US Army remove some AH-64 from Europe
Thread Starter
US Army remove some AH-64 from Europe
"At a time when the US is rightly pressing our European allies to do more, reducing real capability in Europe sends the wrong message — to our allies and to the Russians," said former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
If the 16/19/(how freaking many??) nations want NATO to keep existing, every one needs to play and to pay. I'd rather their habitual basing was in CONUS.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,935 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I totally agree, all this 2% of GDP spend agreed amongst the countries and then them all going back on it, you either have to spend the money to protect the EU with NATO or roll over and take what Putins giving.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big question is, at what cost? yes we know the Europeans have a long history of being slow learners, but hay where not perfect either.
European stability is vital for the long term stability of the planet, and if that doesn't matter, then for you yanks as well. Not that down here in Aus we don't have motives such as our own self interest of protecting our butts.
European stability is vital for the long term stability of the planet, and if that doesn't matter, then for you yanks as well. Not that down here in Aus we don't have motives such as our own self interest of protecting our butts.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
2% is a nonsense. If you are a very rich country you can probably buy quality quantity. If you are poor you can probably have lots of manpower and buy second hand.
What is needed is an agreement on numbers and who buys what for the NATO established task. If you want a global presence then those forces should be extra to the NATO 2%.
What is needed is an agreement on numbers and who buys what for the NATO established task. If you want a global presence then those forces should be extra to the NATO 2%.
2% is a nonsense. If you are a very rich country you can probably buy quality quantity. If you are poor you can probably have lots of manpower and buy second hand.
What is needed is an agreement on numbers and who buys what for the NATO established task. If you want a global presence then those forces should be extra to the NATO 2%.
What is needed is an agreement on numbers and who buys what for the NATO established task. If you want a global presence then those forces should be extra to the NATO 2%.
I agree with your assessment of what is a NATO contribution and what is for "national aims and goals" but here's the kicker: most forces once paid for and stood up can serve both interests most of the time.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LW, not so.
On several UK operations over the last 50 years the forces withdrawn from Europe weakened the alliance. In one, SACEUR protested to HMG that his available force, in particular deterrent forces were greatly weakened.
Similarly an RN unit on station overseas is necessarily miss positioned for a European tasking. Admittedly they can redeploy within a month but the whole purpose of its overseas deployment is deterrence of one form or another to further HMGs policies.
A Peter and Paul operation is all we can afford but demonstrates a strategic weakness.
On several UK operations over the last 50 years the forces withdrawn from Europe weakened the alliance. In one, SACEUR protested to HMG that his available force, in particular deterrent forces were greatly weakened.
Similarly an RN unit on station overseas is necessarily miss positioned for a European tasking. Admittedly they can redeploy within a month but the whole purpose of its overseas deployment is deterrence of one form or another to further HMGs policies.
A Peter and Paul operation is all we can afford but demonstrates a strategic weakness.
LW, not so.
On several UK operations over the last 50 years the forces withdrawn from Europe weakened the alliance. In one, SACEUR protested to HMG that his available force, in particular deterrent forces were greatly weakened.
Similarly an RN unit on station overseas is necessarily miss positioned for a European tasking. Admittedly they can redeploy within a month but the whole purpose of its overseas deployment is deterrence of one form or another to further HMGs policies.
A Peter and Paul operation is all we can afford but demonstrates a strategic weakness.
On several UK operations over the last 50 years the forces withdrawn from Europe weakened the alliance. In one, SACEUR protested to HMG that his available force, in particular deterrent forces were greatly weakened.
Similarly an RN unit on station overseas is necessarily miss positioned for a European tasking. Admittedly they can redeploy within a month but the whole purpose of its overseas deployment is deterrence of one form or another to further HMGs policies.
A Peter and Paul operation is all we can afford but demonstrates a strategic weakness.
Most of the time, there isn't a war/operation.
When NATO decided that "out of area operations" were part of their menu of options, and then commenced to do plenty of them, the "most of the time" basis from 50 years went out the window. I wonder sometimes if adding new nations was intended to make less of a burden of all these "out of area operations" or if it was something else. Probably something else, but ...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LW, as a then very young professor at Birmingham University (ours) said at a seminar in the 90s of NATO expansion, where do you stop, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan?
At least, at a stroke, you stop OOA for many deployments.
At least, at a stroke, you stop OOA for many deployments.
EDIT: Sorry, not two dozen, but 28!
Who and what are NATO containing?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With its purpose fulfilled, war prevented,
Personally I would scrap it and redo it, and redo another to reflect a more global nature.
why grow it?
For have a fixed size force, then the individual amount by individual members can be less, hence over time you keep you relative spending under control. Sadly theres that many gotchas with that theory, and second or third order effect its not funny.
Then you have all those countries with old primitive gear buying nice shiny new kit.
But more importantly, a lot of those countries where perhaps best described as lagging socially behind the rest of the west. A good modern well trained and disciplined military can have a good effect on a society.
Let's hope they don't need to call them back.
"Poland says may support Ukraine's defenses if crisis escalates"
Poland says may support Ukraine's defenses if crisis escalates | Reuters
"Poland says may support Ukraine's defenses if crisis escalates"
Poland says may support Ukraine's defenses if crisis escalates | Reuters
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LW was talking of the perception 19 years ago. Remember there was a bare 20 years between WW 1 and WW 2.
Although the end of the cold war was by then we'll established, Taceval and major war games becoming distant memories and the Balkans in turmoil, there was a reflectance to tear up the old war books.
At station level sqns 're-equipped with new aircraft, manning changed and old buildings were demolished and new ones built. Increasingly the war books became obsolete and no urgency to 're-write them.
Now what? Have new ones been written yet?
Although the end of the cold war was by then we'll established, Taceval and major war games becoming distant memories and the Balkans in turmoil, there was a reflectance to tear up the old war books.
At station level sqns 're-equipped with new aircraft, manning changed and old buildings were demolished and new ones built. Increasingly the war books became obsolete and no urgency to 're-write them.
Now what? Have new ones been written yet?
Actually, we were writing some new ones when I was there back then.
We scrapped some plans (I was pleased to help retire a number of old war plans that included tactical nukes -- hooray for the burn bag!).
We were working on upgrading STANNAVFORMED and MARFORMED that folded in the Spanish, some PfP (now new NATO member) forces, and focused on Southern Region operations, the new "front line" of NATO at the time.
We were working on the ACCS (ACTS?) integrated air defense package (which was a behemoth and still a work in progress some years after I left). With that was an effort to integrate Theater Missile Defense, Early Warning, and cruise missile defense for shore based assets. My guess is that the last part of that had some success in later years, as shown by the various BMD deployments to new partners in recent years that got Russia's piss in a bubble.
There was a thing called Mediterranean Initiative (Dialogue?) which was driven very much at the Political level. This led to some exercises (in later years) that folded in Non Nato nations participating in multinational flotillas using NATO as the backbone. I think the Israelis and Turks participated in some exercises under that framework but it's been a while and memory is fuzzy.
To answer your question, yes, new stuff was being put together through the usual agonizing NATO staff process and silence procedures and squabbling amongst the 16, 19, and later no doubt 14 and 28 nations.
We scrapped some plans (I was pleased to help retire a number of old war plans that included tactical nukes -- hooray for the burn bag!).
We were working on upgrading STANNAVFORMED and MARFORMED that folded in the Spanish, some PfP (now new NATO member) forces, and focused on Southern Region operations, the new "front line" of NATO at the time.
We were working on the ACCS (ACTS?) integrated air defense package (which was a behemoth and still a work in progress some years after I left). With that was an effort to integrate Theater Missile Defense, Early Warning, and cruise missile defense for shore based assets. My guess is that the last part of that had some success in later years, as shown by the various BMD deployments to new partners in recent years that got Russia's piss in a bubble.
There was a thing called Mediterranean Initiative (Dialogue?) which was driven very much at the Political level. This led to some exercises (in later years) that folded in Non Nato nations participating in multinational flotillas using NATO as the backbone. I think the Israelis and Turks participated in some exercises under that framework but it's been a while and memory is fuzzy.
To answer your question, yes, new stuff was being put together through the usual agonizing NATO staff process and silence procedures and squabbling amongst the 16, 19, and later no doubt 14 and 28 nations.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Poland says may support Ukraine's defenses if crisis escalates"
Another words, several thousand western troops on the ground, with air back up to guarantee Ukraine's integrity is all it would take.
Basically we need to get Ukraine into a sustainable position, which it isn't at the moment, its bleeding money. And more importantly our aid money.
I would prefer it wasn't an official NATO operation, or from countries that are a bit delicate on the Russian border, but hey, I guess the Ukrainians will take whatever they can get.
