Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO summit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by S2 View Post
    It was for that purpose N.A.T.O was conceived.
    Remember that we weren't part of it in 1949, and that joining NATO to us was a precondition of rearmament. While that isn't really driving the German opinion on NATO, it gives it a somewhat different starting point.

    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    Established as more relevant to the identified needs. If so, then what do these other "frameworks" render N.A.T.O. but as a redundant and, evidently, obsolescent alternative system?
    NATO is still more encompassing than other frameworks, mostly due to its grown structure. I call it frameworks btw because we're not strictly talking "alliances", but more generically cooperation agreements. Within NATO, such agreements exist that have not - yet - been copied over to other frameworks and there is a suitable ease with which to form such for new identified needs within NATO if partners can be found there.

    These frameworks have existed for decades side-by-side with NATO too, including during the Cold War. The Western European Union for example, which has since been rendered obsolete and folded wholesale into the European Union - and, as a side effect, also brought its mutual defense clause - more encompassing than NATO's - to expand to all EU members.

    Within the current drive - mostly due to Brexit and the sudden freedom from British vetos on such - there are moves towards giving the EU more of a capability set that duplicates NATO structures; frameworks within which we can do things we currently operate within NATO for. We're actively moving towards that too; not just within the EU, but - see above on "vetos" - also in a bilateral or multilateral fashion, and we're not the only ones locally. With a certain impetus to that, and a continuation and perhaps worsening of current US policy, i could see NATO becoming increasingly redundant indeed. Not right now. Perhaps in a decade.

    Originally posted by S2 View Post
    So should we consider this whole hullaballoo orchestrated by Europe about Trump and article 5 all theatrics?
    Only if you narrow your view to only "Western Europe and the US". The hullaballoo wasn't so much about Article 5 with regard to us, from our side it was more a diplomatic affront; what it was about - and why we considered it more grave than that - is that it upset strategic considerations for Eastern Europe on a much larger scale.

    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    to put it another way, how confident are you that the "other frameworks" you mention will be sufficient, along with your own military power, to defend Germany against Russia?
    Moderately confident. You also have to consider that if NATO was no longer in place we'd push "other frameworks" to a more extensive cooperation. No NATO nuclear sharing anymore? There'd probably be considerations for carrying French nukes instead. Again. No US battlegroup for posturing in Poland? We'd probably push to activate and rotate an EUBG or two through there. Beyond that? If push comes to shove, China.

    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    as S2 is pointing out, though, these "current arrangements" have the US spending a disproportionate amount of money, and are in no small part due to US presence in Europe.
    The US is barely spending any money on its endeavours in Europe.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by kato View Post
      The US is barely spending any money on its endeavours in Europe.
      Spending more than you on 'Reassurance' alone. Look if you want a Europe great. I am by and large in favour. But if Germany wants to be the 'leader' in Europe it must accept it partners concerns regarding security and whatever else and react to them correspondingly.

      Comment

      Working...
      X