ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

NATO disunity on display.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Kromeriz, May 26, 2017.

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. Or no deal at all, which I think is far more likely...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Kromeriz

    Kromeriz On ROPs

    However, once more the circling is in public and possibly betokens an EU army. Is America going to pump billions into the European Reassurance measures if that is the attitude they are getting?
     
  3. Kromeriz

    Kromeriz On ROPs

    And we know that will cause economic damage to the UK for a couple of years... undermining defence spending. This was the wrong time for a public spat.
     
  4. I agree, especially with regard to Turkey albeit that is mentioned on that thread. I don't personally see A4 as being a binding decision though from which actions arise.

    I've often said there needs to be an article which allows forced removal with caveats e.g. pay up by 2024 or say goodbye.
     
  5. Zapad 2017 has been planned for over a year. Meanwhile US (and other NATO countries) troops and equipment have reinforced the eastern countries. The SoS, SoD etc have all affirmed the alliance.

    I'm fully aware of what the thread is about but Trump is playing to his domestic audience. If the Europeans want to take his words in that manner, so be it. It may just be the 'kick up the arrse' some of them need.
     
  6. How many will actually take that risk, as nobody can deny that having the US on your side means that there's one hell of a big stick to be waved.

    Can you say the same about the EU, who would likely see the "Red Army" half way through Poland before they got to the committee stage? Does "you're up against the Germans" carry the same gravitas? I think not.

    That's why I say Angie's playing a dangerous game, especially as Putin waving his willy not just happening in the more traditional eastern parts but is also rearing it's ugly bald head in the Balkans region again.

    So will those most at threat want to look towards the EU to defend them, would others wish to have their military take from them at will to buffer other areas a LONG way away from them, or would they prefer to see the "big stick" the US projects?

    Interesting times...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Oh no, we agree that Art 4 is not the "binding" clause some others are, which is why I specified that hoofing would be a result of something brought under 4 which has an incredibly wide coverage.

    It is also something that the US, along with others (even with "creative" accounting), can use to bring the matter of spending to a real head, they can use it to issue the promise that spending is increased forthwith or they are off under Art 13 as it is deemed that such underspending has been detrimental to the security of the organisation.

    Oh, I think that your caveat should be amended to include a term that says members will spend 2% of GDP on their ACTIVE military, not on "historical" stuff and so forth. That 2% is for what you can deploy or, of course, use to support NATO troops who are deployed (Belgium, as an example, cannot exactly provide a lot of boots but we are quite adept at helping to make sure them bangsticks get fed.). Don't bring it in order within the next 3 years, there's the door, no more UK/US nuclear umbrella, you're on your own
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Those aren't FTA's, they're RTA's & we'll be in a great position to sign as many as we like, which isn't the case whilst we remain in the EU.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. The rules for what can and cannot be counted have been in place for donkeys. I can't see a substantive reason to change them (yet):
    http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf
    NB there's more but copying a PDF on my mobile isn't my forte.

    Still not sure how a member can be forced to leave under the current rules.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  10. What, exactly, do you think RTAs are?
     
  11. Road Traffic Accidents?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  12. Well, it's beginning to resemble a car crash.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. It depends how real trump is, if all this is deadly serious ( and it's looking increasingly like it could be) and he is doing to really kick up a fuss then really the other NATO nations have no choice. What would an EU army be? The Scandinavians bankrolled by the Germans inside cockroach ridden Spanish ships? That's best case scenario as far as I can see. France will never give up it's nuclear defense policy so it won't be a nuclear alliance.

    The very reasons why the EU is in so much trouble is precisely why it can never have a functioning military.

    Unless they actually wipe borders off the map and become a single federal state it ain't going to happen...and France will never give up it's sovereignty. So again it comes back to Germany being an overload of a collection of junk states. Bodies in return for Deutschmarks?

    Again it's momentous change that can only ever mix things up, and the leaders of the EU love the status quo
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Regional Trade Agreements - that means tariffs, or the lack thereof are agreed. These may or may not be FTA's.