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

[Iormlund]

Who said anything about the EU?

Zoupa did.

Yeah, but I'm not Zoupa.

All I read is bitching about big NATO countries not pulling their weight. And those are precisely the least threatened by Russia.

I guess. I think that if Russia starts mucking around with Poland, the Baltics and/or the Balkans that's going to be a significant headache for the EU, even the countries that do not share a border with them.

It's probably the only thing that could revive (or destroy) the pro-EU camp after the current crisis. Might be worth it just for that.

[Martinus]

The Baltics aren't even in NATO, are they? Or are they?

Good to know you know what you are talking about, then.

Now see, that is pretty funny.

This coming from the guy who claimed that the Falklands was a NATO action. Stay classy Marty.

I never claimed Falklands was a NATO action.

[Iormlund]

Would it be less ridicules if you lived next door to Russia?

Of course it would be.

[Berkut]

WEll, Marty has turned this into the standard "bash the US" crap session. Thanks for the discussion, it was interesting while it lasted.

[Martinus]

Really?

I think it is pretty much just assumed. Certainly in the past Germany, for example, contributed significant resources to NATO. The had a top notch military force.

Which, if my memory serves right, was never sent anywhere abroad (except on UN peacekeeping missions) before Afghanistan. I fail to see how what they have been doing since constitutes a significant deterioration of their commitment to NATO missions (read: American military adventures).

Incorrect.  They participated in the Kosovo war which was a NATO operation.

Ok, I take your word for it (don't have time right now to research if their combat troops actually participated and whether there was no UN blessing) but still it is a fairly recent event. So I am not sure I can see where was this golden age of Germany participating in NATO foreign missions when it had this great military.

[Razgovory]

Would it be less ridicules if you lived next door to Russia?

Of course it would be.

That kinda defeats the purpose of collective security don't you think?

[Iormlund]

That is a different debate though. Not an unimportant debate, but not really relevant to the discussion at hand, unless of course the reason some countries are failing to make their commitments is that they are over-involved in Afghanistan. I rather doubt that is the case though.

It is not irrelevant. Governments need to sell foreign ops to their electorates, and with the Taliban toppled and Afghanistan back to a complete mess there is just no way to do that. What was once an expedition to build a wonderful paradise of women's rights is now a waste of men and money to prop yet another warlord.

[Jacob]

Yeah, but I'm not Zoupa.

That's very true, of course. Still, there's a significant overlap between the EU and NATO, so it's worth discussing.

It's probably the only thing that could revive (or destroy) the pro-EU camp after the current crisis. Might be worth it just for that.

I don't follow. Could you elaborate?

[Iormlund]

That kinda defeats the purpose of collective security don't you think?

What has collective security got to do with this?

Is it or isn't it ridiculous to say you are defending someone that needs no defense?

[Iormlund]

I don't follow. Could you elaborate?

The time-proven "external enemy" unifying force. It might actually get things rolling when it comes to an EU military.

[Jacob]

The time-proven "external enemy" unifying force. It might actually get things rolling when it comes to an EU military.

Okay, I think I'm getting your argument here. Are you saying:

Russia is pretty much toothless, so various European countries are not interested in putting much into NATO. Should Russia start throwing its weight around, the Euros can always start taking defense more seriously and up-arm. In the meantime, there is not much incentive to put much more into NATO than what is being put in already.

This is not necessarily your personal opinion (I'm not clear on this), but it's the general attitude in, say, Spain and Germany.

Is that more or less it?

[Razgovory]

That kinda defeats the purpose of collective security don't you think?

What has collective security got to do with this?

Is it or isn't it ridiculous to say you are defending someone that needs no defense?

NATO is a collective security organization.  The whole idea is that countries that aren't likely to be invaded (like say the US), help support and protect those that do have a chance of being invaded (like say Germany in the Cold War), thus deterring a potential aggressor.  Saying that you don't need to spend money on the military because the enemy probably won't get that far undermines the whole process and displays a great deal of irresponsibility.

[Zanza]

I think NATO still serves a purpose as a framework to conduct military interventions other than collective defense. Without NATO, there would probably be zero standardization which would make international cooperation even of "coalitions of the willing" more difficult. But NATO never was and never will be a committment to common military intervention.

And while it makes one wonder if NATO militaries could still defend Europe adequately if they run out of munitions fast in a military intervention like Libya, the only thing it shows for certain is that Europeans are incapable of intervention, not that they are incapable of defense. But I think Gates' criticism of too low stockpiles is fair and should be addressed.

[grumbler]

Which, if my memory serves right, was never sent anywhere abroad (except on UN peacekeeping missions) before Afghanistan.

Germany sent troops to 100% of the combat missions abroad that NATO sent troops to

I fail to see how what they have been doing since constitutes a significant deterioration of their commitment to NATO missions.

That's because you haven't read the article.  The issue isn't just that Germany doesn't want to contribute forces to an Article 5 mission; it is that it cannot.

[Iormlund]

The time-proven "external enemy" unifying force. It might actually get things rolling when it comes to an EU military.

Okay, I think I'm getting your argument here. Are you saying:

Russia is pretty much toothless, so various European countries are not interested in putting much into NATO. Should Russia start throwing its weight around, the Euros can always start taking defense more seriously and up-arm. In the meantime, there is not much incentive to put much more into NATO than what is being put in already.

This is not necessarily your personal opinion (I'm not clear on this), but it's the general attitude in, say, Spain and Germany.

Is that more or less it?

I don't know about Germans, but it certainly true in Spain, especially since Ceuta, Melilla and the rest of our African possessions are excluded from the Treaty so we can't expect help where we're actually vulnerable.