Trump says US may abandon automatic protections for Nato countries

[SteveDaPirate]

Baltic States Come Out Swinging After Trump Says He Might Abandon NATO

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/21/...-abandon-nato/

[troung]

suspect the US doesn't really like an Europe taking care of it's own defence.

I suspect they find no reason to pay for their own defense.

I
Especially when Europe would end up developing weapons that are more advanced than the US has and not sharing the info.
Would create a whole new set of headaches.

EF-2000, Rafale, Mirage 2000, Gripen, Mistral, Harrier, Leopard...

You know? This gets me. You and your politicians keep harping on that frigging 2 percent and ignored the fact we've answered America's call to arms with our own blood. We paid for our NATO membership at our funerals.

That floor on spending is as much of the deal as article five asking us to take what steps we deem appropriate. We spent twice of the other 27 NATO nations combined.

So we have the UK and Canada, each of whom are taking the knife to their militaries at the behest of their taxpayers, and what else? Other nations either like doing business with Russia, have serious internal troubles (Greek and Turkey), refuse to spend a dime (Central and Eastern Europe), or are too far to care. We had to pressure France not to sell warships to Russia.

Baltic nations should be acting like the Israelis or Singapore, not having fewer troops combined than Cambodia. Even Poland which makes it's two percent has nothing to write home about. We bust Taiwan's balls for not doing enough but it takes its independence more serious than Russia's former provinces and vassals do.

Baltic States Come Out Swinging After Trump Says He Might Abandon NATO

Not very hard seeing as Laos puts more men into the field.

[Officer of Engineers]

So we have the UK and Canada, each of whom are taking the knife to their militaries at the behest of their taxpayers, and what else? Other nations either like doing business with Russia, have serious internal troubles (Greek and Turkey), refuse to spend a dime (Central and Eastern Europe), or are too far to care. We had to pressure France not to sell warships to Russia.

Does any of this change the fact that we've acted decisively when America called. We're not talking a token show here. We're talking taking our share of spilling and bleeding blood. And then some.

[troung]

Does any of this change the fact that we've acted decisively when America called. We're not talking a token show here. We're talking taking our share of spilling and bleeding blood. And then some.

I will go out on a limb and say Canada and the UK aren't the nations he was discussing.

[Officer of Engineers]

I will go out on a limb and say Canada and the UK aren't the nations he was discussing.

Name me one NATO country who had not stepped up. Without NATO backfilling US roles in Afghanistan, the US would have needed at least another corps to do Iraq. Even France had a big footprint in Afghanistan.

[troung]

Name me one NATO country who had not stepped up. Without NATO backfilling US roles in Afghanistan, the US would have needed at least another corps to do Iraq.

To go back on my point all but a handful fail to meet their spending requirement, and two of those aren't exactly powerhouses despite the spending. Sending a limited number of troops to fight the Taliban/cut deals with them (Italy)/build homes/show up with funky rules about not fighting, doesn't quite make us indebted enough to fight to the death with Russia for any of them. Estonia's 150 troops (non-NATO terrorist exporting UAE mananged that) don't quite balance out to what they expect from us. I sure know the USA isn't expected to send a rifle company restricted to guarding an airport if Putin does something.

The Soviet's were planning to get a lot more from their vassals then we are from our allies, who are fine hiding behind us and sending token forces with often limited ROEs just to say they showed up.

If we get a President Trump and he purges state/ignores the internationalists and great gamers who have failed this nation for decades; would European nations dramatically increase their spending and the size of their forces, hope that the American taxpayer can be fleeced in the end to protect their socialist paradises, or just roll over? And it's clear from that outrage that the EU is seemingly going to fold up shop tomorrow if the USA doesn't protect it.

Step up or we will stand back and watch Russian soldiers looting your homes is a better last ditch sales pitch than asking nicely, which so far as led to more cuts and/or Reichsarmee style contingents.

Even France had a big footprint in Afghanistan.

While building warships for Russia.

[Officer of Engineers]

To go back on my point all but a handful fail to meet their spending requirement,

And my point is that spending is NOT a reflection of reliable ally. Willingness to back up your friends with deeds is.

and two of those aren't exactly powerhouses despite the spending.

And then there's the reality. Canada's 1 percent GDP defence budget is a hell of a lot bigger than Estonia's 2%.

Sending a limited number of troops to fight the Taliban/cut deals with them (Italy)/build homes/show up with funky rules about not fighting, doesn't quite make us indebted enough to fight to the death with Russia for any of them.

Europe can handle Russia all by herself. Hell, Germany can take on Russia blindfolded. The threat picture doesn't justify additional spending. The former Warsaw Pact, saved for Poland, is vulnerable.

Estonia's 150 troops (non-NATO terrorist exporting UAE mananged that) don't quite balance out to what they expect from us. I sure know the USA isn't expected to send a rifle company restricted to guarding an airport if Putin does something.

Well, it was Bill Clinton's bright idea, against European unease, to bring them in.

Step up or we will stand back and watch Russian soldiers looting your homes is a better last ditch sales pitch than asking nicely, which so far as led to more cuts and/or Reichsarmee style contingents.

Their homes are going to be looted anyway. No way in hell are we going to win the Baltics by fighting in the Baltics. That battle has to be fought either in Poland or Kalingrad.

While building warships for Russia.

Russia was our friend back then.

[troung]

And my point is that spending is NOT a reflection of reliable ally. Willingness to back up your friends with deeds is.

That covers Canada's brigade deployment and NORAD activities, doesn't make the Eastern Europeans less of free loaders.

Hell, Germany can take on Russia blindfolded.

Germany has fifty thousand troops, 200ish combat jets, 150ish artillery systems, and 300 tanks; and a year or two ago there was the dreaded "half of our planes can fly" news report. They might need to keep their eyes open, despite Russia being mostly smoke.

The threat picture doesn't justify additional spending. The former Warsaw Pact, saved for Poland, is vulnerable.

And if the whole point of NATO is mutual defense, it doesn't seem all that mutual if the threatened nations spend nothing, the Western European nations cut back because the frontier has been pushed back, and the US is expected to deter the evil Russians.

And then there's the reality. Canada's 1 percent GDP defence budget is a hell of a lot bigger than Estonia's 2%.

Which is why those Eastern European nations should be spending a lot more than 2 percent, or maybe rethinking their independence. And Turkey doesn't spend two percent either and on paper should be one of the heavy hitters, the reality is far worse for them for the near future.

Between a Baltic burden, Eastern European dead weight, Western Europe no longer caring, and the Turkey deciding to shoot down a Russian Su-24 to help sponsor terrorism; we need to rethink how our role in Europe and if we even need one. There is no USSR, and if the European Union cannot deter Russia on their own then they deserve to be bullied.

[Squirrel]

( non-NATO terrorist exporting UAE mananged that)

You have no idea what you are even talking about. It's amusing.

[troung]

You have no idea what you are even talking about. It's amusing.

A human rights violating shit hole, which mistreats and steals passports from foreign workers from the developing world, is full of people who give money to terrorists, and was one of the three nations which recognized the Taliban. Sorry should have been more precise in my insults, it happens son.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...707-story.html

So the Russia-related discussion will focus on the Baltic region, where Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are feeling threatened, and neutral Sweden and Finland worry about a growing number of close encounters with increasingly aggressive Russian forces.

Whether or not that makes sense is debatable. It's not clear why Russia would attack the Baltics the way it attacked Ukraine. From the Kremlin's perspective, a coup in Kiev had threatened Russia's cherished navy base in Crimea, so Russia moved in to occupy it. It's hard to imagine a Baltic analogy.

On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn't been too predictable or open about his plans, and it would be wrong to ignore the concerns of militarily exposed member countries -- especially since they're now making an effort to raise their military spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product, as NATO requires. Latvia has committed to getting there by 2018, and Lithuania by 2020. Tiny Estonia is already at the prescribed level.

It is known in advance that NATO will deploy "four robust and multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, on a rotational basis." To the Baltics, this is chicken feed. As Jorge Benitez of the Atlantic Council wrote recently:

"Four battalions deployed in NATO's eastern members is not a proportional response. Four battalions (perhaps 4,000 men) do not come close to deterring the approximately 250,000 troops Russia has in its Western Military District (WMD) bordering NATO. In fact, four NATO battalions are not even a proportional response to the 3 new divisions (roughly 30,000 troops) Russia announced in January that it is creating in the WMD. At best, the deployment of four NATO battalions is an incremental step to strengthen deterrence that falls short of changing the calculus in Moscow. At worst, they are evidence to Putin that NATO is so weak and divided, the allies can only muster consensus on tepid action, such as the deployment of battalion-sized speed bumps for his Spetsnaz as they trample over Article 5."

The NATO Alliance Is Terminally Ill
Ted Galen Carpenter

July 21, 2016
TweetShareShare
Printer-friendly version

The attempted military coup in Turkey sent shock waves through NATO. No matter how the coup turned out, it would have bad news for the alliance. If the attempt had succeeded, NATO would have faced the embarrassment of having a member governed by a military dictatorship. Although that type of situation was tolerated during the Cold War (with respect to founding member Portugal, several military regimes in Turkey, and the brutal Greek junta from 1967 to 1974), matters are much different in the current environment. Since NATO portrays itself as an alliance of enlightened democracies, tolerating a dictatorial member now would be so politically toxic as to be nearly impossible.

That is likely a significant reason why the United States and other key NATO powers opposed the coup and quickly expressed support for the President Erdogan’s government. But Erdogan’s victory over an extraordinarily inept coup plot did not signal a victory for a truly democratic Turkey. Instead, his government has used the incident to purge not only the military, but the judiciary and the educational system of thousands of opponents. The extent and speed of the purge confirms that Erdogan simply used the attempted coup as a pretext for a plan long in place. NATO still confronts the problem of a member state that is now a dictatorship in all but name. That is likely to be unpalatable to several fellow members and cause serious tensions and divisions in the alliance.

But Turkey’s descent into authoritarianism is hardly the only sign of illness in the alliance. There are noticeable uncertainties about the most pressing security issue: how to deal with Russia. Most of the East European members embrace a confrontational stance toward Moscow, believing that any sign of weakness will only encourage the Kremlin to become even more abrasive and belligerent. NATO’s political and military leadership clearly favors a similar approach. So far, the hawkish strategy has largely prevailed. NATO has conducted air, naval and ground force maneuvers in the Baltic region, the Black Sea, Poland and Ukraine. The decision to deploy three battalions to the Baltic republics (along with one to Poland), ratified at the recent Warsaw summit as a symbol of NATO’s determination to defend even those highly vulnerable members, reflects a similar mentality.

The hostile stance toward Russia is not without its dissenters, however. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier startled his alliance colleagues with extremely negative comments about NATO’s large-scale military exercises in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Such measures, Steinmeier stated, were “counterproductive,” and he admonished NATO leaders to avoid “saber-rattling and warmongering.” We are “well advised not to create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.”

It is not coincidental that Germany was one of the major NATO countries most adamant about not extending membership invitations to Ukraine and Georgia, despite a vigorous lobbying effort by the United States, Britain, and most East European members. Berlin has also been, at best, a reluctant supporter of the Western economic sanctions imposed on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and its support of secessionists in eastern Ukraine. But Germany is not the only NATO member to exhibit doubts about the increasingly hardline policy toward Russia. Both Hungary and the Czech Republic have shown some reluctance. Turkey’s recent, very public, reconciliation with Moscow may lead to a further erosion of any NATO consensus in favor of an aggressive policy.

Potentially the darkest cloud on the horizon for NATO, though, is the U.S. presidential election. Although Hillary Clinton is reliably committed to the status quo regarding NATO (as she is on nearly every other major foreign-policy topic), Donald Trump is not. He has raised the burden-sharing issue in rather blunt and caustic terms. But Trump has sometimes gone beyond that question to express doubts about the wisdom of America’s alliance commitments generally, especially NATO. On more than one occasion, he has scorned NATO as “obsolete.” He has also expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin and indicated that he wants a far less confrontational policy toward Moscow.

And in his new interview with the New York Times, he casts doubt on his commitment to Article 5, the very heart of the North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 proclaims that an attack on one member is an attack on all and obligates the United States to assist fellow members that are victims of aggression. However, Trump stated that he would decide to render aid only if the nations in question have “fulfilled their obligations to us.” Presumably, that meant keeping their promises about defense expenditures and other alliance pledges. He added ominously, “If we decide we have to defend the United States, we can always deploy” from American soil. “and it will be a lot less expensive.”

A Trump presidency might well be the last nail in NATO’s coffin. His administration would be almost certain to demand major reforms, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that he would even seek a U.S. withdrawal. It is the most serious potential fissure in the alliance, but it’s not the only one. NATO is an alliance showing multiple signs of a terminal condition, however much its partisans may want to deny that reality.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is the author or contributing editor of twenty books on international affairs, including five books on NATO.

[kato]

And I also remember Bundeswehr soldiers guarding US military installations in Germany

Not connected to 9/11. That didn't come about until January 2003 (it was finagled immediately after UN Resolution 1441 against Iraq). About 7,000 German soldiers deployed for the next two years. Before that - since 9/11 - US soldiers had been deployed to German streets around installations in slightly higher numbers. The move also coincided with construction measures taken to segregate installations - especially semi-integrated US mil housing - from public access.

Canada's 1 percent GDP defence budget is a hell of a lot bigger than Estonia's 2%.

And there's also the fact that Estonia's 2% run on a rather low GDP (and government tax intake on that is highly fluctuating - to an extent where government spending is barely planable). Same for all three Baltic states. Their 2% budget is roughly enough to pay their soldiers on average the local minimum wage, house them, buy them a rifle and some fuel for the vehicles donated by other NATO members.

Germany has fifty thousand troops

Last time I checked the Bundeswehr was at 185,000. Probably thinking about the army which is at 60,000 currently - though that's not directly comparable to other countries as a lot of functionality (log, med, other support, territorial) has been separated from it. If they re-included that it'd be somewhere around 100,000. And yeah, it's still a low number.

[TopHatter]

And Joe, I disagree. It does do harm. At this very time there is ample tension in Europe...this undermines the resolve.

Or it can also say to an opposing nation that NATO is not united.

As a side bar, a friend who is serving on the NATO staff in A'stan shared with me that many of his fellow officers from NATO countries were appalled and disturbed by this statement. Remember, they are there serving BECAUSE we invoked Article V.

That's the problem. This is some jumped-up reality TV failed businessman clueless asshole, not a serious contender for the Oval Office. America will not elect this man.

But people in the rest of the world don't get that things in the U.S. aren't quite how they perceived them (yes, I know, perception is reality).

Remember when George W Bush was going to seize dictatorial power instead of leaving office?

I'm sorry, I know I'm ranting. I'm just appalled at how much attention is paid to this idiot and a huge part of that is the media's fault.
He's good for ratings so they put him everywhere, giving him an illusion of widespread and deep support that quite frankly I don't see that he truly has.

I firmly believe and have believed, that barring anything drastic happening (a Clinton scandal that actually sticks, for example) that she'll trounce him on Election Day...with the lowest voter turnout in recent memory.

[SteveDaPirate]

That's the problem. This is some jumped-up reality TV failed businessman clueless asshole, not a serious contender for the Oval Office. America will not elect this man.

I firmly believe and have believed, that barring anything drastic happening (a Clinton scandal that actually sticks, for example) that she'll trounce him on Election Day...with the lowest voter turnout in recent memory.

Overall I tend to agree with you.

That being said, how many people seriously thought the UK would vote itself out of the EU prior to the referendum? How many people thought Trump would be the Republican nominee even a few months ago?!

I didn't think Trump is electable months ago, and I'd still like to think he isn't. Yet his cult of personality has proven to give him more traction than I would have ever predicted. Populism is running strong in the West at the moment as evidenced by the success of both Sanders and Trump in the US, and it can be clearly seen in Europe as well.

[kato]

This is some jumped-up reality TV failed businessman clueless asshole, not a serious contender for the Oval Office.

To be fair most outside the US - and most Californians, where he was governor after all - viewed Reagan as much the same.

[Mihais]

That's the problem. This is some jumped-up reality TV failed businessman clueless asshole, not a serious contender for the Oval Office. America will not elect this man.

But people in the rest of the world don't get that things in the U.S. aren't quite how they perceived them (yes, I know, perception is reality).

Remember when George W Bush was going to seize dictatorial power instead of leaving office?

I'm sorry, I know I'm ranting. I'm just appalled at how much attention is paid to this idiot and a huge part of that is the media's fault.
He's good for ratings so they put him everywhere, giving him an illusion of widespread and deep support that quite frankly I don't see that he truly has.

I firmly believe and have believed, that barring anything drastic happening (a Clinton scandal that actually sticks, for example) that she'll trounce him on Election Day...with the lowest voter turnout in recent memory.

While I agree with what you,gentlemen, said about resolve and all,I hope it s a bit nuanced.The beloved politicos won't do squat for the military,unless the US bullies them.And I mean this in the most direct way.''You spend money or we'll f... and throw you to the pigs''.
The beloved Motherland could fairly easily spend 2.5-3% without significantly derail any major civilian development(not that there is any coming from the gov. ).It takes only 15 billions or so in equipment to have a top notch force.

This pressure would be for the good of both.EE cannot hope to have any significant US military presence if there is a crisis in Pacific.If there such a crisis there is also little chance the US military industry will be able to quickly supply partners,thus the need to be ready before that.

What could be done reasonably well would be a defense credit.Not a free ride,as Egypt or Israel,but a loan.It could also be in the form of used equipment,modernized with the credit .Solutions are many.


Turning back to the resolve issue,if there is any nation willing to give up NATO and join Russia after what Trump said,or even after Pres. Trump actually questions Art 5,that nation deserves its fate.Such comments,on the contrary,should stiffen resolve.

As for the Baltic nations being a liability,I'd say the Russian Army can die there at the hand of both regular EE forces and local partisans.Russia cannot lose 20000 people.It costs the West nothing to sign the paper and pennies to supply them with modern weapons.Yes,it would cost the locals a gruesome toll in blood,but: a.it's their country, b.you'd immobilize Russia and c.from your POV,they're expendable.