point.

Maybe there has been to much hype in the U.S media, but we are seeing it becoming a issue as to where Western Europe is appeasing the Russians so that you can get a good increase in supply of oil and natural gas. If this is not the case then tell me, but if it is then everyone is going to turn a blind eye to what is really going on.

Mr Putin is old school, in the near future Western Europe will have issues with Russia, I just hope that Europe doesn`t become to complacent, because then everyone will be looking at us for help again and we will carry the brunt of it. Cost/Material/Lives.

It`s amazing how history keeps repeating itself over there.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

Though Putin is, as someone said, old school and he once worked Russian intelligence, I think Russia could become a good ally in NATO. I think, if they are given some guidance, they can come out of the semi-depression they are in, straighten themselves out, and upgrade their military to a suitable level, or one that is suitable for the largest country on Earth. Unfortunately, they still have internal political and social problems that other countries just can't help. That's for them to come out of on their own.

However, having that said, I think NATO needs to be more picky in who is accepted into NATO. If there is no conflict, then there is no need to fight. But if war does break out like now in the Middle East against terrorists, all of NATO should step in. As I said, that is the point of the alliance. Nations that don't react to anything that takes place in the alliance should be removed or at least have a lesser say in NATO planning. Put bluntly, they are not as important as those countries that put in the effort.

 

[.pt]

THS you are right, that was the treaty of Windsor signed in 1386, wich is still valid today (lol) and is proclaimed to be the longest treaty between two European Nations, altough, troughout the centurys, it was "activated " or lay dormant as per the signing nations convenience.... we have a long history with the Brits.
As for Russia entering NATO that simply is not possible with Mr. Putin in power, who, as has already been said is old school, and would like mother Russia empire to return, and that will always conflict with other European nations interests.
Perhaps in 20 or 30 years time, with a more democratic rule (as per western standards) Russia might find it more in line with its security concerns to join NATO, or a similar organization.
For now nobody is pushing Russia because of oil and natural gas suplies to Western Europe, but the "belt" of countries surrounding is now leaning more towards European Union side and NATO as well. That puts Russia with (in Russian eyes only..) a potential threat on that flank, why do you think Ukraine is being treated the way it is? It´s not only money..
USnavyseal, that that you think should happen, is already a reality in NATO.
The countries that put more effort into it, money, troops and assets, are the ones with more influence in the Political and military decisions of the alliance, with US leading, because it ´s the main contributor. Logically, if US decides to reduce that effort, then it loses influence. But it´s a option Washington has.
Some countries may not contribute much to the alliance materially, but their menbership can still be very valid because of access to territories and military bases/facilities, suplying logistical suport, or simply because of the POLITICAL and military message that their menbership transmits to third parties..
As for the money given by US and EU to Russian disarmment, specially WMD, it served a good purpose in its time, and perhaps it still does, in stoping those WMD and relted materials and technologies from falling into the wrong hands...as well as destroying them, to a more manageable level, both for the paying countries, as well as the Russian themselves. If that affects , positively the Russian military disposition, it´s a lesser evil and a price we have to pay to get rid of some of those things, and stoping dissemination.
Nowadays the level of aid for such purposes is already down, perhaps it should be less or completely stoped, ok. But in due time, it was a good decision.
Uff that was a long post..back to my Vodka orange.
.pt

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

I agree with Russia and Putin. I'm not saying that they have to join NATO but if they want to become a world partner in any way, they have to begin working on their economic internal problems. Again, with Putin in power, it is doubtful. He's trying to work Russia like Soviet leaders (i.e. Khrushchev) did. It didn't work. Communism in Russian society doesn't work and it doesn't get any results. Anyway, Russia's another story.

If it's true that those that participate most are in charge in NATO then good. I wasn't aware that it was tipped like that in reality. As I said before, the members that commit the most should have more of a say in the alliance's decision making and political and military strategies than those that don't as much. It's very good that the less powerful and influential nations allow other Allies to use their bases and supplies. That's what I think they should all do. However, I don't think every NATO nation is doing it at the moment.

 

[Big-E]

For now nobody is pushing Russia because of oil and natural gas suplies to Western Europe, but the "belt" of countries surrounding is now leaning more towards European Union side and NATO as well. That puts Russia with (in Russian eyes only..) a potential threat on that flank, why do you think Ukraine is being treated the way it is? It´s not only money..

Ukraine is being treated that way because they STEAL! When Gazprom refused to return their gas rates back to Soviet days they stole the gas from the European pipes that traverse their country. If you steal my gas I hope yours gets turned off to. :lul

 

[Waylander]

@USNavySEAL3310
Speak freely. Which are the countries which are not doing enough for NATO?

I see it that way that the US still have a huge influence and are the leaders in NATO which I think is right and ok because of their contribution to the alliance.

And the war the US and their coalition of the willing is fighting in Iraq is the war you are thinking about when speaking about wars in the ME than I have to say that this operation is not near to be a NATO operation and a have to for the members.

If you are talking about A-stan and other OEF operations than I agree with you that some countries might not do enough or do the right things. But I also have to say that some of the OEF operations are a little bit useless and ridicilous and many countries do what they can and what they are able to justify in front of their people.

And I agree that it for example was a shame that the major european nations were not able to clean their own backyard without the help of the US during the Kosovo campaign.

 

[.pt]

BIG E,

Ok if they stealed it. Not arguing with that, but the timing..shortly after having elected a pro-westerner president..its funny, to say the least. Also they are still locked in internal politics, having a president leaning one way, and a prime minister leading the other way.
Anyway, ukraine was cozy to Russian interests in the previous presidency, and now that it isn´t the case they interfer in any way they can. Don´t forget that Ukraine and Poland were "buffer" states to Russia.
Waylander, that was our most disgraceful moment, for all UE nations.
Having to have a friendly nation force evidence into our eyes and force action, to stop genocide in our doorstep is the best proof that UE is fine as a economical union, but in the political front still needs a lot of work.
Our shame indeed.
.pt

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

France for one is not contributing militarily to the Middle East conflict. Though they have had good relations and trade agreements with some of the terrorists the coalition is dealing with now, they continue to give political reasons for not aiding their NATO ally, the U.S..

Greece, Hungary, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, and the Baltic states to name some of the countries that don't contribute to the ME conflict at all or in any significant way. I excluded those that joined the treaty announcing that they did not and may never have a military that would fight overseas (i.e. I think the Netherlands and Iceland).

I think Turkey lets NATO forces use its bases and Germany has launched some air raids. Little acts like that are good. I'm not saying all NATO countries should commit their entire military but they should send something. The main countries in NATO that have done the fighting are the U.S., the U.K., and Canada.

Others may think that not every NATO nation is obliged to help in any conflict that involves a NATO country but I do.

 

[Ths]

eckherl:

You have a point: The EU has a lousy track record. The same thing happened with the bribes paid to Arafat - if it had just been money down the drain, well ..; but it is worse.

I think you should consider the "green" agenda. There are some trying so save woodlice; but the programs that get the money are project reducing the dependence on oil.
the pipeline between Germany and Russia is clearly build to provide Russia with greater political leverage - that gas could be supplied through the existing pipelines - or by enlargeging them. Now they are putting them on the floor of the Baltic.

We are a long way from lving in eternal bliss with the Bear.

As to the military preparations. Well, I would notice that accomapaning the casket of the late empress of Russia was Rear-Admiral Wang. The top OPERATIONEL man.

 

[Waylander]

@USNavySEAL3310

I think you have a wrong picture of NATO, its members and what they are doing an not doing.

Just to name some.

France participates in OEF like others did and is part of ISAF. They are also participating in many UN missions. It is right that they are not militarily involved in the NATO structures but they made clear in the past and now that they are going to fight along NATO forces in case of an attack.

The Netherlands have a long history of oversea missions and are also part of OEF and ISAF. And cowardly is not the word I would use for their engagement in the south.

Germany also participates in OEF and ISAF with large contingents but refuses to send troops permanently into the south of A-stan (Despite special forces under OEF command). We also performed no CAS but transport, MEDEVAC and EW support.

BTW, Iceland has no armed forces despite being a NATO member.

These are just some examples and there are enough others.
Nearly every NATO country is also contributing to the "war on terror" with intelligence and police support.

I agree that there are enough problems in NATO but if you criticise them you should support your opinion with facts and look at some background infos.

I still have no idea of what NATO operations in the ME you are talking about.
Iraq is not a NATO operation.
The Lebanon is a UN mission.
There are no other operations in the middle east.

 

[Ths]

OK - Navy SEAL that was over the top!

You might be right about France and a couple of others; but Your swing at the Baltic Nations was severely uncalled for.

1. The Baltic nations gained independence after the Soviets had pretty much destroyed their country, Latvia and Estonia have huge Russian minorities, they have a nasty organised crime problem - and they are dealing with it.

2. These countries are dirt poor for European countries. They have to build their armed forces from nothing (weapons are NOT the issue). They are getting to be ok at btn level. After they joined Nato they have had to reorganise their army and general defence plan.

3. They do actually contribute to Nato mission. Their contribution is hidden in f.i. Danish units as platoons - and they getting at companies. They take the dirty jobs: When demonstrations in Kosovo tend to get nasty, Latvians are called in to do the stick work.

4. They have the Russians as immediate neighbours with constant provocations as result. They are preapring to fight in the woods with weapons greatgrandfather was trained on.
They are each creating a motorised brigade. They have foregone fighter aircraft in the relisation they can contribute much more with light infantry.

 

[USNavySEAL3310]

I was referring to Afghanistan.

I never used the word cowardly or anything of the like, I did say Iceland can't commit militarily and that's fine, I didn't say anything negative about the Netherlands (just that I thought they didn't have to send troops, my bad), and I did say Germany helped in the air with raids and I also meant logistics and air transportation.

I said most of what you said.

When you said:

It is right that they are not militarily involved in the NATO structures but they made clear in the past and now that they are going to fight along NATO forces in case of an attack.

Do you mean they'll only fight when a country is attacked on its home front?