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

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
This is behind a pay-wall so would like to hear other sources for the same story, if anyone has them!

Emmanuel Macron infuriates Nato allies by freezing UK firms out of EU defence contracts after Brexit
The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is the part of the EU security and defence policy in which 25 of the 28 national armed forces pursue structural integration.

Just a principial question: a country not member of the organization should have (itself or through it's companies) unrestricted, unchecked, full right, as a country- member?

To clarify the question (just in case): should Russia, or China, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever complain that they haven't the same rights to access NATO funds, tenders, etc as NATO members?

Is UK having the same access to the Collective Security Treaty Organization as Russia, Armenia, Bielarussia, Kazahstan, Kirgistan, Tadjikistan?

If not, did the government protested?
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,771
NATO is clearly offensive as it strikes first perceived threats as well.
Central powers and USA have different strategic goals. Ultimately strategically they cannot be allies. They can tactically align on issues like Drang nach Osten. But ultimately strategic goal of USA is to keep EU divided into small nations lead militarily by the big brother. Central power do not have that goal, ultimately. It's not a healthy alliance.
NATO has only triggered the common defense clause – Article 5 – ONCE – after 9/11, when the US did it.

You are confusing military action by countries that are members NATO – beginning and ending with the US for the most part – with joint action BY NATO as a whole.

But why would you notice the difference if what you want is to be hostile to NATO after all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vaeltaja
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
Central Powers? Elaborate please. Also, who is still pursuing policy of Drang nach Osten?
For example, Germany's strategic goal is to push away its borders, push away potential enemy, recover lost territories (Prussia, Konigsberg), grow, become more powerful to protect itself, spread its culture.
USA's strategic goal is not that. But, USA's strategic goal is to destroy Russia, and USA can tactically align with Germany in pushing Russia out of Konigsberg, out of the Baltic. But overall, when it comes to Poland, Ukraine, they are not in agreement, Their strategic goals are different!
Ultimately the alliance is unhealthy!
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,211
Welsh Marches
The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is the part of the EU security and defence policy in which 25 of the 28 national armed forces pursue structural integration.

Just a principial question: a country not member of the organization should have (itself or through it's companies) unrestricted, unchecked, full right, as a country- member?

To clarify the question (just in case): should Russia, or China, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever complain that they haven't the same rights to access NATO funds, tenders, etc as NATO members?

Is UK having the same access to the Collective Security Treaty Organization as Russia, Armenia, Bielarussia, Kazahstan, Kirgistan, Tadjikistan?

If not, did the government protested?
Those are silly comparisons because most PESCO participants are NATO members and it makes sense for the UK to cooperate with it as one of the two most militarily significant European member of NATO; but politics will doubtless get in the way.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,211
Welsh Marches
For example, Germany's strategic goal is to push away its borders, push away potential enemy, recover lost territories (Prussia, Konigsberg), grow, become more powerful to protect itself, spread its culture.
USA's strategic goal is not that. But, USA's strategic goal is to destroy Russia, and USA can tactically align with Germany in pushing Russia out of Konigsberg, out of the Baltic. But overall, when it comes to Poland, Ukraine, they are not in agreement, Their strategic goals are different!
Ultimately the alliance is unhealthy!
Oh rubbish, what planet are you living on? Germany has no intention whatver of trying to recover lost territories to the East.
 
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
Oh rubbish, what planet are you living on? Germany has no intention whatver of trying to recover lost territories to the East.
Here is another example. Italy, a central power, in world wars has lost Adriatic cost, cities and areas they built, to some completely irrelevant countries that US supports. Italy's and USA's strategic goals are ultimately completely different in the Adriatic.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
Those are silly comparisons because most PESCO participants are NATO members and it makes sense for the UK to cooperate with it as one of the two most militarily significant European member of NATO; but politics will doubtless get in the way.
My friend, I gave as example not one but two military structures. And I was talking in principle: one cannot expect to have by definition the same rights as non-member like a member of an organisation. One can gain/negotiate it, but not expect to have it "by default".

I can't see some threads if I'm not logged on historum, can I ?


_________
and BTW, a lot of the fuss around it is based on very "peculiar" interpretations of the matter. But I prefer to remain at a principial level.
 
Last edited:

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
And if you save money on your military spending, well then you can spend more on domestic issues. In my opinion, if you contribute like the little brother in the family, then expect to be treated this way.
Are You sure it's only that, Rodger?



it seems that Europe is the biggest contributor to US military industry.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,749
USA
For example, Germany's strategic goal is to push away its borders, push away potential enemy, recover lost territories (Prussia, Konigsberg), grow, become more powerful to protect itself, spread its culture.
USA's strategic goal is not that. But, USA's strategic goal is to destroy Russia, and USA can tactically align with Germany in pushing Russia out of Konigsberg, out of the Baltic. But overall, when it comes to Poland, Ukraine, they are not in agreement, Their strategic goals are different!
Ultimately the alliance is unhealthy!
What evidence do you have that Germany is trying to reclaim Prussia?
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US