Do we need to re-think NATO?
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
You can't always look at it in mere terms of money. We have some allies that are worth us covering. Some however ave been taking advantage way too long with no return at all in the way of diplomatic support.
In 1998 I was part of a group of Americans invited to do a multi-day get-to-know-us at the EU in Brussels, part of which included meeting a NATO official (who happened to be French, heh heh heh). The whole thing was nothing important at all, but it was also more than a tour. We as a group of about 15 or so had a chance to sit down with various officials and hear their pitches about the function and importance of the various EU institutions and how they related to various political futures and theories and to the U.S. We also got to ask a lot of questions.
Everything had been extremely informative and cordial until we got to the NATO official. He gave us his overview of the way the alliance worked and so forth, but maybe because he was French or whatever, but he came off as really snide about American power. (I can say that in the mid-90s we were far more popular in Europe than by 2004. This meeting was unusually testy in a time of relative love for America between the fall of the Wall and the invasion of Iraq. I went back to Belgium in about 2005 and it was a very different reception!). Somehow the meeting turned tense as we Americans started asking questions and getting answers that bothered us. Apparently, we have been by far and away the greatest contributor to NATO for a very long time (way more than most budget statistics show), and the issue wasn't so much about who paid ( there was no question America paid!) as it was about who had authority while America paid. The Frenchman thought we were too much in charge, but he was also unwilling to pay more (even a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what we pay) to get more authority. Basically this guy wanted to free-ride on us at a time when France was militantly anti-war and couldn't have stopped an invasion by Sparta. The official became very agitated and defensive, we became more perplexed, and the meeting just degenerated. Every single one of us (and we were very diverse politically) came away from that meeting feeling like the US was paying way more than our fair share. I learned that militarily we didn't need them at all, but they needed us totally. It put the issue on the table for me personally 18 years ago, and I've always thought about it since then.
A couple of thoughts. One factor is that we have been, and I think still are, by far and away the super power. I think people may not fully appreciate what this means sometimes. It's not only about nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers (although it is about that too). This is more than arms and manpower. Today it is also about "How many satellites have you launched for me lately," and what can they do? It's information and communications. It's also mobility. We were then and maybe still are the only country in the world with a fleet of cargo planes to move a whole army by air. One reason we pay much more for NATO than everyone else is because we own/control the lion's share of these physical capabilities, and don't really plan to give it up. They rent our military power when they want to do anything. If you ever hear that a military mission is being "led by France", be assured that is just political cover... it is being operated on American military satellites, as we could shut it down in 3 seconds. Maybe things have changed since 1998, but back then it didn't matter if France or Germany wanted to go it alone. Without us they couldn't have done more than invade each other without supply line problems. From the point of view of mobility and communications, they were only slightly better off than Napoleon. (This reality made the Frenchman livid. Snicker. Snicker.)
Despite Trump's annoying rhetoric, he is correct, in my opinion, that Europe should pay more to "rent" our security net. They feast on socialistic governmental redistribution while we run a trillion dollar budget. I'm not saying NATO isn't important or that we should walk away from it... but they should pay to rent our investment.
While I am pro-America in relation to the whole NATO thing, I am not for making NATO into a bogus front for Neocon hostility toward every windmill. I'm not saying Putin is a saint, but frankly it looks to me like we are provoking the Russians (and I'm no fan of Russia). When we think of NATO as an "alliance," it looks all innocent to say, "Hey, let's add Poland and Latvia and Estonia and the Ukraine to our alliance. But when we look at it as the reality of being part of the US technological hegemony (which it is), it's impossible not to see NATO's eastward reach as hostile to Russia. My opinion is that our war-hawks use NATO's diplomatic status as a "defensive alliance" to front for aggression, and that is going to bite us in the ....
Everything had been extremely informative and cordial until we got to the NATO official. He gave us his overview of the way the alliance worked and so forth, but maybe because he was French or whatever, but he came off as really snide about American power. (I can say that in the mid-90s we were far more popular in Europe than by 2004. This meeting was unusually testy in a time of relative love for America between the fall of the Wall and the invasion of Iraq. I went back to Belgium in about 2005 and it was a very different reception!). Somehow the meeting turned tense as we Americans started asking questions and getting answers that bothered us. Apparently, we have been by far and away the greatest contributor to NATO for a very long time (way more than most budget statistics show), and the issue wasn't so much about who paid ( there was no question America paid!) as it was about who had authority while America paid. The Frenchman thought we were too much in charge, but he was also unwilling to pay more (even a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what we pay) to get more authority. Basically this guy wanted to free-ride on us at a time when France was militantly anti-war and couldn't have stopped an invasion by Sparta. The official became very agitated and defensive, we became more perplexed, and the meeting just degenerated. Every single one of us (and we were very diverse politically) came away from that meeting feeling like the US was paying way more than our fair share. I learned that militarily we didn't need them at all, but they needed us totally. It put the issue on the table for me personally 18 years ago, and I've always thought about it since then.
A couple of thoughts. One factor is that we have been, and I think still are, by far and away the super power. I think people may not fully appreciate what this means sometimes. It's not only about nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers (although it is about that too). This is more than arms and manpower. Today it is also about "How many satellites have you launched for me lately," and what can they do? It's information and communications. It's also mobility. We were then and maybe still are the only country in the world with a fleet of cargo planes to move a whole army by air. One reason we pay much more for NATO than everyone else is because we own/control the lion's share of these physical capabilities, and don't really plan to give it up. They rent our military power when they want to do anything. If you ever hear that a military mission is being "led by France", be assured that is just political cover... it is being operated on American military satellites, as we could shut it down in 3 seconds. Maybe things have changed since 1998, but back then it didn't matter if France or Germany wanted to go it alone. Without us they couldn't have done more than invade each other without supply line problems. From the point of view of mobility and communications, they were only slightly better off than Napoleon. (This reality made the Frenchman livid. Snicker. Snicker.)
Despite Trump's annoying rhetoric, he is correct, in my opinion, that Europe should pay more to "rent" our security net. They feast on socialistic governmental redistribution while we run a trillion dollar budget. I'm not saying NATO isn't important or that we should walk away from it... but they should pay to rent our investment.
While I am pro-America in relation to the whole NATO thing, I am not for making NATO into a bogus front for Neocon hostility toward every windmill. I'm not saying Putin is a saint, but frankly it looks to me like we are provoking the Russians (and I'm no fan of Russia). When we think of NATO as an "alliance," it looks all innocent to say, "Hey, let's add Poland and Latvia and Estonia and the Ukraine to our alliance. But when we look at it as the reality of being part of the US technological hegemony (which it is), it's impossible not to see NATO's eastward reach as hostile to Russia. My opinion is that our war-hawks use NATO's diplomatic status as a "defensive alliance" to front for aggression, and that is going to bite us in the ....
Last edited:
Thank you for this insight. It just furthers my opinion that its time to cut the cord.
France left NATO in the mid-60s, under deGaulle, and didn't rejoin until the late 2000s, under Sarkozy. During that period, there weren't any French NATO officials that I knew of. There was some "coordination," so perhaps he was in that capacity...
You're welcome... but I'm not advocating cutting any cords.
Hm.. It's quite possible my impression (or memory) was off and that he was Walloon. No doubt his first language was French.
Last edited:
I understand. I think NATO to a certain degree has run it's course. Russia while a "military" threat, doesn't have the army to conquer Europe. I just don't see the need for NATO as it once was. China is still the bigger concern in my opinion. If the Chinese and Indians ever figure it out, they may be able to conquer the world.
While I'm in no way pro Russian, they are correct in that NATO started poking the bear first and are the aggressors. NATO saw the weakness of Yelstin as an opportunity to try to democratize the post totalitarian states in Eastern Europe, but they have started getting closer and closer to Russian interests and Russia has found a strong man that is not going to take the aggression.
Trump has a lot of severely negative policiies going for him, but I'm starting to think he might be the guy that can smooth relations with the Russians. NATO will hate Trump.
As far as Russia conquering Europe it depends if they can take ramestien and krygystan fast enough to delay the real American force. If they can then they can, but probably couldn't hold it when American and British forces return. Russian armored units are probably the most centeralized and numerous ones in Europe. But then again, why would the Russians want to fight a conventional war with the Americans... They wouldn't and neither would we.
Last edited:
I think NATO is important in that it keeps things in check, but yah, I agree completely. The paragraph above reminds me of this:
Attachments
Russia has Europe by the gonads anyway with the gas supplies. Why would they want to damage their economy by cutting that off? Putin rattles the saber a little, Europe complies. All is well.
So the narrative just a year ago when Russia was invading the Ukraine was that Obama was a weak willed president who let a stronger, more masculine bear riding Putin take over a potential ally because he wasn't willing to stand up to the giant big bad Russians.
Now, Trump is the right man for the job because its NATO we should have been standing up to, and that Putin isn't so bad a guy. Kinda like Kim Jong Un, likes to sabre rattle a bit, no big deal.
So what is it? Is Putin the all powerful man who takes what he wants and the US is too weak or is he a sabre rattling president who is under constant pressure from the big bad NATO who is funded primarily by the US?
Do you have to put in extra time at the gym to get this good at your mental gymnastics? (You in the royal you sense DBF. Not aimed at you (after correction
) this is mainly aimed at the prevailing thought that during the Ukraine invasion, many saw Obama as a feckless leader who let Putin take what he wanted. Now it seems that the prevailing thought is on NATO being too much of a meanie, but Obama is still weak.)
Last edited:
I don't think I ever said Obama was weak on the Ukraine because I never thought the Ukraine was worthy of defending. They provide us nothing of substance economically that I am aware of. I think Obama is weak, but with the Ukraine, I'm apathetic to their plight.
I stand corrected then. I will amend the post to reflect that the prevailing attitude of many was that Obama allowed this through his weak leadership. I apologize for the mistake.
No worries. I don't like the rhetoric from Trump that we'll "crush our enemies" either. The last thing we need to do is beat the war drums any more. Its time to put our country first, which means suspend foreign subsidies, end our overwhelming contribution to NATO and the UN, bring back manufacturing to the US, pay off the global bankers who are bankrupting our country and reduce government to a manageable size. Is Trump the right person? I don't know. I do know Hillary is not.
Yeah, that's funny, but begs some clarification.I think NATO is important in that it keeps things in check, but yah, I agree completely. The paragraph above reminds me of this:
1. There are no NATO bases in Japan and Korea.
2. In the central Asian republics the "NATO Bases" are cooperative projects to turn Soviet-era bio-weapons (Anthrax production, in the case of Kazakhstan) facilities into facilities to prevent epidemics.
The "NATO" base in the former Yugoslavia is a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Not sure what NATO base is in Poland.
After the end of the Cold War, the West, being sensitive to Russian sensibilities, declined to move any NATO forces eastward from Germany, even when former Warsaw Pact countries petitioned for admission to NATO. In fact, NATO still has not permanently stationed any forces there, although, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO will now station a battalion each in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia on a temporary rotational basis.
NATO's relations with Russia boil down to this: NATO believes that sovereign nation-states have the right to pursue their own policies and Russia believes that it is a great power and, as such, it has a sphere of influence that includes neighboring countries and that gives Russia the right to dictate those countries' foreign policies.
I'm sure the Poles would love to have an "occupying" German force stationed there.
Crimea is a Russian majority. The Ukrainian crisis started because Russia wanted Crimea back, and Crimeans voted on coming back.So the narrative just a year ago when Russia was invading the Ukraine was that Obama was a weak willed president who let a stronger, more masculine bear riding Putin take over a potential ally because he wasn't willing to stand up to the giant big bad Russians.
Now, Trump is the right man for the job because its NATO we should have been standing up to, and that Putin isn't so bad a guy. Kinda like Kim Jong Un, likes to sabre rattle a bit, no big deal.
So what is it? Is Putin the all powerful man who takes what he wants and the US is too weak or is he a sabre rattling president who is under constant pressure from the big bad NATO who is funded primarily by the US?
Do you have to put in extra time at the gym to get this good at your mental gymnastics? (You in the royal you sense DBF. Not aimed at you (after correction
Putin is a stronger leader than Obama, but it's more because he understands playing diplomat is stupid when you are so far away from the area where the conflict is.
Obama stupidly started saying the Russian invasion was a threat against democracy. But how was it so? Crimea, without Russian guns, has always wanted to be a part of Russian society. They even voted on it without Russian influence on returning. Crimea was a gift by krushvhev to Ukraine, but it is historically a Russian province and not a Ukrainian. So Obama condemning it the way he did just further demonstrated his lack of understanding of eastern European affairs
Last edited:
I've said this before, but I think eventually Russia takes back Donestk and Luhansk as well as Odessa and the remaining southern provinces to 1) land lock Ukraine and 2) have a land route to Crimea and Moldova.
Latest threads
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 1
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
