Is NATO stating to pull itself apart?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Outstanding, Jun 15, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. NATO Sec Gen is trying to reduce the Military Command Structure - completely ignoring the fact of ISAF. Nations are fed up paying money they don't have for nothing other than pointless commitments that they don't fill. major troop contibuting nations are becoimng fed up with both paying and contributing troops and taking most of the casualties - while other bit plaers play volleyball.

    Who will be first to blink?
  2. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    I think the key os the United States. It has to chose between giving visible and effective leadership and putting the nations of Europe on notice to step up to making a proper contribution, or saying to the EU that since the EU thinks it is so clever, the US is going to pull out and Europe can sort itself out. That might concentrate minds as, even if it could get its component nations to act collectively, its collective force is probably insufficient to make it a credible world player.

    That said, a combing out of command and staff functions might be no bad thing; but I don't know anything about that.

    It has to be remembered that the Lisbon Treaty means there is to be one and only one European foreign policy, and that therefore no European nation can act on its own in future, only inline with what Brussels dictates. For instance we have signed away our right to defend Gibraltar or the Falklands; we can posture all we like but the EU could LEGALLY jam anthing like that..

    There are some confusing overlaps and underlaps between NATO and the EU but that detail I leave to others.
  3. The 'gravity field' holding NATO together is shaped like this: $/£/€

    As long as Euro nations thaink it is cheaper to remain under the US defence umbrella (NATO) than to go "European" or "Solo", they'll be in no hurry to pull the plug. Likewise, for Unca Sam, NATO is a useful extension of his own military capacity (Slick Willy and The Shrub both understood this in different ways), and so there is a brake on his enthusiasm for unilateralism.

    But everybody is skint. And there is still a lot of pointless stuff inside NATO.

    I wouldn't book the funeral just yet,
  4. NATO is not going to "pull itself apart". It is going to quietly expire by mutating from a military arm of the US "global interests" into some "half-global" defence structure.
  5. Cannon fodder to protect Russia from China, perhaps?
  6. There is a huge amount of fat to be trimmed from NATO's command structures, committees, etc, much of it of no relevance to ISAF or anything else of consequence. But NATO itself will survive, although it will bear increasingly little resemblance to something intended to fight WW3.

  7. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    I suspect that much of the fat in NATO is due to countries insisting on representation without regard to what the minimum numbers are to get the job done; countries afraid that if they haven't got a rep on the spot, they will miss out on a slice of the cake. Only suspect this, mind.
  8. NATO ceased having a reason to exist when Soviet Union collapsed. Even now with a resurgent bit of spending on it, the Russian military is in no way capable of conducting a campaign against the West... not that there exists the slightest impetus for such a venture as the same notional opponents are buying the natural gas, oil, and petrol that keeps the Kremlin financially solvent.
  9. A group of nine countries led by France and the USA are at the forefront of this initiative to trim down NATO.

    The current ministerial meeting is supposed to discuss this issue and different scenarios all already circulating.

    Most estimates are around a 30% reduction of NATO HQs and Agencies manpower but many countries that have a JFC, a CC or whatever else on their soil are dead set against any reduction even if the said HQ is useless.

    I have heard, and it needs confirmation by someone who knows better, that only Norway has so far volunteered to close down its NATO HQ in Stavanger as a sign of goodwill. Not that Norway needs NATO money anyway...
  10. Maybe the Commie Commizzars of Eurineland are hoping that the Eurineland Army, Navy and AirFarce will eventually take the place of NATo in the years to come.....
  11. And NATO isn't a farce now?
  12. Europes heading into a major round of defense downsizing.

    EU just doesnt have the money to pay for a european military.

    Russia continues to cause trouble on Europes fringes.

    Terrorists are a constant threat that Europe lacks any credible deterent against on a solely european basis.

    Nato future is secure for next 10 years atleast. Its actually better postioned now then it was even a few years ago.
  13. Deluded...
  14. As opposed to the mighty military of the Russian Federation?

    Still with your SCO friends, when they're not too busy ethnical cleansing each other, you should be fine. :D
  15. Most recently NATO Defence Ministers discussed reform and resources. As the financial crisis has put enormous pressure on defence budgets in all NATO countries, and to ensure that the money is spent on what really matters, on what is really needed now and in the future, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen presented options to the Defence Ministers for making NATO’s structures – NATO HQ, the Command Structure and NATO Agencies – leaner, more effective and less costly.

    The Secretary General highlighted a number of recent reform measures already decided:

    “We have just completed a review of our military budgets, which will lead to savings and deferrals amounting to 1.5 billion Euros.

    They have agreed a range of measures to set clear spending priorities, improve auditing, and make sure we have clear visibility of the costs of everything we do.

    And we will cut the number of committees in this building by three quarters, to less than one hundred. So we will all spend less time in meetings, which I consider a significant contribution to efficiency”.

    Ministers tasked work to develop generic proposals on a streamlined Command Structure, as well as Agency Reform, which will be presented to Defence Ministers in October 2010, with an eye to the Lisbon Summit in November 2010.

    All good stuff but the reviews were not carried out outside Brussels, merely by International civilians in NATO HQ. The NCS and Agency reviews will have huge knock on effects politically and remember NATO is a Political Organisation. So when it is proposed that an agency be removed from say France or Luxembourg the local political effects (job losses etc) will come home to roost.