Will the UK leave NATO eventually?

[Hangarshuffle]

Any real possibility of this occurring, within say 2-5 years? I was only thinking about the fallout from the so called BREXIT. If EU nations were difficult, or took from our view difficult positions against the UK in matters of new trade tariffs and future relationships.......my question is do you think a future UK leader would ever threaten to withdraw us from NATO?
Withdraw us out of spite against our former EU colleagues? Or use our position to remain within NATO as a bargaining chip?


* Fully concede we may shortly not even have a UK in its political sense for much longer anyway.


My own opinion for what its worth is yes, we may eventually be led to depart NATO if things don't go our way with Europe in the future..

[Tourist]

You think the world works in a very odd way hangar...

[hoodie]

I don't understand the basics of the question. Whatever has NATO got to do with the politics of the EU?

[NutLoose]

Nothing, but hey there is nowt like a bit of scaremongering :)

[Herod]

One word answer: "NO". Two word answer "ABSOLUTELY NOT". The UK was in NATO long before the EEC (and certainly long before the EU) was formed.

[MOSTAFA]

No - any future UK leader that wanted to withdraw us from NATO wouldn't be the UK leader for very long. Have we not just demonstrated that we are sick to the teeth of leaders that want to follow their own agenda and not listen?

[Yellow Sun]

The French of course left the military structure of NATO. I don't recall that we were too upset about that.

YS

[t43562]

Would it be a better question to ask if the EU will leave NATO eventually?

[Pontius Navigator]

YS and the Greeks and the Turks won't agree to letting them back in. Now there is your connection EU-NATO.

[Whenurhappy]

What will influence UK's membership is the behaviour and attitude of European leaders within NATO fora -such as the Warsaw Summit at the end of next week. I expect there will be cold shoulders offered by some leaders, and will we see some Eurocentric capability groups being formed.

It won't force us to leave, but our relationship will become much more transactional.

[Chugalug2]

The real world security of Europe has depended on NATO since its formation. Nothing that has happened since has changed that. Nothing that has happened since has changed the nature of NATO, where some countries have been more reliable partners than others. What happens in NATO from now on will no doubt shadow the shifting alliances of European states, whether within or without the EU. More likely that those who have turned their backs before on NATO will do so again. That won't be the UK.

[Heathrow Harry]

Only if Corbyn gets in..................

[Basil]

Only if Corbyn gets in..................
That was in the original draft of Alice but they decided it was just too silly . . . ;)

[kbrockman]

Better question , will the US leave NATO if Trump somehow becomes the next president ?
The EU is not safe from implosion if things stay the way they are, if the likes of Junker, Schultz and Verhofstad get their way and even more power gets centralized in Brussels it is not inconceivable that the leave-EU parties in France, the Netherlands and other EU nations win the next national elections and the EU lose more member states that way.

Marie le Pen already stated that Europe will be a main theme in next years elections, and the anti Europe sentiments in France are bigger than they ever where in the UK.

[MOSTAFA]

Or a better question would be are there rabbits on pluto

[AreOut]

nope, I guess over 90% citizens of UK would be against it and it will stay like that for some time

[SASless]

If the UK Military continues to shrink...at what point does the question become moot?

[charliegolf]

If the UK Military continues to shrink...at what point does the question become moot?

When they no longer have the nu-cular capability to destroy the whole world?

CG

Edit: not a criticism btw

Edit the second: SAS, I thought you wrote 'US, not 'UK'! Disregard. Oh, you did!

[West Coast]

When they no longer have the nu-cular capability to destroy the whole world?

Does it have to be that drastic?

I recall reading that the Canadians, The US and another nation with ASW abilities had to hunt for a suspected sub operating off your shores recently.

Shrinkage...not just a bedroom issue.

[Herod]

As far as I am aware, only two countries pay their rightful amount on defence, as requested by NATO. One is the US, naturally, and the other is that little offshore island, the UK. Don't go writing us off just yet.

[airpolice]

Herod, my umderstanding was that we spend it, not pay it. Huge difference, depending on which country we / they spend it in.

[Pontius Navigator]

Herod, but does the USA include military pensions in the total?

[Herod]

An unfortunate choice of words on my part. Of course, it is the percentage of GDP spent on defence. As far as pensions are included, yes, it's a false figure. My point still stands. We are one of only two nations spending enough on our defences. Although I agree that we should be spending more.

[Lonewolf_50]

The French of course left the military structure of NATO. I don't recall that we were too upset about that. A few years ago, while Sarkozy was leading in France, the French reintegrated into the military command structure. All in all a good thing.

I am not sure how it would be in the strategic interest of the UK to not remain in NATO. Once one has reduced one's overall military force structure, there is more incentive to depend on coalition efforts for a variety of military endeavors.

Put another way: what benefit(s) would it accrue to the UK to quit NATO? Since my PoV is from the western shores of the pond, I might be missing something obvious to someone who sees it from the other shore.

[airpolice]

Herod, Although I agree that we should be spending more.
That is of course, the worst kind of old fashioned defence thinking.


We should be trying to focus on getting more defence. Buying even more of the useless, but very expensive kit from our friends, is not helping the war effort.

[Herod]

I didn't say we should be spending more on useless, expensive kit. I just said we should be spending more. I would hope that spending it in the most cost-effective way would be a given (in my world, but not necessarily in the world of the "powers")

[CptDesire]

I thought we were one of five who met the 2% GDP requirement, US, UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia.

To answer the comment I seriously doubt we would leave NATO.

[recceguy]

Anyway, they have no maritime patrol aircraft, no nuclear bombers, no aircraft carriers ... and virtually no longer any overseas commitment (and they need their Parliament approval to go to war, which was THE problem in 9/14 against Syria) and for their nuclear submarines (with American missiles) it's not clear what's going to happen with the base in Scotland ...

so not a lot will be missed.

[Grizzz]

From the cheap seats on the other side of the pond, I'd have to say no! NATO is not just a European organization.

[Tinribs]

I am finding the comments about France and NATO confusing, probably through ignorance
I recall France leaving NATO over a nuclear weapons issue and then agreeing to a non military stance within NATO, whatever that may be. Now I think they have made some sort of planning agreement to take into account other NATO nations plans and situation but not to be full members. Is that right?

[ICM]

France never left NATO. It remained a full member of the North Atlantic Council but did, in 1966, leave the NATO Integrated Military Structure. It thus ceased to have a MilRep on the Military Committee at NATO HQ, but did maintain active observer status. Sensibly, taking account of its geography in relation to the potential Soviet threat, a number of General to General agreements were then drawn up to ensure that, should war break out, Allied defence could still be conducted. Given changing circumstances, France rejoined the Military Structure in 2009. This link may prove useful:

France and NATO - France-Diplomatie - Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/defence-security/france-and-nato/)

[Bing]

and they need their Parliament approval to go to war, which was THE problem in 9/14 against Syria

Not true, it's not needed, but the PM sought it over Syria, possibly to avoid the kind of fall out seen post Iraq.

https://fullfact.org/law/mps-dont-have-approve-military-action-syria/

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

nuclear submarines (with American missiles)

To be factually correct; "with American designed, built and maintained missiles". Let's not perpetuate the popular myth that we only rent our 2D5s.

[riff_raff]

One of NATO's original functions was to deter Soviet expansionism after WWII. The Soviet Union no longer exists, but Russia has recently started to flex its military muscles. So the real question is what will NATO do if there is a serious military conflict involving Russia and one of its members?

I think there are still many citizens in the UK who can recall the serious threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years. So I think the UK will remain part of NATO for the foreseeable future.

[Arclite01]

Hmmm

I wonder if NATO has the will to fight a full on war against the Russians, and does it still have the capability ?

For certain the infrastructure in Western Europe is far less than it used to be - as is the number of assets deployed. Does the improvement in quality make up for the degraded quantity ??

And a follow up question - does Russia have the will to fight a full on war against NATO ?? and does it still have the capability ??

They also have a far reduced infrastructure, a reduced number of assets and also further to come to reach the 'old' border area.

A 'good staff question' - any 'good staff answers' out there ?

Arc

[Heathrow Harry]

"I think there are still many citizens in the UK who can recall the serious threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War years"

well even at the time there was significant minority who didn't recognise it at all - and for anyone under 40 the Cold War is history

[oggers]

and for anyone under 40 the Cold War is history

Ignore history at your peril.

[Tourist]

Ignore history at your peril.

Erm, ok.

What am I supposed to not ignore?

That the Russians never did invade and destroy us?
That they had nothing like the suspected capability?

[pax britanica]

NATO has generally been a force for good and why would Uk withdraw, the French did under de Gaulle but there was never the least doubt which side they were on. Simialrly Sweden was neutral and not in Nato and it was just a coincidence that all their equipment was NATO compatible.

The real danger to NATO is America or to be precise a loony right wing America under the likes of Trump why might break it up by accident although i am sure other US Govt forces might just think that too much for them.

The other tricky bit is that the US -UK relationship which smoothed a lot of transatlantic conflicting views over might weaken since the US cousins like dealign with the people who really matter in these affairs and these days thats Hollande and Merkel who can intermingleNATO and EU politics leaving us as sort of nuclear armed Billy no mates -an odd situation

[airpolice]

I'm old enough to remember the cold war. I certainly remember NBC drills, working in the R3, being woken in the middle of the night because the scopies could see someone 200 miles north east of Aberdeen, and were worried about it.

The cold war was full of mystery and suspense. I couldn't figure out why the Soviets would invade, and how long it would take for everyone else, including them, to figure out that it was a bad idea.

One of the best lessons to learn from history, is recent history. The Nimrod is gone, and our capability for LRMP went with it. But still, the world turns.

Just because we had it, is no proof that we need it. I'm not saying it was wrong to have the V force and QRA and all the 24/7 readiness that went with that. But we don't have the same enemy, now, real or imagined.

Nobody at the MOD seems to look at what the RAF "need" to do nowadays and what kit they would be best equipped with.

How much better would the last fifteen years have gone, had they bought a **** load of A10s instead of Typhoons?

Don't get me wrong, I know that we need to plan for all sorts of eventualities, not just those that hindsight allows us to play with.

I mean, you can't deny, that if a situation had come up, requiring a load of vandalised Chinooks to be stored in a hangar, sorry, three hangars, at Shawbury, then the RAF would have been well placed to save the day.

Had the Russians, or anyone else, decided to pitch in to Afghanistan, against UK forces, armed with advanced supersonic fighters, then the only problem might have been a shortage of Typhoons. However, when the big "actual need" was for CAS, CSAR & Supply of ammo to the front line, well I don't recall seeing the Typhoon doing much of that.

But mostly, and I know I'm giving away my age here, the main reason for being in NATO was supposed to be mutual defence. So where was the rest of NATO in June 1982 and where will they be the next time that we actually need them?

[Lonewolf_50]

The 1982 situation was in a lot of ways outside of the remit of the Washington Treaty (and it was, to be pedantic, south atlantic) but I think you'll know that back channel the special relationship wasn't useless. But also appreciate the political problem Reagan and friends faced with the Monroe Doctrine versus our Special Relationship versus the Usual Suspects here at home ... not as simple as it looks/looked. War is the child of politics, as is any alliance or coalition effort. This is part of the reason that I wasn't all up in arms about the Germans and French opting out of Iraq Coalition, even though a number of NATO allies signed up anyway: for them, it wasn't in the mix, politically. I got real annoyed at some of our domestic pols and that "Freedom Fries" crap.

[Geordie_Expat]

Personally, I disagree with almost everything in that post from Airpolice. You can't even get the song quote correct, it was Eddie Cochran. But, heyho, everyone has the right etc.........

[oggers]

What am I supposed to not ignore?

That the Russians never did invade and destroy us?
That they had nothing like the suspected capability?

Well tourist, seeing as it is you, and seeing as any opinion on this is subjective I would just say: :rolleyes:

[Lonewolf_50]

airpolice, if the collective bitterness over the Falklands causes the UK to leave NATO, I'll buy you a pint. Maybe two.

[airpolice]

Geordie, how do you see the election prospects for a party candidate who suggest that we spend money on the NHS instead of NATO? Maybe they could paint the details on the side of a bus? Maybe the people will decide.

Even the voters who don't remember the US arriving late for WW2 and not showing up at all for the Falklands, nobody who can vote now can be unaware of Libya, Irag, Afghanistan and Syria. How do you convince people (voting sheep) that funding NATO is a good idea, while there is no more money for the NHS, when NATO is really all about helping the US flex their military muscle all over the world?

[airpolice]

Lonewolf, It's probably not enough to make us leave, but it might be a big step towards not making us stay.

The only time that we have actually needed help in the last 70 years, and we didn't get it.

[Geordie_Expat]

Geordie, how do you see the election prospects for a party candidate who suggest that we spend money on the NHS instead of NATO? Maybe they could paint the details on the side of a bus? Maybe the people will decide.

Even the voters who don't remember the US arriving late for WW2 and not showing up at all for the Falklands, nobody who can vote now can be unaware of Libya, Irag, Afghanistan and Syria. How do you convince people (voting sheep) that funding NATO is a good idea, while there is no more money for the NHS, when NATO is really all about helping the US flex their military muscle all over the world?


I can only repeat my earlier post (without the musical reference),

[Junglydaz]

As it turned out we didnt need their help to finish the job, Airpolice, although many British lives could have been saved had they given a rats arse.

To be honest, we get enough BS from them about "not winning WW2 if they hadn't turned up". Their involvement down south would've just given them another opportunity to falsely gloat.:D

[melmothtw]

It's probably not enough to make us leave, but it might be a big step towards not making us stay.

How exactly do we not stay without not leaving?

[Heathrow Harry]

the usual British fudge

[Yellow Sun]

airpolice:

The only time that we have actually needed help in the last 70 years, and we didn't get it.

Junglydaz:

As it turned out we didnt need their help to finish the job, Airpolice, although many British lives could have been saved had they given a rats arse.

You are both so wrong. If you had been in a position to see it at the time you would have realised that we found out who our friends were (should we have had any doubt) and they were not in Europe. The United States provided significant support in both equipment and other areas. I can also tell you that at various points individual US servicemen went out on a limb to help us without waiting for authorisation from their command chain. The provision of the Aim 9L and Harpoon is well known, but there was much more that has never been publicised.

YS

[RAFEngO74to09]

Yellow Sun - I agree.

In making such comments, Airpolice is obviously clueless about what actually went on and the very generous and significant support that was both offered and provided.

From somebody in the know on the armament side of the house before, during and after, add to your list Shrike ARMs and the offer of the loan of the LHD USS Iwo Jima complete with "contractors" as part of the crew.

[Lonewolf_50]

My point is that the public perception of what was done, is what will drive the voting patterns. Not having been seen to support us is what will do for them.

When a political move, suggesting that we stop contributing as much, is offered, then that will be hard to overcome.

I'm not saying that my little Englander attitude is correct, just that it is popular.

Had the US openly stood with the UK over the Falklands, instead of sneaking support under cover, it might have been easier to persuade the Argies that they should withdraw. Doing so in the face of the US as well as UK, might have allowed Galtieri to save a little face and back out before the task force arrived.
With warmest regards, you all kicking a bit of arse sent Galtieri packing, which in the long run was far better for Argentina. Beyond that, our hemispherian politics appear to be a mystery to those of you on the other side of the pond, which is OK. Personally, I was upset that with the Russians looming as the bigger problem, two of our friends were having a serious scrap.

You ever have this experience: a man and a woman who are married and whom you care for, both of them, get into that divorce thing? It sucks. That's how I felt about the Falklands, two friends scrapping while the low life on the block laughed at us all.

[riff_raff]

Erm, ok. What am I supposed to not ignore?
That the Russians never did invade and destroy us?
That they had nothing like the suspected capability?

NATO is an agreement between members to provide military assistance from foreign aggressors. While the UK homeland may not have been attacked/invaded by the Soviets during the Cold War, what would the UK have done if the US/Soviet conflict over the Cuban missile situation had escalated to war?

[melmothtw]

NATO is an agreement between members to provide military assistance from foreign aggressors. While the UK homeland may not have been attacked/invaded by the Soviets during the Cold War, what would the UK have done if the US/Soviet conflict over the Cuban missile situation had escalated to war?

I think Tourist's point is that it didn't.

As to the 'US didn't get involved in Falklands' argument. Apart from the fact that they did, who cares? The UK didn't get involved in Vietnam, Grenada (we didn't even know about that one), Panama, etc, without weakening NATO.

And if it was going to happen, it would have already done so given that the conflict was 34 years ago.

It's a non argument.

[Chugalug2]

As regards Vietnam, I was at Changi 63-66 and remember feeling then that we should have been involved. In retrospect that was mistaken, as even if the UK had been involved I can't see how it would have altered the final outcome. Nonetheless, it was very much part of the global containing of Communism, and in that respect was a follow on from the more successful outcome in Korea. There might have been a lot of naïve chatter about dominoes, but NATO was meanwhile successfully doing the same containing in Europe.

It was Harold Wilson's resolute refusal to lend a hand (or specifically a Scottish Piper) that prevented UK support. I must add that at no time do I remember any hostility whatsoever from US personnel about our lack of involvement, despite many visits to Pacific area US bases (including Saigon).

[Heathrow Harry]

Wilson (for once) was clear and consistent on Vietnam - it was clear he was never going to take the UK into that swamp

[Hangarshuffle]

UK membership of NATO will be bumped up onto the agenda by our lot if the EU moneymen get difficult with BREXIT. They need us, more than recently, and they know it.
It should always be there as a joker card......what are we defending from whom? The GB public will go with that.

[Lonewolf_50]

. what are we defending from whom? The GB public will go with that. That train left the station in 1995. IFOR. NATO out of area ops began. You are 21 years delinquent in understanding what the alliance is now, versus what it was up until the Wall fell. (I still have mixed feelings about that change in the alliance's nature, and with the expansion into more nations in the mix).

[West Coast]

Airpolice

Even the voters who don't remember the US arriving late for WW2

Perhaps those same voters will recall the Brits missing the opening curtain as well.

[peter we]

I doubts it, the British are blissfully unaware that they reneged on the treaty to defend Poland in 1939.

[Heathrow Harry]

Did we? or was that ironic Peter ??

IIRC we went to war because of Poland but since they were the other side of Germany we couldn't do much to help.....

[Heathrow Harry]

"That train left the station in 1995. IFOR. NATO out of area ops began."

well put Lonewolf - I always thought it was partly a bunch of people in NATO trying to show they were still "relevant", in a time when defence cut-backs were rampant , and partly becuase there wasn't any established, organised, international militray force immediately available..................

[Frostchamber]

No, the UK won't leave NATO. In a post Brexit world NATO will take on even more significance from a UK perspective. I don't doubt that it's a debate that Moscow and RT would love to encourage, and I imagine they're grateful for Hangar's help with that, but it won't happen.

[ShotOne]

"Reneged on a treaty to defend Poland.." Really, Peter? In 1939 we went to war on Polands behalf, sacrificing hundreds of thousands of our finest and leaving our nation indebted into the following century. The fact that right now hundreds of British servicemen are standing firm on Polish soil gives the lie to the OP's silly suggestion of UK abandoning NATO

[Archimedes]

Yellow Sun - I agree.

In making such comments, Airpolice is obviously clueless about what actually went on and the very generous and significant support that was both offered and provided.

From somebody in the know on the armament side of the house before, during and after, add to your list Shrike ARMs and the offer of the loan of the LHD USS Iwo Jima complete with "contractors" as part of the crew.

Not just Iwo Jima. We were offered - and the file can be found at Kew - the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, although we'd have had to provide the air wing. When we turned down the offer, we appear (I've not found that file yet, just hearsay evidence) to have been offered a CV rather than a CVN should we find that we needed it. I suspect that the offer(s) stalled at the political/ Chiefs level, particularly since the manpower and training required to get the ship(s) operational would've been... significant.

And here is an account somewhere from AVM Ron Dick regarding the US provision of eye watering amounts of fuel, with senior American loggies diverting oil tankers to ASI at the drop of a hat. ISTR that we insisted on paying for it (at a favourable rate) rather than taking it for free, which was what Cap Weinberger seems to have been angling for.

[Archimedes]

Airpolice



Perhaps those same voters will recall the Brits missing the opening curtain as well.

Not if they're related to the aircrew who were killed when 5 Wellingtons were shot down during a raid on shipping in the Elbe estuary on 4 Sept 1939.

Or if their relatives were involved in the raid (without loss) the night before on the Ruhr (leaflets only to be in accordance with FDR's plea that the combatants not bomb towns).

Or if they've discovered that they are related to some of the men who died when HMS Courageous was sunk on 17 September.

We might have been rushing to the stage at curtain rise after misjudging the time available to get there when final call was made, and then fluffed our lines a bit - but we but were suffering casualties almost as soon as Act One started...

[West Coast]

I guess it depends on when you consider the curtain to have risen. If you lived in areas taken/annexed/acquired via the Munich agreement, their war started a wee bit earlier than yours. Depending in perspective and scope, you can run it back a lot earlier than that as well.

[Chugalug2]

West Coast:-
you can run it back a lot earlier than that as well.

Indeed, there is a school of thought that WW2 was merely a continuation of WW1, interrupted merely by an armistice and retribution, that eventually ensured that part 2 was even more devastating than part 1...

[ShotOne]

Absolutely agree, chugalug..not that it helps with the original question either way. Not so much a question, rather mischief-making by the OP.

[Yellow Sun]

Indeed, there is a school of thought that WW2 was merely a continuation of WW1, interrupted merely by an armistice and retribution, that eventually ensured that part 2 was even more devastating than part 1...


Should anyone wish to investigate this proposition more thoroughly then I can recommend "To Hell and Back Again" by Ian Kershaw.

YS

[Chugalug2]

SO:-
..not that it helps with the original question either way.
Well, not directly perhaps but part 1, part 2, and the resulting Cold War, showed that the UK has always held firm to the principle of allying with other nations against any one nation, or group of nations, that threatened European peace and hence our security. Churchill once wrote a book or two about it I believe, ie about our history. NATO is merely the latest manifestation of that historic policy.

"A nation that forgets its past has no future". Now who was it who said that....?

[ShotOne]

Agreed again, chugalug which is why I described the suggestion to the contrary as mischief-making. Indeed the referendum seems to reinforce rather than weaken that.

[Chugalug2]

ShotOne, like you I believe the OP to be mistaken. Unlike you I believe it expressed Hangarshuffle's opinion rather than mere mischief. It is just possible that subsequent posts have swayed that opinion.

Isn't that what discussion is all about? Isn't that what PPRuNe, and particularly this forum, is all about?

[airpolice]

Chug, I also thought the purpose was to enable discussion, as means of entertainment.

The original question seems to have been lost.

We are supposed to be discussing whether the United Kingdom WILL leave NATO, rather than discussing whether or not the United Kingdom SHOULD leave NATO.

None of the arguments about why we should have retained the LRMPA capability were sufficient to stop the UK giving it up.

None of the persuasive arguments about keeping the Harrier Force worked.

The "shoulds" don't really matter.

[Chugalug2]

airpolice, I'm not sure about the point you are making. If it is about the difference of will as against should then we'll all have to watch our P's and Q's before posting to avoid further offence being taken.
Our LRMPA capability was lost (temporarily one hopes) because Haddon-Cave confirmed that the fleet, and the proposed upgraded fleet, were unairworthy. That was caused by the Gross Negligence of RAF VSOs, not HMG. As to the Harriers, they fell foul of inter Service politics I suspect.
So the DS solution to the OP is that nobody knows for sure what "will" happen? Can't really see the point, I'm afraid.

[t43562]

So I think that unless NATO reinvents itself, then we will need to leave.
Should NATO be reinvented as an alliance for protecting British jobs or the jobs of other NATO members?

[Chugalug2]

airpolice, attempts to predict the will (see what I just did there ;-) of "the people" have backfired spectacularly of late. So let's just wait and see how that "will" expresses itself. A good start will be the debate today by its elected representatives on our Nuclear Deterrent.

NATO may have been founded to guard against possible Soviet aggression, but it isn't limited to that one purpose. Admittedly, Out of Area Operations since then have diluted the brand but its central purpose is to safeguard European Peace and is as important as ever.

Notice that I talk of "Europe". The EU is not "Europe" but an organisation within it. In my view it is part of the problem and not the solution. Nonetheless, the danger as ever comes from its Eastern Border and it will be for NATO to defend it, not the EU (I fervently trust).

[Lonewolf_50]

Nonetheless, the danger as ever comes from its Eastern Border and it will be for NATO to defend it, not the EU (I fervently trust).
I respectfully submit to you, sir, that the actual danger comes from the Southern Region, a fact that was presented all through the alliance in the early to mid 1990's, as a planning assumption for all NATO staffs.


Among the factors included in the Southern Region threat were:
Overpopulation in the Magreb and Middle East
Arguments/disputes over water and land rights
Migration northwards out of the Middle East and the Magreb.


I used to brief this stuff with some frequency.


It has all come true, and it strikes me as bizarre that the perceived "greater threat" is viewed as being from the East. Russia's a problem that can be dealt with in a European fashion. The threats to the south and east? Not so.

[ShotOne]

There's a reason the old guard think that way; the Russian threat can be countered with familiar tools; jet fighters, tanks and warships. Not so, that from the South. If your toolbox only has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail!

[Chugalug2]

Lonewolf 50:-
Russia's a problem that can be dealt with in a European fashion

Could you please spell out what that means please? It sounds suspiciously like "Europe must take care of its own defence". If that is so then we need to know ASAP. Does it reflects a general feeling amongst the US population?

Parliament has just debated the renewal of the UK nuclear deterrent (specifically the build of 4 new submarines). Russia is renewing its capability too. NATO underlines the resolve of the West to counter Russian threats towards Europe (Red, Blue, and White now I believe airpolice). If the USA thinks that can now be left entirely to Europe to resolve in the usual fashion, presumably it anticipates deja vu all over again a la 1914 and 1939? The USA leads the NATO alliance out of self interest. I would contend that same self interest still exists.

As to the threat from the south, I quite agree it exists. It is however of a different kind, and attempts by the west to counter it by conventional military means have been more like stirring a hornet nest with a stick rather than resolving it in any way. The EU in particular has proven particularly vulnerable to mass immigration with its lengthy coastline and open borders. It can do little to change the former other than to patrol and reinforce it, but it needs to reform its ambitions and move into the real world to resolve the latter. The UK electorate has recently voted to do just that.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Europe must take care of its own defence".

wow - what a revolutionary idea -

about time we stood up for ourselves instead of free -riding on the Yanks back

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf 50:-
It sounds suspiciously like "Europe must take care of its own defence".
No sir, that wasn't my intended meaning. I was alluding to a greater cultural commonality between Russian and Europe than between Europe and all of those difficult neighbors in the Southern Region and the middle east. Substantial trade relationships and opportunities for common projects already exist between Russia and numerous European states. Yes, there are some points of serious contention, but my post was an indication that I believe that the ability to work through those, however difficult, remains. (Look at some of the hard political squabbles the US and various European nations have had regarding, for example, nuclear policy. We've managed to work through most of them).
The USA leads the NATO alliance out of self interest. I would contend that same self interest still exists. Yes. Our National Security policy continues to stress that we will generally work as part of a coalition. That hasn't changed in some decades. NATO and the trans Atlantic link, for all that Mr Obama dislikes the UK personally, remains of long term interest.
As to the threat from the south, I quite agree it exists.
Yes, the assessments then have borne out to be valid.
The EU in particular has proven particularly vulnerable to mass immigration with its lengthy coastline and open borders.
And the mid 90's strategic stupidity that led to "borderless" travel once within much of Europe. At the time, I was living in Europe, and voiced my dismay at this approach to some of my NATO colleagues. My European colleagues pointed out some of the conveniences, and most of them shared with me their optimism that it would in the long haul be of even greater benefit. This was also at a time when the Euro was being sold hard by certain governments and interests in Europe, the Independent European Defense Identity was being much talked about (to include Euro Corps), and any number of ideas were floating about regarding a greater political growing together of a lot of Europe.

I am drifting off topic. Sorry. NATO as a political organization has quite a bit of momentum. As a collective security organization, it's pretty effective for all of it warts. I am an outsider to UK views on the matter, but it seems to me a useful club to be in for the short to medium term, and likely the longer term as well.

[A_Van]

My five cents (or, two pennies worth) on the Russian and "southern" threats.


The obvious state of the art is that UK, as a great country (said without sarcasm), possesses nukes and actually was number 3 to get this capability. I assume that for many Britons it is a certain part of national pride and something that deserves respect. If so, why to get rid of it? IMHO it would look a bit crazy in the situation (and the world we live in currently) when India and Pakistan do have and develop this stuff.


For Russia, four old-fashioned subs are next to nothing as compared with the US arsenal and therefore cannot be considered as an additional threat. I think their upgrade or modernisation of the whole fleet will be left unnoticed here. Moreover,maybe the submarine command system (http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/submarine-command-system-next-generation) will be finally updated as well, because it is running Windows and this makes me worry :-)


Airpolice: unfortunately you are not right regarding mid-east fanatics not attacking Russia. There were many acts of terror in Moscow (subway, airport, residential buildings) and some southern cities in the past, all organised and performed by these a-holes. To say nothing about the war against Tchechen terrorists in 90's that tried to cut out a good piece of territory for future Calyphate. Now many of them reside in Europe, US and UK as "victims of the bloody regime" (e.g. Boston bombers were exactly those folks).

[Chugalug2]

airpolice:-
If the Russians need nuked at some point in the future, the French can do it, or not.
I'll assume that is a throw away line to express your belief that the deterrent will never be used, by us, by the French, by anyone. I quite agree, that is the whole point of it, that it never be used but yet that it might be used. In that respect we ourselves have to inject the "might", no use relying on someone else's might, they might say that they might not (in regard to our security). BTW, you instanced France, so I am not insinuating any such response in their regard.

Corbyn, like you, says that the threat is now from terrorism and that makes the nuclear deterrent ineffective. It might well be in the case of terrorism, but there are sadly now a number of nuclear armed states in the world with yet others vying to join the club. Many of those are regimes that would not hesitate to use such weapons if they could rely on there being no retaliation. They cannot be assured of that, especially as that retaliation could come from a number of western democracies alone, so they hold their hand. That is the value of our "four old-fashioned subs", and I for one will sleep sounder knowing that at least one of them is on patrol all the time.

Again you tell us what the people want and need. They need to feel safe first and foremost. That is why they vote in Governments that assure that safety by continuing with the UK deterrent force. The people speak for the people at a General Election, not you, and certainly not me!

Lonewolf50, thank you for clarifying the meaning of your previous post and apologies for my getting it wrong. I am afraid that we are in violent agreement regarding the threat to peace from the south. I hope that we remain agreed that something rather more sophisticated than bombing the hell out of it is called for to meet that challenge.

Most of these migrants are such out of desperation and fear. War, persecution, drought, and corruption are their daily lot. The only way to turn the migration off is to remove those factors. Little by little, one by one. We need a renewed charter, as expressed by Roosevelt and Churchill. The League of Nations failed, the United Nations has failed, let us succeed this time so that these ordinary people, with ordinary ambitions for themselves and their loved ones, can build a future for themselves in their own countries. Of course it will cost, but so does war and the aftermath of war.

Our new Prime Minister has promised the people of this country a new deal for its own ordinary people. We need such a promise for the people of the south, but only with international agreement to make good on that promise. All starry eyed nonsense? Of course! Who could ever begin to believe it?

Oh, and what has all this got to do with NATO? Possibly everything...

[ShotOne]

"The French can do it..." Relying on the whim of another nation to defend us (or maybe not) in the last resort strikes me as the most powerful argument in favour of NATO.

Excellent post, chugalug, in particular +1 to releasing the people of The South from persecution etc. But are you suggesting that this should be NATO's job?

[Chugalug2]

But are you suggesting that this should be NATO's job?

NATO is the defacto Military Alliance for the defence of Europe. At least part of the threat to Europe comes from the South, in the form of terrorism, mass immigration, and militant Islamism. It is my belief that a large part of that threat can be reduced by the measures described in my previous post, but inevitably some will require military involvement. The EU has proved unable to solve the problem of the immigrants, indeed it has exacerbated it instead. The interception at sea of the people smuggling boats and their return to safe Southern Mediterranean littoral states that join the alliance (and rewarded for doing so) can be done under NATO command. That would be the start.

Where we go from there would be down to the Charter. Perhaps a new alliance (MEATO?) would be required to assuage local sensibilities. Somehow though territory has to be returned to elected governments by defeating local war lords (Libya being the first, followed by those terrorised by criminal gangs posing as religious fighters). The West has to learn not to be too precious about "democracy". What is needed is stability and peace so that normal life can return. In that regard NATO can again assist with the various technical specialities within its military, engineering, transport, communications, etc. Eventually all that can be taken over by contractors, preferably local.

So in answer to your question, it will be the job of Governments, European and their Allies, to make this work. Part of the means of doing some of it should involve NATO, particularly where European security is involved

[jindabyne]

Well said Chug!

Your last two posts are, for me, the most succinct and well-argued that I've seen for some time in this place. :ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

Where we go from there would be down to the Charter. Perhaps a new alliance (MEATO?) would be required to assuage local sensibilities. I wish I'd thought of MEATO when I had to do some staff work on The Mediterranean Dialogue (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52927.htm)back in the 90's. Bits of what you have suggested has been tried with mixed results. As with Partnership for Peace, it takes two sides to want a closer relationship.


Also remember that NATO does have some linkage to the UN in its original Treaty, which will inform some limits on what political objectives are within the alliances remit.


My preferred focus for MEATO would be to defeat the Vegan hordes, but that's a topic for another thread. :} Our key weapons would be surprise, bacon bombs, and a fanatical devotion to the pork ...

[Chugalug2]

Point taken, Lonewolf. Perhaps MEATO is not the most appropriate acronym to have coined! I'm sure that much worthier people than yours truly have wrestled with all this before. That is the point though, before has become now, with a far greater urgency than then. In a way, all the worst case scenarios have popped up together. That at least should concentrate minds on all sides to seek solutions or to exploit situations. I've no doubt some fisticuffs will be required, it is just that they shouldn't be the default answer to everything and anything.

ShotOne and jindabyne, thank you both for your kind words. No doubt the cons will wade in shortly, so your declarations of pro are thus warmly welcomed. There are a thousand and one reasons why nothing can be done, but only one reason why they must be, ie regional stability, which is presently anything but.