Europeans and NATO

[ivanov]

I've decided to move the discussion here, because we were hijacking the Russian/Ukrainian thread.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33072093

Public opinion in some European countries could be reluctant to support collective defence for fellow Nato members if they were to be attacked by Russia, according to a new international survey.

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Even during the Cold War, the Europeans were reluctant to take their defence obligations seriously

No and I find this sort of comment demeaning to the men and women who risked and gave their lives daily during the cold war to ensure that we never saw WW3.

This is an overinterpretation of my statement. It wasn't directed towards the representatives of the military, but towards the politicians and the majority of societies. If today many claim that Europe is not taking it's defence obligations seriously, do you think that such remark insults the soldiers ( who actually do much more real fighting now than during the Cold War )? I'm pretty sure that most of the servicemen would agree with this statement.

You're right that it was difficult for the Europe to maintain a big military after the war but what about the Soviet Union? It suffered incomparably more during the war than the Western Europe. It didn't stop ot from maintaining a huge conventional army ( I know, the inherent difference between rotten capitalism and the vital communism ). It also presented much more formidable potential opponent than Hitler's Germany. The issue with Europe ( now and then ) is/was, that the politicians only real preoccupation is to get reelected every four years, so the defence budget is always first when it comes to cutbacks. If after the war the insufficient military spending was justified with the rebuilding effort, today it is justified with a moreless permanent economic crisis. If it comes to the societies, thinking about a collective defence is and was far behind more pressing worries about social benefits or holidays in the Mediterranean. I remember that in the 80's there was a case of a West German pacifist, who put on his car a sticker: "All Soldiers are Murderers". He got sued by Bundeswehr but was eventually found not guilty of an insult. Sometimes, I don't know what's worst: pacifism or militarism.

[Tazak]

This is an overinterpretation of my statement. It wasn't directed towards the representatives of the military, but towards the politicians and the majority of societies. If today many claim that Europe is not taking it's defence obligations seriously, do you think that such remark insults the soldiers ( who actually do much more real fighting now than during the Cold War )? I'm pretty sure that most of the servicemen would agree with this statement.

I apologize for over interpreting.

European governments today don't pay nearly as much attention to national defense as they did during the cold war, look at the UK spending over the years, between 1950 and 1990 defense spending was between 13%-19% of total expenditure, by mid 2000's that had dropped to less than 10% and currently stands at 6% of total government spending.

If you compare soviet expenditure during the same time period, their spending was in the same ball park (when viewed as a % of total expenditure), its just their troops and equipment don't cost anywhere near as much as western armies, how many T55 tanks would we be able to field with the expenditure of combined NATO countries and paid our soldiers the same rates, we'd put Russia to shame [:D], I remember reading somewhere years ago that a AH64 needed to destroy 16 T80 tanks in order to provide NATO with value for money given the cost a AH64 at the time.

Could todays governments do more, maybe but at what cost, the "rotten capitalism" defense industry milks every last penny out of governments so costs of maintaining even a medium size army let alone a large one is getting prohibitive, what do governments cut instead welfare, medical, pensions, foreign aid (god forbid other countries call us meanies for not supporting them!!)

Or a rather drastic approach - should the US go back into its isolationism stance, that would force European governments to take defense seriously again or face speaking Russian for the next 50 years until the next European war but that will upset the major multination corporations who stand to lose a fortune when their European branches are overran/looted/nationalized [&:]

[IronMikeGolf]

Interesting article on public opinion in NATO member countries. NATO Publics Blame Russia for Ukrainian Crisis, but Reluctant to Provide Military Aid

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

European governments today don't pay nearly as much attention to national defense as they did during the cold war, look at the UK spending over the years, between 1950 and 1990 defense spending was between 13%-19% of total expenditure, by mid 2000's that had dropped to less than 10% and currently stands at 6% of total government spending.

If you look at the military expenditures as a percent of the GDP, even now the overblown Russian military budget is "only" at 4,7%. In theory the US and UK military spending is still more than a match. The problems start if you look how the resources are being allocated. Currently there no armored US formations stationed in Europe and the last Apache battalion is going to be withdrawn to Alaska. UK is also going to reduce it's forces in Germany. Such a moves would be understandable in the previous decade, but now they are hard to justify. Still USA and UK remain the most reliable NATO allies. Let's look now at Germany. They are the biggest European NATO nation and they spend a little more than 1% of their GDP on the military. Granted, their economy is big, unlike the US and UK they don't need to maintain the costly nuclear arsenal or a big navy. So this 1% could be enough to maintain sufficient conventional forces. But German armed forces are being neglected. The recent news, that most of their Eurofighters or NH-90 helicopters lack spare parts and are unable to fly are quite worrisome and hard to understand.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

I remember reading somewhere years ago that a AH64 needed to destroy 16 T80 tanks in order to provide NATO with value for money given the cost a AH64 at the time.

Was the cost of Hellfire missiles taken into the account in that estimate or was it just the cost of the helicopter itself? [:D]

I think that the Soviet reliance on superior numbers would actually prevail in case the Cold War turned into the Third World War. Their armies were supposed to advance into the nuclear maelstrom, so the numerically superior side would have bigger chances of preserving some part of it's forces intact. I think this was the actual reasoning of the Soviet planers.

[delete1]

Good news! At least some hope for more dialogue, mutual respect and mutual understanding! Much needed!

The recently created American Committee for East-West Accord could provide an important forum for dialogue between leaders of the U.S. and Russia.

http://www.russia-direct.org/analysis/n ... immer-hope

[Tazak]

Could a "European army" be the answer, there's been talk about Europe pooling resources together to fund a single army between EU member states, after all the EU combined GDP is not far behind the US GDP and would certainly push the EU GDP tanking up to the top 3 maybe displacing China in the 2nd spot

But there's the typical BS getting in the way - who's in command, language barriers, which national defence contractors get to provide the hardware which member state gets lumped with housing the army, does it rely on US made equipment etc plus not all EU members are part of NATO so what happens to NATO, does it get disbanded an a new alliance between the EU army and US forces, but then not all EU states are 'friendly' enough with the US for the US to share intel etc so it'll be hampered on joint ops, not all EU states are happy with NATO currently getting involved in non EU affairs so they wouldn't the EU army to operate outside of EU defence

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Could a "European army" be the answer

In my opinion the answer is "no". The Europeans lack the unity of command and the creation of yet another military structure would only water down NATO's capabilities IMO.

[ivanov]

Lithuanians get ready for the hybrid threat

[ivanov]

Two Russian activists enter Latvian military base

The Other Russia, a small militant movement set up by National Bolshevik Party founder Eduard Limonov who wants to create a Eurasian state, said the two men were theirs.

The Lithuanian Defence Ministry was hacked on Wednesday, it said. Media showed screenshots of its webpage with text saying the military exercises, known as "Saber Strike", were in preparation to annex Russia's Kaliningrad enclave, between Lithuania and Poland.

[ivanov]

U.S. Is Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in Eastern Europe

As the proposal stands now, a company’s worth of equipment — enough for about 150 soldiers — would be stored in each of the three Baltic nations: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Enough for a company or possibly a battalion — about 750 soldiers — would be located in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and possibly Hungary, they said.

[Ginetto]

[font="Arial"][/font][font="Times New Roman"][/font]

A single European army sounds economically enticing in theory, but is in practice unachievable. There are too many vested interests politically and very strong traditions and esprit de corps which block any progress in this direction.
A few years ago, the EU wanted to oblige member States to have only one national police force. In Italy the groundswell of opposition was enormous. The Carabinieri, who are both an armed force and a national gendarmerie, would have nothing of it.
They have a PR machine comparable to the US Marines'. The idea was quietly shelved.
I can imagine the reaction in countries such as Britain (with the Brigade of Guards and Ghurkhas) or France (Foreign Legion)
if you propose their disbandment or "harmonization" within some European force.

The justification to do this on the grounds of unity of command is less evident. In fact, the NATO Council and Military Committee in Evere (Brussels) and SHAPE in Mons have been doing a very good job and keeping quiet about it, which is no small thing.

I agree that the level of European defense spending is dismal. The reason, as one of us has already pointed out, is that there aren't many votes in it and that a politician's planning span never goes beyond the next election, be it parliamentary or for just a clutch of mayors.

Spending will increase only when we will be confronted by a serious, imminent and unavoidable crisis which can no longer be wished away with the usual "keep dialogue open at all costs" mantra. This is democracy as we know it and cherish it. The alternative would be "sovereign" democracy.

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: Ginetto
I can imagine the reaction in countries such as Britain (with the Brigade of Guards and Ghurkhas) or France (Foreign Legion)

Side note for anyone interested, the British celebrated 200 years of service by the Ghurkhas recently. They're the only regiment serving within the British army staffed almost (up to officer level and a few key support roles) entirely by none British nations, they are paid the same as British soldiers and a few years ago were granted the same pension rights (yea we were a bit slow on that one [:(]) and they are amongst the largest holders of Victoria Cross's awarded to a regiment

Bit of UK army history there [:)]

Can you see the EU army making an exception for the Ghurkhas (better yet, would the Ghurkhas want to be part of that?)