The end of NATO and what it could potentially mean

[CaptainCrunch]

I thought that this should almost be a separate thread because the Donald Trump Thread has become a mismash of confusion. Plus this topic could really be a world defining topic.

We've seen Trump talking very publically about NATO and it hasn't exactly been flattering. He's called it obsolete. He's groused about Alliance Members not living up to their treaty obligations. And in a few ways, I don't believe he's wrong, but his timing certainly is.

Is NATO obsolete. possibly, the command structure and even the mission can be confusing. Its gone from a single focus organization based around the defense against the Eastern Bloc to a multinational anti-terrorist organization, a armed response team for the UN, and a shelter organization for weak nations under threat.

At the same time when you look at the spending requirements of 2% of GNP, only Poland, Estonia, the UK and Greece spend to the requirement. Everyone else lags far behind.

At the same time is staying in NATO really in the US interests anymore? From a military perspective, I believe that Trump does believe that no matter what happens the US will be called on and respond to international military crisis and the American removal from NATO will allow the American's to pick and choose their fights without being constrained by NATO articles. So if for example Turkey gets attacked and calls for NATO aid the American's can refuse and say its not in their best interests. the same with the Russian threats in Europe.

This can also go hand in hand with the UN, if the UN calls for NATO intervention, they would also have to ask for American aid separately, which would allow the American's to push their own agenda in the UN as a separate entity.

At the same time, if America stepped out of NATO it would allow them to restructure their alliances and pick and choose who they're going to work with and what the conditions will be in terms of allying with a super power.

You might see the forced renegotiation of NORAD for example, where the Americans basically tell Canada to start spending money or else the US will take core responsibility for aero defense of North America and Canada will have no say.

You could see a specific Northern Atlantic Alliance with the UK and Germany and the US for example.

Or you could see NATO without the US and America being asked to intervene or supply men, equipment and logistics.

I tend to think that even the staunchest trump Allies in the US wouldn't be on board with a move that would dissolve NATO and probably give an open hand to Russia in Europe and the Middle East.

However if this is merely a move for Trump to force a renegotiation of NATO and a redefinition of leadership and rules in NATO then its not exactly a terrible move. Its just heavy handed and threat heavy.

The timing of it is pretty terrible though especially with a resurgent Russian Military. The panic in Poland would be fairly large if America decided to blackmail a renegotiation of NATO based around the removal of forces from Poland.

I do believe that NATO needs to be re-defined as the two biggest problems sorry three biggest problems are mission creep and a confusing mandate. Allies that are doing too much coat tail riding in terms of defense spending, and a poor command structure.

I also believe that Trump believes that if he does do something like pulling out of NATO he can save money in terms of bringing his forces home and redefining his Forces Structures and Rules of Engagement.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

...I also believe that Trump believes that if he does do something like pulling out of NATO he can save money in terms of bringing his forces home and redefining his Forces Structures and Rules of Engagement.

I don't think he's ever pulled out of anything.

...Ill show myself out.

[Finger Cookin]

Always appreciate your comments and insight into defense and military type stuff, Captain.

[btimbit]

I certainly hope the US doesn't pull out of NATO, but members need to actually meet the spending requirement and that's a huge issue in my mind. The US has every right to ask countries like Canada to spend more when it comes to NATO and NORAD

[icecube]

If I didn't have kids and I wasn't such a coward I'd just hope and pray for a comet to hit earth and end the stupidity. We have nuclear weapons pointed at each other, we are destroying the planet by every possible measure.. It's past time to evolve beyond killing each other. It's time to learn how to share and cooperate. Human beings are so ####ing stupid.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the same time when you look at the spending requirements of 2% of GNP, only Poland, Estonia, the UK and Greece spend to the requirement. Everyone else lags far behind.

You left out another country, the one that pays most of the bills:

The US.

Source: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl20...016-11-eng.pdf

(see graph 5)

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by icecube

If I didn't have kids and I wasn't such a coward I'd just hope and pray for a comet to hit earth and end the stupidity. We have nuclear weapons pointed at each other, we are destroying the planet by every possible measure.. It's past time to evolve beyond killing each other. It's time to learn how to share and cooperate. Human beings are so ####ing stupid.

Quoted for truth.

"You stole our piece of land that is the size of a football field that my ancestors lived on 10,000 years ago! And you angered my god! Now we are mortal enemies and one of us has to DIE!"

Basically every human quarrel involving nations and borders.

[FlameOn]

If I were any of the Baltic states (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania), I would be in a serious panic right now. NATO being dissolved and a massively weakened EU is only going to encourage Russia to extend further Russian interference and eventual bullying of those States.

The Trump administration is a disaster for Western alliances and foreign policy right now and it is just insane how well Putin managed to pull all the strings behind the scenes. If you noticed the timelines for some of these things it's stupid how well they all lined up.

-EU/NATO crosses Russian "Red Line" in Ukraine. Russia deems in unacceptable that an EU controlled/friendly government right on it's border. EU topples Russian puppet regime and Putin responses with invasion
-EU/NATO responses with sanctions that extremely limit the Russian economy and it's ability to wage conventional warfare.
-Russia no longer has the resources to continue conventional arms conflict in full force so shifts it's focus to proxy warfare in Ukraine and EU. Aims to break up the EU
-Far right parties all across Europe get huge amounts of funds, including UKIP in England, Front Nationale in France, that French intelligence ties back to Russian central banks. Xenophobes and their message get spread enmasse
-Migrant crisis takes over in Europe because of a flood of refugees in Syria, which of course Russia is fighting in, plays right into all of the right wing nutjob parties
-Migrants go on a coordinated groping/rape fest in Germany on NYE that Germany investigates and ties back to the Kremlin
-Brexit happens after a campaign of xenophobic "get immigrants out" and "UK is better off without EU". Lines parroted by Farage Johnson, claims that were debunked within a couple of days of them being made.
-Trump is vehemently anti-Russian prior to the hiring of Paul Manafort, who previously worked on Russia's behest to install a Pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Trump does a complete 180 after Manafort's hiring, GOP eventually fall in line and removes arming Ukraine against from their policies.
-A day after the GOP falls in line, Wikileaks gets a huge cache of documents taken directly from the DNC.
-Trump elected over Hillary

To me this timeline points much more to a campaign of political manipulation on Russia's behalf. NATO, if it still exists after Trump becomes president, and other Western powers need to refocus much more to the changing needs of the war being fought. NATO still needs to exist to counter conventional threats, but can it given complete route Putin has pulled off on the political front? How can NATO continue to exist without the political will to back up it up?

[FlamesAddiction]

The end of NATO would mean that essentially the Russians won the Cold War after all.

I think the following things could easily happen:

- Russia continues to militarize and claims sovereignty over areas inhabited by ethnic Russians, as well claim most of the Arctic as their exclusive economic zone. I wouldn't be surprised to even see them routinely challenge Canada's sovereignty on sea and land.

- Russian ally and supporter (some say "little brother") Serbia which has in the past used similar expansion, colonialism and the "buffer" notion of having "satellite countries" to control, could likely draw on their support to re-ignite conflicts in the Balkans.

- A more militarized Germany and France to balance out Russian increasing power. Look for smaller countries to tag along with them.

- The formation of tangled webs of defense alliances (sometimes even secret) like we saw in the early 20th century. For better or worse, having NATO as a catch-all alliance for Western nations makes it easier for transparency.

[CaptainYooh]

NATO has become dangerously big and practically unopposed by anyone other than Russia. This is unbalanced and not good for the world peace, in general. Chances of NATO being put in a position to act, when most of its bigger members would rather not, are very high. NATO expansion into the former Eastern block countries made it ripe for military conflict with Russia at some point somewhere. This is not good at all. Some of the countries adjacent to Russia (either former Soviet republics or allies) may want to force NATO to defend their territorial claims that are historic/complicated in nature and should not be resolved in a military way but through difficult negotiations. So, yeah, I kinda agree, NATO is no longer the best vehicle for maintaining military balance of power.

[FlamesAddiction]

Although last week, it looks like Obama stationed a bunch of America NATO personnel in Poland. I imagine Trump will ship them out anyway though.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I thought that this should almost be a separate thread because the Donald Trump Thread has become a mismash of confusion. Plus this topic could really be a world defining topic.

We've seen Trump talking very publically about NATO and it hasn't exactly been flattering. He's called it obsolete. He's groused about Alliance Members not living up to their treaty obligations. And in a few ways, I don't believe he's wrong, but his timing certainly is.

Is NATO obsolete. possibly, the command structure and even the mission can be confusing. Its gone from a single focus organization based around the defense against the Eastern Bloc to a multinational anti-terrorist organization, a armed response team for the UN, and a shelter organization for weak nations under threat.

At the same time when you look at the spending requirements of 2% of GNP, only Poland, Estonia, the UK and Greece spend to the requirement. Everyone else lags far behind.

At the same time is staying in NATO really in the US interests anymore? From a military perspective, I believe that Trump does believe that no matter what happens the US will be called on and respond to international military crisis and the American removal from NATO will allow the American's to pick and choose their fights without being constrained by NATO articles. So if for example Turkey gets attacked and calls for NATO aid the American's can refuse and say its not in their best interests. the same with the Russian threats in Europe.

This can also go hand in hand with the UN, if the UN calls for NATO intervention, they would also have to ask for American aid separately, which would allow the American's to push their own agenda in the UN as a separate entity.

At the same time, if America stepped out of NATO it would allow them to restructure their alliances and pick and choose who they're going to work with and what the conditions will be in terms of allying with a super power.

You might see the forced renegotiation of NORAD for example, where the Americans basically tell Canada to start spending money or else the US will take core responsibility for aero defense of North America and Canada will have no say.

You could see a specific Northern Atlantic Alliance with the UK and Germany and the US for example.

Or you could see NATO without the US and America being asked to intervene or supply men, equipment and logistics.

I tend to think that even the staunchest trump Allies in the US wouldn't be on board with a move that would dissolve NATO and probably give an open hand to Russia in Europe and the Middle East.

However if this is merely a move for Trump to force a renegotiation of NATO and a redefinition of leadership and rules in NATO then its not exactly a terrible move. Its just heavy handed and threat heavy.

The timing of it is pretty terrible though especially with a resurgent Russian Military. The panic in Poland would be fairly large if America decided to blackmail a renegotiation of NATO based around the removal of forces from Poland.

I do believe that NATO needs to be re-defined as the two biggest problems sorry three biggest problems are mission creep and a confusing mandate. Allies that are doing too much coat tail riding in terms of defense spending, and a poor command structure.

I also believe that Trump believes that if he does do something like pulling out of NATO he can save money in terms of bringing his forces home and redefining his Forces Structures and Rules of Engagement.

I could certainly see this one happening.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The end of NATO would mean that essentially the Russians won the Cold War after all.

This is actually fairly stereotypically Russian, winning the war through sheer attrition.

[GP_Matt]

Does a weakening of NATO lead to a resurgence of nuclear weapons?

I can see a few countries or even a new alliance of small countries that form a retaliation pact. They all control a few nukes and launch them at any country that attacks anyone in their group. It is probably a lot cheaper than having a standing defense force and how else could a country like Ukraine defend against a border attack or annexation from Russia?

[CaptainCrunch]

I can still remember looking at the Fulda Gap back in the 80's which was theorized to be the main axis of a Soviet Tank attack when (notice I said when) World War 3 kicked off.

Basically the Soviets had stationed 4 armies and massive amounts of tanks and artillery and attack helicopters on the East German side of the twin paths. Nato had 3 or 4 armored divisions plus infantry and arty on the other side.

It was theorized that this would be the main path of attack for the Soviets as a few thousand tanks would thunder through the gap behind a wall of artillary or at worst several tactical battlefield nukes. If the Soviet attack succeeded and it ripped a hole in the NATO lines, the Russians had another army group as their OMG that would pour through the lines and rip up the American logistics areas and reserves.

This was still at a time where all NATO powers were nuclear armed including Canada.

But at the time, without NATO, the Russians' probably would have pushed forward for serious land concessions and annexation like they're trying to attempt now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Does a weakening of NATO lead to a resurgence of nuclear weapons?

I can see a few countries or even a new alliance of small countries that form a retaliation pact. They all control a few nukes and launch them at any country that attacks anyone in their group. It is probably a lot cheaper than having a standing defense force and how else could a country like Ukraine defend against a border attack or annexation from Russia?

Probably. It could lead to a situation where we see an uprise in terms of tactical nuclear weapons that can be deployed on the battlefield very quickly and fired from conventional artillery.

I doubt though that we would see these smaller countries moving into the Strategic Nuclear warfare club.

I also believe that if America left NATO and the European countries decided to stick with protecting countries like Poland etc, that the European nations would have to think about using a nuclear counterforce against the Russian Military. Frankly the Forces correlation and supply and ability to use air power in mass heavily favors the Russians if the American's step away.

As a addon. Nuclear weapons are not really all that usefull against Military formations because the battlefield changes faster then you can position and fire a nuke. However the best use of battlefield nukes would be against logistical lines like train tracks and roads. Against stationary targets like logistical centers, repair centers and fuel resupply areas and airfields. You would also want to take out the heavier bridges and bridging units.

To be very honest the more effect weapon would be the use of chemical weapons, while not effective against tanks and armored vehicles it does reduce fighting effectiveness and the more persistent agents can play havoc with logistics.

[CliffFletcher]

We take for granted what an enormous achievement keeping Germany, France, the UK, and the U.S. together in a military alliance has been. It's a cornerstone of global peace and security. Loosen the bonds of NATO and we could see:

* Resurgent nationalism in European countries lead to a militarisation of the continent in a climate of distrust and shifting alliances. Last time that happened, it only lead to 80 million deaths.

* Emboldened Russia picking off neighbours and meddling in the politics of the rest of Europe to suit its own interests of keeping the West divided and fostering ultra-nationalism internally.

* An isolationist U.S. leaving problems in Europe to fester and grow until it has to intervene in a much worse situation than it if had stayed engaged. Again, see WW1 and WW2.

NATO has some issues, but the alternatives are much worse. People who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We take for granted what an enormous achievement keeping Germany, France, the UK, and the U.S. together in a military alliance has been. It's a cornerstone of global peace and security. Loosen the bonds of NATO and we could see:

* Resurgent nationalism in European countries lead to a militarisation of the continent in a climate of distrust and shifting alliances. Last time that happened, it only lead to 80 million deaths.

* Emboldened Russia picking off neighbours and meddling in the politics of the rest of Europe to suit its own interests of keeping the West divided and fostering ultra-nationalism internally.

* An isolationist U.S. leaving problems in Europe to fester and grow until it has to intervene in a much worse situation than it if had stayed engaged. Again, see WW1 and WW2.

NATO has some issues, but the alternatives are much worse. People who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

It's very interesting. All of those things seem to be happening already..

Russia invaded the Ukraine. Nationalism is certainly on the rise in Europe, with outright fascist and racist parties winning sizeable amounts of popular vote. The US is sick of being portrayed as the constant bad guy and is certainly pushing towards isolationism. These changes are happening slowly right now. It's hard to tell if Nato's current woes are a symptom of this or perhaps they could be the nail in the coffin that pushes all of this forward.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's very interesting. All of those things seem to be happening already..

Without NATO, they would be worse. Much worse.

[Bagor]

You might see the forced renegotiation of NORAD for example, where the Americans basically tell Canada to start spending money or else the US will take core responsibility for aero defense of North America and Canada will have no say.

I don't think they can do that.
What are they going to do. Place outposts, early warning systems or whatever on Canadian territory without permission?