Is it time to think international relations and security beyond NATO?

Oct 2013
13,855
Europix
I don’t see anything wrong with a European Defence Force
Good to hear it.

I had heard a lot of opposition to an European defence from Americans (even on this site), therefore my question. Logically, a common European defence would be more effective (synergies, complementarities, reducing costs, aso) and that would more in line with Europeans "paying the fair share".

If a unified European defense force can be organized, why wouldn’t it cooperate with NATO?. Are there other “friendly” forces I’m not aware of? If the Europeans are chafing under American leadership of NATO, fine, disband NATO, but do so at your own peril.If suddenly you find yourself under a serous Russian (or Chinese) threat and you all have quit NATO, fine. Deal with it.
Not sure I understand that. Or it's a misunderstanding somewhere.

All the European officials I've heard on the European defence were talking of it as part of NATO.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,149
San Antonio, Tx
And havoc for the rest of the world.

An united Europe including Russia would have been far more beneficial for Europe as well as rest of the world. Americans would been better off too with their isolationist, play boyish, 'hillybilly' ways.

More importantly, they didn't need to carry the 'burden' of Europe's defense in that scenario.
Hillbilly ways, is it? What “hillbillies”? Where are the hill billies from, exactly? Do you know anything about Americans to call anyone a hillbilly? No? I didn’t think so.
 

M9Powell

Ad Honorem
Oct 2014
4,385
appalacian Mtns
Hillbilly ways, is it? What “hillbillies”? Where are the hill billies from, exactly? Do you know anything about Americans to call anyone a hillbilly? No? I didn’t think so.
Proud to be one. I'd say the most important hillbilly way is self sufficiency. Whether it's shooting something for supper, building a house, or fixing a truck. Hillbillies get the job done. Oh almost forgot, they excelled at sending thousands of America's Muslim enemies too meet Allah in person after 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
8,716
USA
The questioning of NATO begun with the current USA administration, and with declarations (or tweets) of the current USA president, not in Europe or Canada. The reactions that we saw in Europe were reactions to this new USA “attitude”.
No, the questioning of NATO was something everyone with any knowledge of NATO in the US and other more heavily contributing nations have been wanting to be brought up for over a decade but hasn't because past POTUS wont.

You think Trump made up the problems of most of the nations involved not giving a crap? That it's fake? Its not made up, and too many nations don't give a crap, which is a problem since NATO largely exists now to check Russian expansion.

When one of the most important members doesn't take it seriously, worse, cozying up to Russia instead because cheap natural resources, that's a problem past POTUS should have brought up but didn't have the guts to. Its sad that it takes an orange nut job to bring him up, but if that is what it takes to get someone to be actually presidential, then so be it.

Weighing by hand.
Appearing statesmanlike by not making a peep, not rockingrockingboat, even to detriment of all involved down the road?
Causing butthurt by addressing a global security threat?
Not a hard choice...
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,194
Portugal
No, the questioning of NATO was something everyone with any knowledge of NATO in the US and other more heavily contributing nations have been wanting to be brought up for over a decade but hasn't because past POTUS wont.

You think Trump made up the problems of most of the nations involved not giving a crap? That it's fake? Its not made up, and too many nations don't give a crap, which is a problem since NATO largely exists now to check Russian expansion.

When one of the most important members doesn't take it seriously, worse, cozying up to Russia instead because cheap natural resources, that's a problem past POTUS should have brought up but didn't have the guts to. Its sad that it takes an orange nut job to bring him up, but if that is what it takes to get someone to be actually presidential, then so be it.

Weighing by hand.

Appearing statesmanlike by not making a peep, not rockingrockingboat, even to detriment of all involved down the road?

Causing butthurt by addressing a global security threat?

Not a hard choice...
Oh!!! Old the nukes, don’t send the Special Forces yet! That kind of aggressively is not needed. You are talking about an issue and I am talking about other. Related and yet distinct.

That some countries, NATO members, have a low contribution, that is been said by various USA presidents (pardon me not saying POTUS, but for a Portuguese sounds odd and almost offensive, besides what is the plural of POTUS?) and some European politics and it is quite correct to say so.

The business with Russia is an issue that both the Europeans and the companies of Trump have, and yes, I also agree with you that it is a threat to the NATO security.

But, my point was that the current USA administration, in the words of his president, Trumpa, stated that EU is “a foe”. Since many European NATO members are EU members that line of thinking had political repercussions in Europe.

If a NATO ally of the other side of the Atlantic, considers the Europeans “a foe” why should the formal alliance be maintained? This is a valid question after Trumps declarations.

Or saying that Trump called to EU “a foe” is fake news?

PS: I didn’t understood some parts of your post, due to language issues, for instance “rockingrockingboat”. English is not my mother language and in these cases Google didn’t helped me.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,682
The dumb thing in this whole discussion is that NATO's structure - as in a coalition for collective defense - is rather ideal. Since it by nature it allows participating military forces to be slightly smaller while still having sufficient enough collective punch. Making it cost efficient method for having strong defense. Of course such a structure is only ideal for defensive purposes, not so much for offensive - that would require much more unified structures under single command.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,100
Lying down next to the Russian bear, may get one eaten when it wakes up.
ESPECIALLY if you are UNARMED at the time.

Really, it's the single greatest liability. (The historic model of response making the round among the smaller nations of eastern Europe is Finland 1939...)

Of course Russia might like the rest of Europe to be unarmed, divided and weak. So does Trump's US these days. The Chinese clearly wouldn't mind either.

So, the open question to Europeans in general is how to respond to these external desires and designs on Europe?

Post-WWII US looked at the war-spent, bloody wreck Europe had become as a consequence of WWII (and before that nr I), and found that to be a liability for the US as well.