Atlantic Future Forum - and NATO/Euro Atlantic defence

[Yokel]

The United States is the UK's most important security partner, and the only superpower. They are also a key trading partner, and are one of the few countries that buys more from us than we buy from them.

www.atlanticfutureforum.com

The Atlantic Future Forum is the annual defence, security, technology and trade summit between the United Kingdom and United States of America. It is hosted by the UK Government with support from private sector companies and brings together political, military, business, and technology leaders with some of the brightest minds and high-level decision takers

Clicking on the 'About AFF' page:

• Global competition in a disrupted world
• Building resilience against digital threats
• Value of data to power our economies
• Globalisation and reshaping the trade agenda
• The next generation of defence
• Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare
• Artificial Intelligence, automation, and the future of work
• Defending against pandemics and biological warfare
• Security and prosperity and the future of Space
• Building back better; greener and more resilient economies
• Future of Energy; a post carbon world

I hope they also discuss things like keeping key technologies in Western hands so that we cannot be held over a barrel.

 

[BuckFelize]

I think it's a bit late for that.

 

[Yarra]

It sounds very impressive. But a lot of the Cousins are really pissed of with us atm. ...really pissed off.

 

[retread2]

It sounds very impressive. But a lot of the Cousins are really pissed of with us atm. ...really pissed off.

Why's that Yarra? Brexit, Assange, pursuing Sarcoolas?

 

[Yarra]

Why's that Yarra? Brexit, Assange pursuing Sarcoolas?

Brexit mostly... v recently, I had the misfortune of having to endure the butt hurt whining of one their (senior and crusty) diplomatic corp. He was not happy ('foolish and self defeating'). The experience was only ameliorated by my suspicions that he was that crusty, he wouldn't be around long for this world, plus the fact that the majority of the other nationals represented at said soiree were equally repugnant, self absorbed and generally a bit bat shit crazy.

I believe (personal opinion), that the reason that such (US) opinion exists, is partly because once fully out (of the EU), they will loose their useful idiot inside that camp. Part of the US policy, since the Atlantic Charter is to keep us down and to heel. The Brits suddenly out of their box and doing their own stuff is not in their manual.

Although, Eisenhower did go on record to regret cutting us down too far (Suez, et al), they don't really see us as anything other than another interest to manage.

Y

ETA, I say the above as an Anglo-Australian. The US learned divide and rule from the Masters.

 

[Yokel]

EU or no EU, Britain is still in a unique position between continental Europe and North America. The ties are very deep, and include such things as the work in the UK in going back to the eighties work on advanced V/STOL aircraft and powerplants, work that eventually led to F-35B.

Over fifteen years ago I read something saying that a significant percentage of components for the F-22 fighter were made in China. We are a far better place for supplying components, in terms of both security and quality.

 

[ExAuxBalloonCorps]

I would think that the US would appreciate independence from an autocratic regime where there is taxation but very little representation?

 

[Yokel]

I would think that the US would appreciate independence from an autocratic regime where there is taxation but very little representation?

I assume you mean us leaving the EU - which Trump approved of. The EU was trying to build political and military structures which had the potential to undermine NATO.

Leaving the EU does not mean we are not close allies and partners of European nations. It does hopefully mean that future decision makers will look to all points of the compass. Instead of European Britain, and the claims that BREXIT voters want to return to an imperial past, the future is Global/Maritime Britain.

 

[Steamboat]

Brexit mostly... v recently, I had the misfortune of having to endure the butt hurt whining of one their (senior and crusty) diplomatic corp. He was not happy ('foolish and self defeating'). The experience was only ameliorated by my suspicions that he was that crusty, he wouldn't be around long for this world, plus the fact that the majority of the other nationals represented at said soiree were equally repugnant, self absorbed and generally a bit bat shit crazy.

I believe (personal opinion), that the reason that such (US) opinion exists, is partly because once fully out (of the EU), they will loose their useful idiot inside that camp. Part of the US policy, since the Atlantic Charter is to keep us down and to heel. The Brits suddenly out of their box and doing their own stuff is not in their manual.

Although, Eisenhower did go on record to regret cutting us down too far (Suez, et al), they don't really see us as anything other than another interest to manage.

Y

ETA, I say the above as an Anglo-Australian. The US learned divide and rule from the Masters.

Part of the equation.
Your leaving out the fact that under BoJo the U.K. has been a pita to deal with.

The cozying up to China is a source of annoyance and I have a feeling the defense review in November will create more tension.

 

[retread2]

Part of the equation.
Your leaving out the fact that under BoJo the U.K. has been a pita to deal with.

The cozying up to China is a source of annoyance and I have a feeling the defense review in November will create more tension.

I'm sure the situation is mutual.

 

[Filthy_contract]

Part of the equation.
Your leaving out the fact that under BoJo the U.K. has been a pita to deal with.

Whereas the US has been a rational player?

 

[Filthy_contract]

Brexit mostly... v recently, I had the misfortune of having to endure the butt hurt whining of one their (senior and crusty) diplomatic corp. He was not happy ('foolish and self defeating'). The experience was only ameliorated by my suspicions that he was that crusty, he wouldn't be around long for this world, plus the fact that the majority of the other nationals represented at said soiree were equally repugnant, self absorbed and generally a bit bat shit crazy.

I believe (personal opinion), that the reason that such (US) opinion exists, is partly because once fully out (of the EU), they will loose their useful idiot inside that camp. Part of the US policy, since the Atlantic Charter is to keep us down and to heel. The Brits suddenly out of their box and doing their own stuff is not in their manual.

Although, Eisenhower did go on record to regret cutting us down too far (Suez, et al), they don't really see us as anything other than another interest to manage.

Y

ETA, I say the above as an Anglo-Australian. The US learned divide and rule from the Masters.

Although some aspects of post War decline were self-inflicted, the US played a key role in our near-indecent race to decolonise the Empire whilst blocking us out of mutual programmes (MANHATTAN vs the McMahon Act). The UK's prestige was so damaged after Suez by the US intervention, the following year the Sandys Review accepted that NATO would be the cornerstone of Britain's defence when it was finally realised we could not be permitted to act independently. .

 

[terminal]

Brexit mostly... v recently, I had the misfortune of having to endure the butt hurt whining of one their (senior and crusty) diplomatic corp. He was not happy ('foolish and self defeating'). The experience was only ameliorated by my suspicions that he was that crusty, he wouldn't be around long for this world, plus the fact that the majority of the other nationals represented at said soiree were equally repugnant, self absorbed and generally a bit bat shit crazy.

I believe (personal opinion), that the reason that such (US) opinion exists, is partly because once fully out (of the EU), they will loose their useful idiot inside that camp. Part of the US policy, since the Atlantic Charter is to keep us down and to heel. The Brits suddenly out of their box and doing their own stuff is not in their manual.

Although, Eisenhower did go on record to regret cutting us down too far (Suez, et al), they don't really see us as anything other than another interest to manage.

Y

ETA, I say the above as an Anglo-Australian. The US learned divide and rule from the Masters.

A number of people in the diplomatic corps outside of Europe had gotten used to the idea that the UK could be used as a conduit for dealing with Europe. A number of Foreign Office types in the UK liked the idea as well, as it put them in an influential position.

When Britain voted for Brexit, it came as a big surprise to these foreign diplomats, who had been assured that the people of the UK would vote to remain. As a result, they had no plans for that outcome and were left standing with their mouths open and a realisation that decades of diplomatic assumptions now suddenly had to be re-thought.

They were also left with a future of having to deal directly with Brussels and Paris themselves instead of having someone on the inside do it for them, which wasn't something they looked forward to and so caused a certain amount of resentment.

Most of the foreign politicians however seem to have gotten over it quite quickly and a number in more than one country are dead keen on taking advantage of the situation to forge more direct ties with Britain.

 

[Yarra]

Part of the equation.
Your leaving out the fact that under BoJo the U.K. has been a pita to deal with.

The cozying up to China is a source of annoyance and I have a feeling the defense review in November will create more tension.

I quite agree, on both points. I would say the China issue is/was rather more nuanced (but not for this means). The Review could be very painful.

I suspect BoJo's ability to allow the UK to be disruptor has itself been been disrupted by WooFloo. But, as a Canadian general told me once at SHAPE; don't stress, it's all relative.

 

[Yarra]

A number of people in the diplomatic corps outside of Europe had gotten used to the idea that the UK could be used as a conduit for dealing with Europe. A number of Foreign Office types in the UK liked the idea as well, as it put them in an influential position.

When Britain voted for Brexit, it came as a big surprise to these foreign diplomats, who had been assured that the people of the UK would vote to remain. As a result, they had no plans for that outcome and were left standing with their mouths open and a realisation that decades of diplomatic assumptions now suddenly had to be re-thought.

They were also left with a future of having to deal directly with Brussels and Paris themselves instead of having someone on the inside do it for them, which wasn't something they looked forward to and so caused a certain amount of resentment.

Most of the foreign politicians however seem to have gotten over it quite quickly and a number in more than one country are dead keen on taking advantage of the situation to forge more direct ties with Britain.

Yes. On the nail.

 

[Steamboat]

I quite agree, on both points. I would say the China issue is/was rather more nuanced (but not for this means). The Review could be very painful.

I suspect BoJo's ability to allow the UK to be disruptor has itself been been disrupted by WooFloo. But, as a Canadian general told me once at SHAPE; don't stress, it's all relative.

I think part of the worry with the review is that if massive cuts are on the horizon, other countries will follow suit. Thus defeating the campaign of the last four years of getting Western Europe to spend more and proving DT right. At which point the fingers will be rightly pointed that if Western Europe doesn’t care the US needs to scale back it’s commitments appropriately.

 

[Steamboat]

Whereas the US has been a rational player?

The US has still maintained a sizeable and expensive military, that is expected to intervene on behalf of NATO. But an increasing burden is being placed on the US by its partners overseas, who are more worried about their collective welfare states then making necessary contributions to an alliance. With one in particular providing the necessary hard cash to help modernize the Russians military.

Then when you have other issues like China, Iran, Climate Change etc. Where National interests collide and take precedence over being mates. If we can’t work with each other, we will work against each other raising tensions further.

 

[Yokel]

The US has still maintained a sizeable and expensive military, that is expected to intervene on behalf of NATO. But an increasing burden is being placed on the US by its partners overseas, who are more worried about their collective welfare states then making necessary contributions to an alliance. With one in particular providing the necessary hard cash to help modernize the Russians military.

Then when you have other issues like China, Iran, Climate Change etc. Where National interests collide and take precedence over being mates. If we can’t work with each other, we will work against each other raising tensions further.

Putin, Xi, and the Iranian leadership are fellow travellers and allies - hence the combined exercises and such like. Britain remains heavily committed to NATO and efforts to containing the Iranian threat.

Hopefully the days of going cap in hand to Beijing are a thing of the past, and British warships have taken part in freedom of maneuvere activities in the South China Sea. As for climate change - many in US do take it seriously.

 

[Yokel]

I wonder if there is a split here - between East Coast centric types and West Coast centres ones? What is the distribution of imports and exports between ports on the two coasts?

Which coast is the main one for trade with the Middle East and for things like sending forces to the Persian/Arabian Gulf?

 

[Steamboat]

Putin, Xi, and the Iranian leadership are fellow travellers and allies - hence the combined exercises and such like. Britain remains heavily committed to NATO and efforts to containing the Iranian threat.

Hopefully the days of going cap in hand to Beijing are a thing of the past, and British warships have taken part in freedom of maneuvere activities in the South China Sea. As for climate change - many in US do take it seriously.

At this point in time yes you are heavily committed. But BoJo is all about breaking norms, hence the worry about November. It doesn’t seem like your review is nothing more then a Rona cost cutting exercise to save money at the expense of capability.

Climate change in America is not an issue for this particular thread. As it is another battle in the 2nd American Civil war.