Is it time for the US to re-evaluate our commitment to NATO?

[Neil]

The EU and  NATO obviously don't completely overlap, but regarding countries that border Russia that aren't in NATO you currently have Finland and could have Ukraine in the not to distant future. It isn't hard to imagine Russia intervening in the Ukraine.

Ukraine joining the EU in any foreseeable future is out of question.

They let you guys in, didn't they?

[Martinus]

I think the EU is close to be struggling to survive as a political entity, and for sure as hell struggling to maintain any hope of progressing on the road to a federation that could be a major international player in the future.

You say that like its a bad thing.

Wouldnt Germany be a much better economic engine if it wasnt fettered with the likes of Greece and Portugual?

It always makes me laugh when people say such things. German economy is immensely helped by the fact that they can sell their products to a huge EU market, tariff-free.

[Martinus]

The EU and  NATO obviously don't completely overlap, but regarding countries that border Russia that aren't in NATO you currently have Finland and could have Ukraine in the not to distant future. It isn't hard to imagine Russia intervening in the Ukraine.

Ukraine joining the EU in any foreseeable future is out of question.

They let you guys in, didn't they?

It was a different era, and Ukraine and Poland are light years apart when it come to politics, economy and rule of law.

[Neil]

The EU and  NATO obviously don't completely overlap, but regarding countries that border Russia that aren't in NATO you currently have Finland and could have Ukraine in the not to distant future. It isn't hard to imagine Russia intervening in the Ukraine.

Ukraine joining the EU in any foreseeable future is out of question.

They let you guys in, didn't they?

It was a different era, and Ukraine and Poland are light years apart when it come to politics, economy and rule of law.

Yeah, but you're both Russians.  What one of you can do, so can the other.

[Martinus]

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO except its lapdog the UK - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight any more".

FYP

Fair enough - but I think that speaks to Gates point as well. NATO is an attempt at a "one size fits all" military organization, but the reality is that it is really just a few countries actually willing to contribute meaningfully - so perhaps that US should replace (for example) their commitment to NATO with a commitment to a smaller set of like minded powers that are actually willing to put in the work, rather than just put in the words.

NATO made sense when its primary goal was protecting Europe from the USSR. You are less concerned about the "free rider" problem when you need to defend the entire continent anyway.

Now that NATO has morphed into a poltical/military alliance of presumably like minded nations who potentially engage in missions well beyond the scope of simply protecting Europe from the Russian hordes, what is the benefit to the US of giving a voice to countries that refuse to carry any of the burden?

The thing with this rhetoric is that, while it looks good "on paper", it ignores the reality. The countries who are indeed not pulling their weight - like Belgium, or the Netherlands, or even Germany - face no credible threat whatsoever from Russia and the like, and I don't think the US is really spending any resources on "defending them".

On the other hand, the countries clamoring for the US's aid in defending against a potential attack from Russia - notably Poland - in fact do put a lot of effort into trying to send troops to foreign missions and, from what I read, Poland in fact does have one of the more credible armed forces in the EU (whether it means we are so good or the rest are so bad, is another thing) - we have only chosen to sit out the Libyan intervention, and that's mainly because of fear of reprisals against our oil company employees in Libya.

Finally, you have minor countries like the Baltics who face threat from Russia but do not put in to the common defense pot - but in their case, the resource cost for the US is meaningless, because they are so small. 

[Berkut]

"Yeah, the US should in fact ditch NATO except its lapdog the UK - Europe is not interested in pulling our weight any more".

FYP

Fair enough - but I think that speaks to Gates point as well. NATO is an attempt at a "one size fits all" military organization, but the reality is that it is really just a few countries actually willing to contribute meaningfully - so perhaps that US should replace (for example) their commitment to NATO with a commitment to a smaller set of like minded powers that are actually willing to put in the work, rather than just put in the words.

NATO made sense when its primary goal was protecting Europe from the USSR. You are less concerned about the "free rider" problem when you need to defend the entire continent anyway.

Now that NATO has morphed into a poltical/military alliance of presumably like minded nations who potentially engage in missions well beyond the scope of simply protecting Europe from the Russian hordes, what is the benefit to the US of giving a voice to countries that refuse to carry any of the burden?

The thing with this rhetoric is that, while it looks good "on paper", it ignores the reality. The countries who are indeed not pulling their weight - like Belgium, or the Netherlands, or even Germany - face no credible threat whatsoever from Russia and the like, and I don't think the US is really spending any resources on "defending them".

You didn't read the article, did you?

On the other hand, the countries clamoring for the US's aid in defending against a potential attack from Russia - notably Poland - in fact do put a lot of effort into trying to send troops to foreign missions and, from what I read, Poland in fact does have one of the more credible armed forces in the EU (whether it means we are so good or the rest are so bad, is another thing) - we have only chosen to sit out the Libyan intervention, and that's mainly because of fear of reprisals against our oil company employees in Libya.

I don't think there is any real issue with some countries choosing to not participate in a clearly secondary action like Libya.

Where there is a problem is

1. Countries not being interested in participating in non-secondary actions, like Afghanistan, and
2. Countries choosing to participate in actions, then realizing that they cannot at the level or for the duration needed because they simply lack the capability to do so.

NATO is not about Russia anymore. At least it isn't ONLY about Russia.

If the argument is that the only purpose of NATO is to defend from Russia, then I think the US should most certainly get out. The EU should not need our help any longer to defend themselves from Russia.

Finally, you have minor countries like the Baltics who face threat from Russia but do not put in to the common defense pot - but in their case, the resource cost for the US is meaningless, because they are so small. 

The resource cost to the US to defend the Baltics from Russia has nothing to do with the size of the countries being defended. Duh.

[Martinus]

A few thoughts:

1 - I'm happy that both of the countries I have attachments to - Denmark and Canada - are contributing in a way that puts them in the "okay, not everyone's riding for free" group. That fits with what I think should be done, as a citizen of one and a permanent resident of another of those countries.

2 - I think Gates is pretty much on the money in calling for NATO members to upgrade their capabilities at least to the point where they can contribute more than just words.

3 - Disbanding NATO? Even from a purely US centred view I'd think that is a bad idea, even if the other members fail to improve their contributions. I expect there are benefits for the US - economic, logistical, diplomatic etc - in maintaining the alliance and it wouldn't be a good idea to throw those away in a fit of pique. By all means reevaluate how NATO functions, what it does and how much money the US puts into it, but there's enough of a shared history and enough commonality in geopolitical goals (in spite of the incessant bickering) that maintaining NATO is still in the interest of the US. But still re-evaluating the organization and approaching it in the way that reflects the current world as it is rather than how it was fifty or even twenty five years ago seems worthwhile (and probably inevitable).

I'm just wondering whether, seriously speaking, things were ever different in the past? Did any of the countries that are now free riding really substantially contribute to the alliance during the 20th century? It's not like Germany had a huge army in 1980s that is sent to, say, Falkland War, and only now started to disband it. I'm not sure I understand where the Gates' critique is coming from.

[Martinus]

I don't think there is any real issue with some countries choosing to not participate in a clearly secondary action like Libya.

Where there is a problem is

1. Countries not being interested in participating in non-secondary actions, like Afghanistan, and
2. Countries choosing to participate in actions, then realizing that they cannot at the level or for the duration needed because they simply lack the capability to do so.

NATO is not about Russia anymore. At least it isn't ONLY about Russia.

If the argument is that the only purpose of NATO is to defend from Russia, then I think the US should most certainly get out. The EU should not need our help any longer to defend themselves from Russia.

Which countries are you talking about, then?

For the record, Poland sent troops to Afghanistan, but you have to understand that most NATO members do not and will not have the kind of deployment capabilities the US have.

And in any case, Afghanistan was not even covered by the NATO's casus foederis, so again I am not sure what we are talking about here. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance.

[Berkut]

A few thoughts:

1 - I'm happy that both of the countries I have attachments to - Denmark and Canada - are contributing in a way that puts them in the "okay, not everyone's riding for free" group. That fits with what I think should be done, as a citizen of one and a permanent resident of another of those countries.

2 - I think Gates is pretty much on the money in calling for NATO members to upgrade their capabilities at least to the point where they can contribute more than just words.

3 - Disbanding NATO? Even from a purely US centred view I'd think that is a bad idea, even if the other members fail to improve their contributions. I expect there are benefits for the US - economic, logistical, diplomatic etc - in maintaining the alliance and it wouldn't be a good idea to throw those away in a fit of pique. By all means reevaluate how NATO functions, what it does and how much money the US puts into it, but there's enough of a shared history and enough commonality in geopolitical goals (in spite of the incessant bickering) that maintaining NATO is still in the interest of the US. But still re-evaluating the organization and approaching it in the way that reflects the current world as it is rather than how it was fifty or even twenty five years ago seems worthwhile (and probably inevitable).

I'm just wondering whether, seriously speaking, things were ever different in the past? Did any of the countries that are now free riding really substantially contribute to the alliance during the 20th century? It's not like Germany had a huge army in 1980s that is sent to, say, Falkland War, and only now started to disband it. I'm not sure I understand where the Gates' critique is coming from.

You didn't read the article, did you?

The Falklands War? That wasn't even a NATO action.

[Berkut]

I don't think there is any real issue with some countries choosing to not participate in a clearly secondary action like Libya.

Where there is a problem is

1. Countries not being interested in participating in non-secondary actions, like Afghanistan, and
2. Countries choosing to participate in actions, then realizing that they cannot at the level or for the duration needed because they simply lack the capability to do so.

NATO is not about Russia anymore. At least it isn't ONLY about Russia.

If the argument is that the only purpose of NATO is to defend from Russia, then I think the US should most certainly get out. The EU should not need our help any longer to defend themselves from Russia.

Which countries are you talking about, then?

For the record, Poland sent troops to Afghanistan, but you have to understand that most NATO members do not and will not have the kind of deployment capabilities the US have.

And in any case, Afghanistan was not even covered by the NATO's casus foederis, so again I am not sure what we are talking about here. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance.

You didn't read the article, did you?

[Martinus]

Also, Berkut, can you try cropping? You never seem to do it.

[Iormlund]

Berkut, I read Martinus post as the US not losing much from the Baltics not being able to commit forces to other theaters.

As for Afghanistan, I have to disagree completely. It IS a secondary action. It has always been. The US made it clear enough when it shifted most of its weight to Iraq.

[Berkut]

Also, Berkut, crop to it.

What?

[Martinus]

A few thoughts:

1 - I'm happy that both of the countries I have attachments to - Denmark and Canada - are contributing in a way that puts them in the "okay, not everyone's riding for free" group. That fits with what I think should be done, as a citizen of one and a permanent resident of another of those countries.

2 - I think Gates is pretty much on the money in calling for NATO members to upgrade their capabilities at least to the point where they can contribute more than just words.

3 - Disbanding NATO? Even from a purely US centred view I'd think that is a bad idea, even if the other members fail to improve their contributions. I expect there are benefits for the US - economic, logistical, diplomatic etc - in maintaining the alliance and it wouldn't be a good idea to throw those away in a fit of pique. By all means reevaluate how NATO functions, what it does and how much money the US puts into it, but there's enough of a shared history and enough commonality in geopolitical goals (in spite of the incessant bickering) that maintaining NATO is still in the interest of the US. But still re-evaluating the organization and approaching it in the way that reflects the current world as it is rather than how it was fifty or even twenty five years ago seems worthwhile (and probably inevitable).

I'm just wondering whether, seriously speaking, things were ever different in the past? Did any of the countries that are now free riding really substantially contribute to the alliance during the 20th century? It's not like Germany had a huge army in 1980s that is sent to, say, Falkland War, and only now started to disband it. I'm not sure I understand where the Gates' critique is coming from.

You didn't read the article, did you?

The Falklands War? That wasn't even a NATO action.

I don't see anything in the article answering my question whether in the past the NATO countries that are not willing to commit now were committing significant military resources.

[Martinus]

Also, Berkut, crop to it.

What?

Are you drunk?