NATO at risk, says Dr john Reid

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Ghost_Rider, Feb 4, 2006.

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. From the BBC News website.

  2. Really what is the main objective of NATO now? Previously it was a counter-force directed against Soviet Union. But Soviet Union belongs to the History now.

    What does it mean? Restart of Cold war? Againts what country?

    So what is the goal, the main priority: European security or continuation of NATO's existence?

    If NATO is still very importand and usefull structure then why any member-country should change its attitude to it.

    If NATO is an obsolete, needless organisation then I think any changes would be fruitless.
  3. Strange, I never remember seeing western propganda showing images of soviets wanting to kill or attack the society I live in........ but with censorship today I do (not soviets)......

    Seems to be more reason today to have the organisation, the last few days have seen Europe United as one (in a way I've not seen before).... maybe a EU force within NATO would be a good place to start.

  4. I was always told NATO exists to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out. Has anything really changed? What do the Poles and Czechs think about it? Not to mention aspirant NATO members. A threat to one is a threat to all. Just because one particular threat may have disappeared (for the time being) does not mean we should dismantle the infrastructure on trust. But Read is right, NATO needs a focus. I don`t think we have to look too far to find one.
  5. NATO's worthiness has expired decades ago.

    America couldn't give a toss about NATO. They assume they run it, else they aren't interested.
    Europe don't really care for NATO (except Spain, of course).
    We Brits are stuck in the middle. Torn between our long ties with Europe and our strong friendship and "brother" status with America.
  6. Shame it isn't 'John Reid at risk, says NATO' :)
  7. According to some, NATO was created to prevent European neutrality towards the Soviets after WW2 and throughout the Cold War. i.e. it was in America's interests at the time that the Alliance was set up in the first place.

    Whether or not they care for it much now at a time the rest of Europe is neutral towards pretty much anything is another matter.
  8. The more cynical amongst us might suggest that keeping the NATO auspices going allows yet more Defence cuts, as (as pointed out) a threat against one is a threat against all. Therefore, if we cut our defence in half, we can rely on the Americans to bail us out, as we are both NATO members...........

    The less cynical amongt us might suggest that keeping the NATO auspices going allows yet more Defence cuts ............. :twisted:

  9. Kosovo and Bosnia when NATO had to take over from UN or Nato operation in Sudan. Nato still has a role to play but more as a peacekeeping force.
  10. As I've stated before, I believe the real purpose of NATO these days is to give the Europeans some sort of leverage over the USA. I think the realisation of this goes a long way to explaining the total lack of progress in building European defence structures. Basically if NATO ceased to exist, the US could simply do what it wants via bilatertal basing arrangements with East European and other countries who remain feaful of the Russian Bear, and don't particularly like Germany or France. As long as NATO continues, the US has to pay at least some attention to what the western Euros are saying. And of course NATO's military contribution to any US effort, while not huge, is not insignificant either.
  11. Andy! Of course American adventures need cannon folder.
  12. Sergey wrote
    Sergey.its the Russians that are selling the weapons that is may kill Americans and coalition soldiers.
  13. Russians are selling the weapons? To Taleban? Nonsense. To Iraqi insurgents? I don't believe. Have you evidences Peter?
  14. Because for the US to give or sell weapons to places and people like Iraq, Iran and the Taleban would just be plain stup... oh, hang on a second... what's that? Say again? Oh, I see.

    Erm, I'll get my coat. :oops:

    As you were, chaps.
  15. Sergey mainly To Iran, but the insurgence do use AKs, RPGs and Russian ordinance to make IED. That famous picture posted by the New York times of that bomb in Pakistan was of Russian origin. In Iran the Russians selling of arms and Nuclear technology has made the crisis much more dangerous. Lives may be lost before this crisis ends and if they are lost ,they will be killed with Russian weapons.