Is this the beginning of the end of NATO?

[rarelyathome]

Just quoted on the BBC News Site.

"The US military will become "leaner" as it switches focus to the Asia-Pacific region, US President Barack Obama has announced. .... The Pentagon faces more than $450bn (£288bn) in cuts in the next 10 years."

Has the US finally lost patience with European nations' failure to deliver any real capability? Have the French finally got their way? What will the EU be able to do to fill the gap (answers to that one on a postage stamp!).

Interesting and dangerous times ahead.

[pr00ne]

rarelyathome,

What gap? What has 'real capability' has Europe failed to deliver? Capability to do what and where? Most importantly, why? We face no formed military threat anywhere. No state is eyeing us with greedy and acquisitive eyes.

As to interesting and dangerous times, how about much safer and interesting times as the US and the UK stop invading other countries to inflict regime change and exact revenge.

Mentality stuck in the 19th Century...

[Mach Two]

I think I can see where you're coming from, Rarely. The US have, outwardly, been pretty patient with European nations as they (not so much us) left it to the US to provide the bulk of the hardware and manpower to NATO. Admittedly, that was mostly their choice, especially with their footprint in Europe during the Cold War. But we know it always annoyed them.

My guess is that the EU will do very little at this stage to fill anything. No one can afford it so NATO will just have to be smaller. As prOOne says, what do we really need it to do now? If/when we need lots of hardware and boots, everyone will just have to dig deep and do what they can. At least it will make it more difficult to invade people without considering the exit strategy.

M2

[rarelyathome]

A 19th century mentality? Not sure where that one came from but yours certainly seems to reflect that of the early 3rd decade of the 20th!

Forget the politics and examine the warfighting lessons, one only needs to look back to the Libya to see just how much we relied on US strategic enablers to cope with a relatively straightforward campaign.

I still contend these are dangerous times with a very uncertain future. Climate change, reducing natural resources, increasing populations the possibility of mass migrations and a myriad of other things are threats with unknown outcomes. I for one would like to think that Europe would at least have the ISR to assess whether there is a threat but there is little chance of that.

Pull up the drawbridge and hunker down in little Britain just isn't an option in such a globalised world. In your vision, what would you do if Iran DID close the Straits of Hormuz?

[pr00ne]

rarelyathome,

19th Century because you seem to think it's OK to strut around the planet invading and occupying other peoples countries, as we did constantly in the 19th C.

Forget 'war fighting' capability. We aren't going to be fighting any wars. As to Libya, the only reason that we needed US assistance was because we committed a tiny proportion of our assets and most of NATO wanted nothing to do with it and therefore committed none.

All of the threats that you list are indeed real, but we don't need military force to deal with them.

We live in an increasingly globalised integrated economy in which national boundaries and political borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The only reason that we have any kind of resource issue on planet earth is the incredibly disproportionate distribution of those resources that has grown a million fold since the dawn of the industrial revolution in the west.

What would I do if Iran closed the straight of Hormuz? Well, that would be a global issue affecting all of the nations who depend upon the 20% of the worlds oil that passes through it. How many of the 15 super tankers a day that do pass through are carrying Iranian oil?

Iran would be hugely damaged by any closure. It cannot sustain its economy with out the revenue it earns from the sale of oil. If Iran so wanted to damage the west then why not just stop selling oil?

[vascodegama]

I am with rarely on this one. NATO could not have enforced the UN resolution without certain US assets which were not available (in some cases at all, in others in sufficient numbers) from the other countries. In particular a limiting factor was AAR with the US provididing a significant proportion. It is true that other assets could have come from within Europe if the will had been present but there is/was still a gap in certain areas.

[Airborne Aircrew]

No state is eyeing us with greedy and acquisitive eyes.That is just the sort of mentality that gets your arse kicked. Military power is not something you just conjure up because a bully suddenly steps forward. Without constant training, practice and, dare one say it, a bit of real operations the skills required to be effective when attacked are lost. So, when China who is privately eying your lily white buttocks, decides to go public with her desires - backed by a two million strong military - it will be a little late to be relying on "the Few" all over again.

[glojo]

My vote goes to 'rarely' :ok:

I do however agree with this observation (because I said it first) :p:ok:;)
What would I do if Iran closed the straight of Hormuz? Well, that would be a global issue affecting all of the nations who depend upon the 20% of the worlds oil that passes through it. How many of the 15 super tankers a day that do pass through are carrying Iranian oil?

Iran would be hugely damaged by any closure. It cannot sustain its economy with out the revenue it earns from the sale of oil. If Iran so wanted to damage the west then why not just stop selling oil?

[Mach Two]

Yeah, glojo, I'm with you there. Rarely's points are valid, but I can see pr00ne has a point to make too.

Pr00ne, play nicely and let's discuss it. Or are you two old sparring partners looking for a fight?

M2

[Fareastdriver]

So, when China who is privately eying your lily white buttocks

China is reliant on an export led economy. The last thing you do is destroy your export markets.

[Airborne Aircrew]

China is reliant on an export led economy. The last thing you do is destroy your export markets.

They'd much rather own the markets than have to be nice to them...

[Sunk at Narvik]

Don't forget that the Germans had a dam good deal going with Russia in 1941...timber, oil etc all coming west..but they invaded anyway.

Saying "China won't wage a war on its export customers" flies in the face of historical precedent.

Sometimes states act irrationally.

[Willard Whyte]

Don't forget that the Germans had a dam good deal going with Russia in 1941...timber, oil etc all coming west..but they invaded anyway.

I seem to recall that at the time SU was Germany's largest trading partner.

I also seem to recall that prior to the war France was Germany's greatest trading partner.

[frg7700]

That is just the sort of mentality that gets your arse kicked. Military power is not something you just conjure up because a bully suddenly steps forward. Without constant training, practice and, dare one say it, a bit of real operations the skills required to be effective when attacked are lost. So, when China who is privately eying your lily white buttocks, decides to go public with her desires - backed by a two million strong military - it will be a little late to be relying on "the Few" all over again.

Nor can a bully simply conjure up a fleet capable of global power projection to step forward with.

If China want our lily white buttocks... They'll buy them, like they've already do to... Other countries.

[Chugalug2]

We aren't going to be fighting any wars.
That is wonderful news, pr00ne. I wonder if you wouldn't mind just popping that down on a piece of paper and signing it. Might not be a bad idea then to get every other country to sign it as well. Think of the relief that would bring to a worried nation. Why, you could flourish it on your return with it bearing all the signatures and promise us "Peace in our Time". Has quite a ring to it now I come to think about it. It's bound to work, isn't it? Well, isn't it?

[glojo]

Chugalug2
If your post had been entered in the Caption competition I am sure it would have won hands down...

That was the best laugh I have had for days if not weeks :D:D:D:D:D:D

I'm off for a ride on my boat... or is it a ship?? :E;)

Brilliant post and I needed a good chuckle

[rh200]

We face no formed military threat anywhere. No state is eyeing us with greedy and acquisitive eyes.There's a good reason for that. Nature abhor's a power vacuum. Basically the western world has been living under the skirt of the yanks for the last half a century. The dominance of the Yanky military has decreased the viability of going down the conflict route for potential aggressors.

Mentality stuck in the 19th Century... Actually its mentality stuck in reality, history has always shown that when you are weak some one will come and "help" you a long if its in their best interest.:p

I for one am eternally grateful for the cushy life the yanks have enabled us to have this last half century. I personally think none of us have pulled our weight, some more than others, and have effectively leached off them.

[Airborne Aircrew]

rh200:

Nice to see someone who "gets it"... :D:D:D:D

[SASless]

We are going back to a "single" War capability...cutting up to 500,000 troops they say....putting the focus on China....turning our backs on the Middle East and Europe.....sounds like a wonderful recipe for a real War kicking off before too awful long....and we can count on it being a two front War, involve the need for large numbers of ground troops. That is if historical precedents are of any value.

Has any country been attacked because it was seen as being too strong by its enemies?

[CoodaShooda]

Has any country been attacked because it was seen as being too strong by its enemies?

The US by Japan on 7 December 1941? Or so Yamamato reputedly believed.

[Pontius Navigator]

I also seem to recall that prior to the war France was Germany's greatest trading partner.

Ah, but which way?

[Thelma Viaduct]

NATO will never cease to exist, it is an industry with many brown envelopes much like the EU.

Where the corrupt make money, it will be protected, not destroyed.

[Fareastdriver]

There are lots of comments here about the Big Bogeyman, China. Having been there, travelled over a large part of the country, over a period of fifteen years; I have a rough idea of what makes the country tick.

Saying "China won't wage a war on its export customers" flies in the face of historical precedent.

China has never invaded another country in its modern history. People will shout about Tibet and Korea. Tibet has been part of China for nearly a 800 years after a series of wars instigated by Tibet when they invaded China. When the Peoples Republic came into being China reasserted its authority over a medieval religious despotic tyranny. Korea was for the protection of the Chinese borders with the connivance of the North Korean government. The so-called human waves will not be repeated because the modern Chinese is not going to sacrifice himself for ideology and they have run out of Chinese Nationalist POWs.

Han Chinese, the main ethnic race in China, had no say in running the country from when they were invaded by the Manchu who set up the Qing dynasty. During that time China was invaded and humiliated by the rest of the world’s powers leading to the surrender of territory, Hong Kong and Formosa, and the establishment of treaty ports around China where foreign powers had full legal and territorial responsibly. 1912 was the birth of the Chinese Republic, followed by decades of corruption and infighting that led to the Japanese invasion. At the end of WWII the damage had already been done and the progression to the Peoples Republic of China was almost automatic.
This was the period where China, especially under Mao Tse Tung, had visions of world domination. To this end he starved and bankrupted the country believing that with nuclear technology and unlimited numbers he could establish Communism worldwide. Several indecisive border skirmishes with India and Russia plus a total failure to attempt to recover Formosa put at end to this dream and after Mao passed on Deng Xiaoping brought China into the 20th century.

Modern Chinese do not rush around waving little red books any more; quite the opposite. The main interest of the resurrected middle class is to pay the mortgage and keep up the car repayments. The majority of the population that has been left behind and are still waiting for this economic miracle to effect them and this desire is Beijing’s first priority. This takes money, lots of it, but more importantly time.

About five years ago a project, started in 1950, to connect every dwelling in China to electricity; reached its conclusion. The village in question had to have a road cut to it so that they could bring in the poles etc. When the first truck arrived for some of the older inhabitants it was they first mechanical operated wheeled vehicle they had ever seen; and when they looked into a television there were even more. I have travelled a fair amount around rural China and believe me apart from roads; lorries; buses and the younger generation wearing jeans nothing much has moved for two hundred years.

The Chinese Government knows from its own experience that revolutions are instigated by the dissatisfied masses. It is working hard to drag these up to an acceptable standard and until that happens it is not going to rock the boat with foreign adventures. 800 million will take another 30-40 years.

[rarelyathome]

I don't have any idea about the Chinese or their potential threat so many thanks for the post. I think I read this morning that they have had defence spending in the double figures for the last few years. Even given that they may be coming from a low startpoint, what would you say is the driver for their huge military expenditure when they have so much else to do?

No side to the question but keen to have a view from somebody with first hand knowledge.

Rarelyathome

[glojo]

I wish there was a way we could tick a box or sum-fink:rolleyes: to show our appreciation for posts that we find informative\helpful or humorous.

Thanks Fareastdriver for a post that is most informative.

Yesterday I watched a documentary on Aljazeera which was about Chinese farmers setting up in Nigeria. (http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/fg-adopts-chinese-farming-option/100610/) I guess the employer employee relationship is not something we might appreciate but it was eye opening to see Chinese people selling their produce at the local market.

I have a few questions I would love to ask you but they had best be via pm :O

Thanks for the post :ok:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Indeed, many thanks for some very thoughtful and informed posts. What I'm curious about is how we resolve such difficulties as China Corners Over 90% of Market for Rare-Earth Metals (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13853) without a big stick handy in the cupboard? OK, it's old news but I can't imagine that the position has become more favourable for us in the intervening period.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Modern Chinese do not rush around waving little red books any more; quite the opposite.I'll preface this by saying I have miniscule experience of China compared to you but I found the modern Chinese to be alarmingly supportive of government intrusion. Such things as property "ownership" was fully supported and deemed quite logical and right by one particular young lady, (our guide). The premise of property "ownership" is that you must purchase your property in full, up front. There's no such thing as a mortgage. Then, when the 70 years you purchased is up you have the choice of purchasing another 70 years up front or moving back to a government operated apartment. The catch here is that the "purchase" is non-transferable... If you die the day after you moved in it gets "sold" to someone else.

This was all perfectly logical, practical and acceptable to our very well educated guide who had spent 4 years in the USA studying. We tried, (to no avail), to point out that this is no different than renting a government apartment other than you paid all the rent up front. When pressed she proved that her belief in the government and the way it functions and rules was total and genuine.

She was the first of three guides we had, (all young, well educated ladies who had spent years in the "west" studying), who, when the subject moved to aspects of government that we found "different", expressed a similar devotion to the system.

Upon exiting through Hong Kong where my brother was then living he confirmed that ideologically the young Chinese are, for the largest part, little different from their parents and grandparents. His experience is significantly greater than mine in that he has lived in the far east for 15+ years and has spent much of his time in China working with all strata of their society.

In the end though, whether we believe China is no threat or not, one should never turn one's back on a military that can muster 2 million men and women at the drop of a hat.

[Fareastdriver]

Airborne Aircrew.

My experience is totally different; but again I have never dealt with government authorised guides. I know enough Chinese and Westerers who have mortgages in China and you are right on one thing; the property is leasehold. However there are financial sureties in place should it be felled for another high-rise. The mortgage problem; that leads to yo yo price flucuations in China; is people taking on mutiple mortgages for buy-to-let. Soon there is a situation where there are not enough tenants and then the price cycle dives again.
You think the UK is bad. In Shanghai in 2008 they cycled 30%.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Fareast:

Understood... Fair points... As I said, I had three weeks there... You've had a lot more.

I still don't think we can afford to be reducing our military when a country with the issues China either has or will have in the next decade regarding population, food supply etc. is ramping up it's military spending... They may not always react the way one would like or expect...

[Fareastdriver]

I agree with you on the miltary spending though I do not believe China is the threat. It is 1780 miles from China (Tibet) to Europe and too many countries to annoy. China ambitions is not the 'liberation' of Taiwan but the establishment of Chinese juristriction over the odd scattered islands that it believes are still part of China; most notably the Prata or Dongsha Islands; plus any possible oil, of course.

As a guide; when I flew offshore out of Shenzhen the southermost platforms were a lot closer to Pratas than they were to mainland China.

[tornadoken]

In 1991 UK, France and US separately signed Treaties with the new Russian Federation, which, amongst other things, ceased mutual targeting, and expanded the Open Skies regime, to include Liaison Teams in SHAPE and in Moscow. There have been ups & downs in all this, but the wonder is not that UK, France and US have conducted Strategic Defence Reviews to reduce Defence as a proportion of National Wealth, but that the Peace Dividend has taken so long to be collected. UK and US still have large Army presence in Germany: why? If I had any time for such as Chomsky, I would mull his phrase: that Defence is welfare for the military-industrial complex.

We are in the throes of a Revolution in Military Affairs. Less kit, more wit. Less me more we. China will be no Threat if we continue, as we now do, to treat her as she wishes to be treated: equal in international councils addressing cross-border issues. China's wit will help deal with loons in N.Korea. The example above of China-in Nigeria is no more than a post-colonial means of accessing resources by trade and barter. I would far prefer that route than the route of armed invasion. We must get used to sharing, negotiating, and aiding the aspirations of the have-not-much Nations, who wish to have-about-as-much as the Greeks.

All that has happened in US is the baseline is (very slowly) to move from deploying 2xFormed Forces at once, to one such, while dealing with another modest spot of bother. The other NATO Member States have already drawn-down to (relative) comparable competence. The A to OP Q is: no, this is not the end of NATO, merely a settling into a world where the 4th Arm of Defence - finance - takes its proper place. We face no Formed Force. China does not have 2 miliion uniforms intent on aggression. It has a certain capability, not dissimilar to India's. Unlike India, however, China is not held intact as one coherent Nation by a process of consensus: in common with all Communist, all authoritarian regimes, conscripts with guns are necessary. We know now how few Warsaw Pact uniforms comprised a Force capable of invading its neighbours. China is much the same, facing its own Threat: of internal stress.

[Fareastdriver]

Those of you that have studied Chinese History will have picked up on my deliberate mistake when I failed to mention the Sino Vietnamese punch-up of 1979. I was going to mention it but memsahib wanted to go shopping and I forgot when I came back.
Whilst I was in China I had a lot of contact with the military at different levels. As I was their guest I am afraid I will not disclose any sensitive information that I gleaned during these visits.
The People liberation Army is enshrined in the constitution, it is one of the stars on the Chinese flag, and it is there to defend China and the Chinese people against all forces that may try to attack China. To that end it has to be bigger than any potential enemy. Surprisingly for most Westerners the most recent confrontations has been with Viet Nam. At the same time as they were involved in this they were covering their backside with 1.5 million troops on the Russian border. China did not do very well against the Vietnamese who were taking advantage of all the American equipment available and that was when the Chinese Army decided to modernise.

It’s a big army and it has to be completely re-equipped. One of the costs at the end of the last century was giving the regulars a decent living wage. Before that a first lieutenant on a fighter squadron was on about 480 yuan/month; the same as I was paying my housekeeper. Conscript sqaddies that they did not know what to do with were rented out wholesale to security companies. One Sunday a month I would lean over my balcony and watch the apartment complex’s security guards being drilled by a PLA DI. So much of the military budget is spent on equipment that they are continually short of basics; like fuel.

About three years ago a senior general was quoted as saying that if the PLA expanded at 10% every year for thirty years then it would be as strong as the United States armed forces were then. Presumably if the US forces are going contract then that time will be shorter.

tornadoken

Good post. Very well summed up.

[500N]

"China is reliant on an export led economy. The last thing you do is destroy your export markets."

"They'd much rather own the markets than have to be nice to them... "


China is an export lead economy BUT it is an import economy for a fair amount of the resources it uses to make product that it exports ie Iron ore, coal - which is used to build the factories to make the export items.

As to owning, it is buying up resources as fast as it can or developing new one's in third world countries as has been reported in the media.

[Fareastdriver]

Whilst I was working in Oz a mining company signed a contract with a Chinese buyer where they guaranteed purchases for five years at a premium over the market price.

[tornadoken]

fed: which is a very sensible thing for China, very welcome thing for the Supplier. XP.Deng, when he Opened the Door, used the phrase mutual benefit. Where's the beef? When we Brits Opened, for example, Nigeria, respect, benefit, were, ah, not very mutual.