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

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,889
Like the U.S. is preventing others from doing their part. Ok. This sounds like real weak excuse. That's why the current administration is asking them to step up. It's Trump's fault that most of the NATO nations who agreed to reach 2% in 2014 (surprise, guess who wasn't president) and halfway there most haven't and have little intention to do so. If the U.S. is happy to have dependent allies then the allies of the U.S. are happy to be their dependents. That's how a symbiotic relationship works. There is an easy solution to getting out from under the boot of the U.S. Start a new defensive organization, exclude the U.S. and pay for things themselves. Do you think they will do that? An easier way might be to contribute their 2%. Otherwise, I say quit complaining about being dependent upon the U.S.
The US still isn't maintaining ANY capacity on behalf of its European allies.

Please, point out what this supposed fluff in the US spending is that it could cut without losing military ability if the Europeans did it instead. NO ONE so far has been able to substantiate what this might even be.

The Europeans, like the US, used the "peace dividend" to reduce military spending at the demise of the Soviet Union. No one in NATO has been spending on stuff that might be needful in the case of a Russian re-militarization. The US just as little as anyone else. There is currently no US military spending that I can discern that would be redundant capacity to confront Russia with.

Just point to what it is the US would like not NOT spend on that it spends ON BEHALF of its NATO allies, and would otherwise be happy to be rid of.

The European NATO dilemma is that their military spending is still mostly tailored to the situation where Russia is all peaceful and unthreatening, and the actual military spending is geared towards providing back-up to the US in military intervention anywhere in the world EXCEPT Europe itself.

Mostly Trump is just insultingly wrong about what the fundamental problem is. But then he LIKES Russia for reasons not entirely transparent, while he actively dislikes his European allies. (And no one really bothers to assume things need to make sense where Trump is involved anymore. Since it won't.)
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
The US still isn't maintaining ANY capacity on behalf of its European allies.

Please, point out what this supposed fluff in the US spending is that it could cut without losing military ability if the Europeans did it instead. NO ONE so far has been able to substantiate what this might even be.

The Europeans, like the US, used the "peace dividend" to reduce military spending at the demise of the Soviet Union. No one in NATO has been spending on stuff that might be needful in the case of a Russian re-militarization. The US just as little as anyone else. There is currently no US military spending that I can discern that would be redundant capacity to confront Russia with.

Just point to what it is the US would like not NOT spend on that it spends ON BEHALF of its NATO allies, and would otherwise be happy to be rid of.

The European NATO dilemma is that their military spending is still mostly tailored to the situation where Russia is all peaceful and unthreatening, and the actual military spending is geared towards providing back-up to the US in military intervention anywhere in the world EXCEPT Europe itself.

Mostly Trump is just insultingly wrong about what the fundamental problem is. But then he LIKES Russia for reasons not entirely transparent, while he actively dislikes his European allies. (And no one really bothers to assume things need to make sense where Trump is involved anymore. Since it won't.)
I would prefer to leave politics out. It taints people's reasoning powers. I have stated repeatedly, my point that the U.S. may spend less is speculation. And I will now state to you that your contention is also speculation. As I have posted, the U.S. has decreased its military budget in the past. Even if it doesn't, those resources can be used elsewhere. For example, the U.S. is discussing creating a military base in Poland, while Germany has traditionally been the venue for their bases. Creating a new base costs money, but that might be money better spent. And, this spending, along with the military fighter planes which Poland has purchased is a DIRECT result of increased Russian aggression in the region.
US base in Poland gets serious look as talks advance, Mattis says
Poland to buy 5th-gen fighter jets around 2025
Likewise, the Baltic states are asking for an increased American military presence. Again, a direct correlation between Russia's aggression in the region.
The Baltic States Ask the US for a Bigger Military Presence on Their Soil
Lithuania is first Baltic nation to sign US defense-cooperation pact
Nations that have a direct history with Russia/USSR understand the need to increase their military budget.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,889
I'm sorry, but I am correct about the observation that the US maintains no military capacity it itself considers redundant and on direct behalf of its European allies.

Which means that there simply isn't going to be any direct correlation between European NATO spending increases, and any savings from present level capabilities the US might want to do.

What might happen is that indirectly the EVENTUAL balance between US and European NATO spending with regards to Russia might end up different. But so far the US is NOT providing for that in place of someone else. The NATO problem is rather having bugger all in relation to Russia, because the assumptions for a long time was that Russia is an aligned power, much like any other European nation. But now that has changed.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
I'm sorry, but I am correct about the observation that the US maintains no military capacity it itself considers redundant and on direct behalf of its European allies.

Which means that there simply isn't going to be any direct correlation between European NATO spending increases, and any savings from present level capabilities the US might want to do.

What might happen is that indirectly the EVENTUAL balance between US and European NATO spending with regards to Russia might end up different. But so far the US is NOT providing for that in place of someone else. The NATO problem is rather having bugger all in relation to Russia, because the assumptions for a long time was that Russia is an aligned power, much like any other European nation. But now that has changed.
You spoke of a peace dividend once the Soviet Union fell. Those days appear to be over. For those NATO nations spending little, like less than 1% of their GDP on military spending it appears they are seeking another dividend: that is, some other nation protecting them. That kind of protection doesn't come cheap. One can't complain about being under somebody's thumb when they make no effort to move out from under it. And while U.S. troop deployment is down, likely from no expansive war or engagement, but also because today's military can strike from anywhere in the world without ground troops, according to this article, about 1/3 of American troops are still stationed in Europe. And, as I have noted, several eastern European nations are requesting an American presence.
Where are U.S. active-duty troops deployed?
 
Last edited:

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
Either I am not understanding you, you are not understanding me, or we are not understanding each other. I have taken issue with your repeated assertion that, even if the other NATO members increase their spending, the U.S. will not decrease theirs.
Actually what i posted is that the US will not be changing its spending for that reason because the spending amounts by individual member states are their own matters. US may decrease, increase or keep it steady - but it is not related to the potential changes in spending by other NATO member states since their spending does not affect US one way or the other. What i tried to get through is that you can not link increase of spending by other member states to US spending less - that implies a direct connection and relations which simply doesn't exist due to the structure of NATO.
I have contested this statement and you keep referring me back to the NATO guidelines, which, you argue are merely guidelines or "recommendations" for the other nations, but apparently are written in stone for the U.S. There is nothing in the NATO guidelines that dictate that the U.S. must continue to spend the same amount of military expenditures. It is mere speculation on your part that they will, just as it is mere speculation on my part that they might decrease, or at least those resources could be sent elsewhere.
If there were any resources in Europe left to be moved, maybe. But there really aren't - they have already been moved (it was listed somewhere that there are only ~60 000 US troops left in the Europe, and majority of these are not combat but support troops). What the USA has left in Europe are pretty much required to be there to support US operations elsewhere (i.e. outside of Europe). For example for stationing a fleet on Mediterranean it is somewhat beneficial to have a naval base in that area. Lack of that base would likely cost even more to the USA. And i didn't say (or very least didn't mean) that the USA would be required to continue its spending on the current level. It may well increase or decrease it just as well. However that is not in any related to the spending changes by other member states.
Even the CNN article which you have now attached to one of your posts says MAY not, which implies possibility. Conversely, the article could read MAY. And, as I have written, I am not concerned with U.S. contractors, but rather U.S. taxpayers. We are not going to see each other's point, apparently, so I guess we will have to leave this discussion as is.
Well - the US taxpayers are not going to see any benefits from increased spending by other NATO members states. That is how NATO with its indirect funding system works. If the USA chooses to reduce its military spending for some other reasons it is completely their own choice but changes in the spending levels of other NATO member states will not change the burden on the US taxpayers anywhere. USA would still be paying for its own military forces and their deployments just like every other NATO member state does.
Suffice to say, the vast majority of non U.S. NATO members receive more benefits from NATO, than does the U.S. In particular, with the exception of the U.K., France and Germany, the remaining NATO members receive far more than they give.
If you are referring to financial aspects then you are rather mistaken since they are not getting anything from the NATO let alone from the USA as it stands. USA pays for its own forces and their deployments and other NATO member states pay for their own forces. They are getting benefits in form of the promise to collective defense, as well as in the form of the nuclear umbrella. But not in the way of financial side. Like i said before - and how it reads in NATO's own pages - there is no NATO funding pool. Each and every member state pays for its own expenses - but not for those of other member states.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,693
You spoke of a peace dividend once the Soviet Union fell. Those days appear to be over. For those NATO nations spending little, like less than 1% of their GDP on military spending it appears they are seeking another dividend: that is, some other nation protecting them.
Or that they have determined that even the current level of spending is sufficient. After all even with just the current occasionally 'less than 1%' spending levels the European NATO member states are still spending far more than what for example Russia does. What you kind of need to ask is why would they be interested in spending more when the current level suffices?
 
Dec 2014
453
Wales
You spoke of a peace dividend once the Soviet Union fell. Those days appear to be over. For those NATO nations spending little, like less than 1% of their GDP on military spending it appears they are seeking another dividend: that is, some other nation protecting them. That kind of protection doesn't come cheap. One can't complain about being under somebody's thumb when they make no effort to move out from under it. And while U.S. troop deployment is down, likely from no expansive war or engagement, but also because today's military can strike from anywhere in the world without ground troops, according to this article, about 1/3 of American troops are still stationed in Europe. And, as I have noted, several eastern European nations are requesting an American presence.
Where are U.S. active-duty troops deployed?
Sorry Rodger, you can consider this nit-picking but your quote about 1/3 of American troops being stationed in Europe isn't accurate - possibly a typo? According to that link roughly some 15% of American troops are stationed overseas, with slightly less than 1/3 of those being stationed in Europe, so about 5% of total American troops.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,627
Europix
You spoke of a peace dividend once the Soviet Union fell. Those days appear to be over. For those NATO nations spending little, like less than 1% of their GDP on military spending it appears they are seeking another dividend: that is, some other nation protecting them. That kind of protection doesn't come cheap. One can't complain about being under somebody's thumb when they make no effort to move out from under it. And while U.S. troop deployment is down, likely from no expansive war or engagement, but also because today's military can strike from anywhere in the world without ground troops, according to this article, about 1/3 of American troops are still stationed in Europe. And, as I have noted, several eastern European nations are requesting an American presence.
Where are U.S. active-duty troops deployed?
Roger, let's look at the figures. Number of "boots on the ground".

For example, the NATO Battlegroup in Latvia (from Composition of NATO battlegroup in Latvia laid out and NATO enhanced Forward Presence - Joint Forces News
). It isn't about 0.5 or 50%, nor "fair share", nor " my tax money", but actual troops sent into a sensitive zone. Actual contribution of NATO members:

- 1,138 soldiers, under Canadian command

of which:
- 450 Canadian
- 300 Spanish
- 160 Italian
- 160 Polish
- 50 Slovenian
- 18 Albanian

The Estonian battlegroup, under British command, is to be formed by UK, Danish, and Islandi troops, the Lituanian Battlegroup, under German command, is to be formed by German, Czech, Islander, French, Dutch, Belgian and Norwegian troops, the Polish Battlegroup, under US command, is to be formed by Croatian, Romanian and British troops.

If You want, I can dig up for precise figures on that and other NATO missions in the Baltic region.

As it was pointed out, those troops aren't paid by NATO, but by each nation.

Meaning that on actual response to a tensioned situation in Europe, it's the European members of NATO putting "boots in the ground".

If You look at the numbers, actually, there's not that much "Your tax money" there. But there's a lot of European tax money.
 
Last edited:

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
Sorry Rodger, you can consider this nit-picking but your quote about 1/3 of American troops being stationed in Europe isn't accurate - possibly a typo? According to that link roughly some 15% of American troops are stationed overseas, with slightly less than 1/3 of those being stationed in Europe, so about 5% of total American troops.
Yes. I intended to convey that approximately 1/3 of the troops stationed overseas are currently in Europe.