NATO: debating and defending Europe

[davidbfpo]

https://www.rt.com/news/366177-europ...urity-juncker/

That is little more than wishful thinking. The EU regularly tries to extend its role in security matters, even a common army etc. Nowt is said about the declining spending by most European NATO members.

[OUTLAW 09]

That is little more than wishful thinking. The EU regularly tries to extend its role in security matters, even a common army etc. Nowt is said about the declining spending by most European NATO members.

What is interesting is that the new members of NATO ie Poland and the Baltics have more than doubled their defense spending inside one year....Bulgaria by 30% and Romania by almost 43%.....followed by Czech republic at 14%....and new troop levels...

It has been the older NATO members ie the Dutch....Germans....Brits and Danes that have largely reduced both their budgets and actual military forces.

We even see Finland, Norway and Sweden beefing up both military numbers and funding....BUT one gets the feeling that with Brexit the UK is virtually out of the defense business for a number of coming years.

[OUTLAW 09]

EUobserver
✔
@euobs
#Brexit and the election in the #US have set a new course for #EU on the issue of #military integration.
https://euobserver.com/foreign/135877

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Politico for this article, which starts with:

The U.S. Army’s rapid reaction force in Europe is underequipped, undermanned and inadequately organized to confront military aggression from Russia or its high-tech proxies, according to an internal study that some who have read it view as a wake-up call as the Trump administration seeks to deter an emboldened Vladimir Putin. The Italy-based 173rd Airborne Brigade, a bulwark of the NATO alliance that has spent much of the past decade and a half rotating in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, lacks “essential capabilities needed to accomplish its mission effectively and with decisive speed,” according to the analysis by the brigade, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

Link:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-russia-242273

It does rather stand in contrast to a SWJ article on a multinational NATO formation:http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...17-an-analysis

[AdamG]

The EU signed a “historic” deal to integrate 23 armies to shake off its US dependence

It took 70 years, but the European Union finally signed a pact today (Nov. 13) agreeing to integrate military funding, weapons development, and deployment of European defenses. In a way, creating a unified mega army.
US president’s Donald Trump’s frequent accusations that EU countries do not pay enough into NATO has been one catalyst for them move forward with a unified plan for military cooperation. The other is that it could legitimately diminish the bloc’s dependence on US military support.
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, called the pact “historic” as “the real problem is not how much we spend, it is the fact we spend in a fragmented manner.” She also said it would strengthen the work of the US-led NATO.

https://qz.com/1127984/eu-army-bloc-...us-dependence/

[davidbfpo]

I have seen repeated efforts in Europe to collaborate on defence projects, ostensibly to reduce costs and build capability - very few achieve that. The EU likes to make grand announcements, time will tell if this one leads to anything concrete or steel.

The project is catchily titled ‘PESCO’ - or “permanent structured co-operation; which is intended to give the EU a new method of improving their defence capabilities. One easy step would be to remove, if not reduce, the bureaucracy associated with troop movements within NATO; which is often claimed to inhibit mobilization.

There remain profound differences on security policy, not least whether NATO remains the primary method for having security. Let alone the capacity of several nations to commit money.

Hopefully this wider commentary on Europe in the FT helps:https://www.ft.com/content/ec5983aa-...3-c63fdc9b8c6c

In the UK for many it will confirm the deeply held suspicion that the EU wants to become a federal state or a "super state". Which was dismissed as ever being likely.

[davidbfpo]

Prompted by a blog article by a US Army officer on the future of NATO and the forthcoming EU cooperation, I have amended this thread's title to accommodate wider matters.

The new title is 'NATO: debating and defending Europe'.

A number of smaller threads, mainly from SWJ Blog have been merged in.