European Army
West Coast, you are quite right to castigate European nations of NATO who do not pull their weight in contributing to their common security. With respect though, I think you are quite wrong to characterise NATO as an anachronism. If there were any doubt in the USA as to the lack of merit in a policy of isolation then that should have been settled by WWII. If the USA had remained neutral would it even exist now? Very little has changed in real politick since then, whether in the threat to Europe or the Far East. The threats may or may not come from different capital cities but they are as real now as they were in the 30s. Because we prevaricated then we had together to fight and defeat them in the 40s or confront them together for another four decades.
This is no time to prevaricate either. The EU Grand Projet is built on hubris, NATO is built on a mutual need. Because Berlin and Paris can't see that yet is no reason for Washington not to see it. Together we are stronger than apart and should stand together!
This is no time to prevaricate either. The EU Grand Projet is built on hubris, NATO is built on a mutual need. Because Berlin and Paris can't see that yet is no reason for Washington not to see it. Together we are stronger than apart and should stand together!
Would you prefer to say the primary threat Western Europe faced during the Cold War is no more?
Russia isn’t the USSR, the threat of Soviet tanks rolling down the Fulda Gap is long gone. Brush fire wars which Europe should be able to handle minus massive US support are the norm.
Russia isn’t the USSR, the threat of Soviet tanks rolling down the Fulda Gap is long gone. Brush fire wars which Europe should be able to handle minus massive US support are the norm.
Would you prefer to say the primary threat Western Europe faced during the Cold War is no more?
Russia isn’t the USSR, the threat of Soviet tanks rolling down the Fulda Gap is long gone. Brush fire wars which Europe should be able to handle minus massive US support are the norm.
Russia isn’t the USSR, the threat of Soviet tanks rolling down the Fulda Gap is long gone. Brush fire wars which Europe should be able to handle minus massive US support are the norm.
The last bout of unpleasantness can be traced back to the humiliation heaped upon a defeated Germany. The next outbreak of unpleasantness may well be a product of the humiliation heaped upon the Soviet Union by the USA and NATO. Just as the former was preceded by rapid rearmament of a nation that was reduced to economic impotency, much the same might be said of modern Russia.
The strain on the economy of Germany meant it was almost obliged to go to war in order to plunder the treasuries of the countries that it occupied, and a similar cause and effect could well occur with Russia.
This from a publisher not a million miles from you West Coast:-
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...425-story.html
In the meantime the assassinations using ever more terrifying methods will no doubt continue. No doubt the trains run on time though!
Interesting and all, but doesnt really speak to the continued need for NATO. A European army with member states who vigorously pursue their collective defense can oppose Vlad without US support. A lot of new highways and hospitals can be built in the US with the money spent defending those who have become too reliant on the US for their own defense.
It'a easy to do when that's been ops normal for decades now. I blame the US government to the same degree as the underfunding Euro nations. The federal govermment is suppossed to exist in part to effectively manage where US funds get the most bang for the buck.
It'a easy to do when that's been ops normal for decades now. I blame the US government to the same degree as the underfunding Euro nations. The federal govermment is suppossed to exist in part to effectively manage where US funds get the most bang for the buck.
Oh, hospitals and schools trump (sorry about that!) everything else here too. Russia remains a threat to Europe and the World in my view, whatever flag it flies.
The echoes of the 30s are striking. First you start 'liberating' neighbouring countries with large populations sharing your own language and culture, when you run out of them you carry on 'liberating' all the others. The lack of resolve of others about what to do about your rampage serves your purpose well until it is too late to do anything other than go to war. Even then a lack of resolve allows your successes to continue until your own hubris brings about a downfall that leaves death and ruin in its wake for entire populations.
NATO is as important to world peace now as ever it were. Otherwise it is Deja Vu all over again!
The echoes of the 30s are striking. First you start 'liberating' neighbouring countries with large populations sharing your own language and culture, when you run out of them you carry on 'liberating' all the others. The lack of resolve of others about what to do about your rampage serves your purpose well until it is too late to do anything other than go to war. Even then a lack of resolve allows your successes to continue until your own hubris brings about a downfall that leaves death and ruin in its wake for entire populations.
NATO is as important to world peace now as ever it were. Otherwise it is Deja Vu all over again!
Oh, hospitals and schools trump (sorry about that!) everything else here too. Russia remains a threat to Europe and the World in my view, whatever flag it flies.
The echoes of the 30s are striking. First you start 'liberating' neighbouring countries with large populations sharing your own language and culture, when you run out of them you carry on 'liberating' all the others. The lack of resolve of others about what to do about your rampage serves your purpose well until it is too late to do anything other than go to war. Even then a lack of resolve allows your successes to continue until your own hubris brings about a downfall that leaves death and ruin in its wake for entire populations.
NATO is as important to world peace now as ever it were. Otherwise it is Deja Vu all over again!
The echoes of the 30s are striking. First you start 'liberating' neighbouring countries with large populations sharing your own language and culture, when you run out of them you carry on 'liberating' all the others. The lack of resolve of others about what to do about your rampage serves your purpose well until it is too late to do anything other than go to war. Even then a lack of resolve allows your successes to continue until your own hubris brings about a downfall that leaves death and ruin in its wake for entire populations.
NATO is as important to world peace now as ever it were. Otherwise it is Deja Vu all over again!
No, I don't think they do, just as they didn't last time around. Clever people thought they could manage Hitler. That didn't turn out too well, did it?
I guess it has to be Deja Vu after all, just as in 1917 and 1941. See you then.
I guess it has to be Deja Vu after all, just as in 1917 and 1941. See you then.
I take it that your cryptic comment refers to the speech by the then Secretary General, Lord Robertson :-
https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s011004b.htm
NATO resolve then or now is not the issue. It is the resolve and commitment of NATO member nations that is in question. Without the latter the former quickly becomes irrelevant.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 13th Nov 2019 at 11:31. Reason: spiling
My 'cryptic comment' refers to the time that NATO invoked Article 5, in support or the United States. Find it a little disconnecting that it tends to be Americans these days who question the relevance of NATO, forgetting that it was their NATO allies who came to their aid when the call came, and not the other way around.
Americans these days have a variety of views, just as do the French, Germans, Dutch, Brits, and even the Russians. It is their regimes however who act on their behalves, for better or worse. What NATO invoked in 2001 and what member nations aim for in 2019 are not necessarily in step with each other. Regimes come and go, others persist in various forms to threaten the security of others. That is what NATO is supposed to be about, but only if it is given the moral support to do so from both sides of the pond.
Americans these days have a variety of views, just as do the French, Germans, Dutch, Brits, and even the Russians. It is their regimes however who act on their behalves, for better or worse. What NATO invoked in 2001 and what member nations aim for in 2019 are not necessarily in step with each other. Regimes come and go, others persist in various forms to threaten the security of others. That is what NATO is supposed to be about, but only if it is given the moral support to do so from both sides of the pond.
Out of interest, what do you mean by political unity? In the past we have had a mixture of left and right wing governments of NATO member nations supporting (to varying degrees it is true) the aim of the Treaty, which is one of common security. Now we are faced with a rival European organisation, the EU, which espouses policies and ambitions that are in conflict with NATO. We all know what drives that, the anti US sentiment of certain European Governments. They should be careful what they wish for. If they succeed in tipping US policy into washing its hands of its NATO commitments, they may well find that they have cut off their nose to spite their face.
Out of interest, what do you mean by political unity? In the past we have had a mixture of left and right wing governments of NATO member nations supporting (to varying degrees it is true) the aim of the Treaty, which is one of common security. Now we are faced with a rival European organisation, the EU, which espouses policies and ambitions that are in conflict with NATO. We all know what drives that, the anti US sentiment of certain European Governments. They should be careful what they wish for. If they succeed in tipping US policy into washing its hands of its NATO commitments, they may well find that they have cut off their nose to spite their face.
The only interest that is at stake here is that of a perceived common external military threat. If that is agreed upon then that is enough, simply sign a Treaty to that effect or support one previously committed to. As to internal security, law and compromises work only by mutual consent. When that fails you are faced with the worst of all wars, a civil war. I contend that is far more likely to happen if nation states surrender their sovereignty to a union of member states. That is why such unions need a huge army, as you put it. As to law and compromises working between countries, best to carry a big stick and speak softly. Unless of course you are a believer in World Government, in which case please refer to comments above re Unions.
My 'cryptic comment' refers to the time that NATO invoked Article 5, in support or the United States. Find it a little disconnecting that it tends to be Americans these days who question the relevance of NATO, forgetting that it was their NATO allies who came to their aid when the call came, and not the other way around.
It’s time to wind down US participation in NATO. As I’ve said before, Europeans should lead in the defense of Europe.
The only interest that is at stake here is that of a perceived common external military threat. If that is agreed upon then that is enough, simply sign a Treaty to that effect or support one previously committed to. As to internal security, law and compromises work only by mutual consent. When that fails you are faced with the worst of all wars, a civil war. I contend that is far more likely to happen if nation states surrender their sovereignty to a union of member states. That is why such unions need a huge army, as you put it. As to law and compromises working between countries, best to carry a big stick and speak softly. Unless of course you are a believer in World Government, in which case please refer to comments above re Unions.
i.e. without Russia, Western Europe won't have any perceived external threat and will have the big disincentive against fighting each other removed. And order won't maintained by law and compromise but will rely on everyone arming to the teeth. So it's pre-medieval times externally and 21st century democracy internally. It seems like an argument that would prevent the UK itself from ever having been created - let alone the US.
That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!
The two Unions you mention, the UK and the USA, were both secured and retained in bloodshed (the USA in a rather shorter timescale than the UK). There is nothing special about the 21st Century, or any other century for that matter. We are a warlike species that has developed its technology, its culture, its extent, at the cost of those stood in our way. When we boldly go where no man has gone before no doubt the same will apply, the Prime Directive not withstanding.
That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!
That is what makes the EU so dangerous. It's proponents sincerely believe that it will prevent future European Wars. I fear that it could well be the cause of the next one, when those who get in its way try to resist ever closer unity. As to Russia, how do you do "without Russia"? That certainly sounds intriguing!
As a wise man once said (well, Boris Johnson actually, but every clock is right twice a day), "If the EU didn't exist, we would have to invent it!"