Nato - Does he have a point?

If you thought they were bad with almost all other nationalities, you should have seen them with the Boxheeds, who they hated (and still hate) with a vengeance. But, somehow, I can’t really blame them for that because the arrogant Boxheeds treated them really abysmally, like third-class citizens.

In the main industrial areas of West Germany (Hamburg, West Berlin, Frankfurt, Cologne and particularly the Ruhr area) one of the favourite pastimes of the local knobheads was clattering Turkish kids (Kanaken klatschen). The Boxheeds tell Turkish jokes (Türkenwitze) like the Brits tell Irish jokes, and even today the German slang for a plastic carrier-bag is “Turkish suitcase” (Türkenkoffer). They were (and still are) treated very much like Pikeys in the UK, so it’s small wonder that they’re not particularly eager to “integrate” and would rather keep themselves to themselves. And don’t forget that it’s all been going on for 60 years or more. That, in essence, is the foundation of the problem that the Boxheeds have with "Muslims".

MsG
They like the West Indians in the UK were brought in to assist in rebuilding after the last big european tete at tete, you are right the Bosch do treat them like sh*t however they probably didn't help themselves either. In the main in the 50's & 60's the hard working West Indians in the Uk did try to integrate in society. Later generations then appeared to get a massive chip on their collective shoulders and rock the apple cart.

This is all my take on the subject and in no way a racial or political statement. I'm only on here for the craic
 
All of them, there was a serious study done that showed that the French army won more battles than any other. So if you take the Napoleonic wars as a football season not a real war, France were league champions. My comment was however meant to be read with sarcasm mode on.
 
Ref LOGCAP, they are indeed moving back into the contracting area. The issues of LOGCAP Eerak are now forgotten and its grab all while you can. It also makes it more comforting to the US tax payer that its a US contractor getting part of that 87% and not a "insert any non-US" contractor. The issue is, when it comes to the cost+ nature of how they do a lot of their work, long term it doesn't make financial sense.
And look at certain European nations contributing to the NATO mission....a lot are under a "Lift and Sustain" mandate which is paid for by the US. Its like coming to a party and you get free food, drink and even get the taxi paid for you to go back home!
 
And look at certain European nations contributing to the NATO mission....a lot are under a "Lift and Sustain" mandate which is paid for by the US. Its like coming to a party and you get free food, drink and even get the taxi paid for you to go back home!
But if you didn't, the host would be sitting on their own...
 
Which, as far as a lot of Americans are concerned, wouldn't be a bad thing.

It's not as if the NATO member states lack the ability to pay, they just know the US will do it for them so don't bother. They should either pay their 2% or leave.
I would imagine that the attitude of a lot of smaller states is: "NATO is an arm of US policy. We don't mind supporting US policy, but we don't see why we should pay to do it."
 
I would imagine that the attitude of a lot of smaller states is: "NATO is an arm of US policy. We don't mind supporting US policy, but we don't see why we should pay to do it."
If that's what they thought, they should have said so in 2014:
Wales Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales
14. We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and responsibilities. Our overall security and defence depend both on how much we spend and how we spend it. Increased investments should be directed towards meeting our capability priorities, and Allies also need to display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed. A strong defence industry across the Alliance, including a stronger defence industry in Europe and greater defence industrial cooperation within Europe and across the Atlantic, remains essential for delivering the required capabilities. NATO and EU efforts to strengthen defence capabilities are complementary. Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:
  • Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.
  • Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
    • halt any decline in defence expenditure;
    • aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
    • aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
  • Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
  • All Allies will:
    • ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics;
    • ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.
15. Allies will review national progress annually. This will be discussed at future Defence Ministerial meetings and reviewed by Heads of State and Government at future Summits.
The only way to be serious about the 2% is create a new Article binding member nations to it and having penalties for failing to abide including dismissal from the Alliance.
 
I hope somebody takes his smart phone off him on Friday and say's "you can have this back in four years time Mr President."
Just to circle-back on that point, according to the chap currently talking on C-SPAN Mr Trump handed-in his Android phone yesterday. And also his beloved 757.

So now he is 'fully compliant' which is unusual in terms of recent US government figures...
 

DaManBugs

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
If that's what they thought, they should have said so in 2014:
Wales Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales
The only way to be serious about the 2% is create a new Article binding member nations to it and having penalties for failing to abide including dismissal from the Alliance.
I don't believe that would work. There are quite a few NATO members who are (or have become) very sceptical about the organisation and its aims. They might just use your clause as an excuse to ditch the whole project. On the other hand, they could well use it to exert pressure on the US to change the clearly imperialistic course of NATO.

MsG
 
I don't believe that would work. There are quite a few NATO members who are (or have become) very sceptical about the organisation and its aims. They might just use your clause as an excuse to ditch the whole project. On the other hand, they could well use it to exert pressure on the US to change the clearly imperialistic course of NATO.

MsG
I highly doubt any of the newer members would ditch the project. After all, they joined for a reason. As for others leaving, such as Luxembourg, would anyone notice? The only one where it may have value is Iceland because of its strategic location. Possibly Turkey (that's a whole new subject) and Norway.

In my view, it's a club and there's a fee. If you don't pay your fees, prepare to be expelled. It might make some sit up and take notice.

As for its aims and scepticism, we saw what happened in Afghanistan. Some taking the burden others coming along for the ride ie here's some bods but you feed and accommodate them. Some turned up but their ROEs made them somewhat less than useful. Some never turned up at all.

It's the nature of the beast we currently have but if we are serious about it, then we need to be serious about membership and not rely on the US so much imo. If you don't want to pay for an armed forces, give the money to NATO to spend as it sees fit such as E3s.
 
If that's what they thought, they should have said so in 2014:
Wales Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales


The only way to be serious about the 2% is create a new Article binding member nations to it and having penalties for failing to abide including dismissal from the Alliance.
I don't think that's quite the same thing. The 2% defence budget can be factored into a nation's individual interests. Being "carried" on operations is another matter. The US wants the smaller countries on board to provide a fig-leaf against the charge of unilateralism. I don't think real US military planners (Trump isn't one of these) expect major deployments, just a show of assent. They can't say that out loud, of course.
 
I don't think that's quite the same thing. The 2% defence budget can be factored into a nation's individual interests. Being "carried" on operations is another matter. The US wants the smaller countries on board to provide a fig-leaf against the charge of unilateralism. I don't think real US military planners (Trump isn't one of these) expect major deployments, just a show of assent. They can't say that out loud, of course.
That's certainly one point of view. The US will go unilaterally of course. However, they will always want allies to help out as it shows a united front (United Nations?) rather than just the US doing its thing. If you think that's a 'fig-leaf against the charge of unilateralism' so be it. I disagree.

I've worked with US forces on and off for a few years and know without them, much of our planning would go for a ball of chalk. However, people don't like to realise that. When there's trouble in 'x' country and our nearest warship is five days away, plus the airlift to get to a nearby friendly country which will refuel your aircraft and allow troops to land is negligible, guess who has assets nearby and can help?
 
I don't believe that would work. There are quite a few NATO members who are (or have become) very sceptical about the organisation and its aims. They might just use your clause as an excuse to ditch the whole project. ...[snip]

MsG
Really? I don't share that view at all.

The core nations, Germany, Benelux, UK, Italy and Spain have a vested interest in maintaining the alliance as it forms part of their national stability and gives them close bonds to the US. France only restored its full status about 6 years ago and they're doing quite well out of the deal. The Southern and Balkan nations believe that NATO provides a big blanket which guarantees internecine peace in the region allowing them to develop and preventing outbreaks of stupidity. In fact more of them are keen to become candidate then full-blown members. Central and Eastern members are very happy with the status quo, especially when they look at Ukraine and Georgia. The Baltic and Scandinavian states understand that their backyard is getting less stable with each passing year and the only hope they have of survival is belonging to a gang that is bigger than their rivals. In recent years Sweden and Finland have shown much more interest in co-operation with NATO, including joint exercises, participation in NATO events and providing staff in the big HQs. Canada will follow what the US does as they have in effect, a joint defence strategy.

The only member states that may be a bit bored with the whole thing are Iceland (A bit), Portugal (A really little bit) and Turkey (Just a tiny bit), but the US is keen to keep them as members due to the their geo-strategic locations. In addition NATO makes sure that TUR and PRT profit from their membership financially by having alliance facilities on their soil generating lots of tasty international money. Turkey of course is also currently benefiting from its membership militarily under the auspices of ACTIVE FENCE (AF) or NATO Assistance to Turkey (NA2T) as it is now known.

In my view there is not a single NATO member that would willingly sacrifice its place in the alliance and lose its warm comfy spot under the american umbrella...not one.

(E2a the bit about France)
 
Last edited:
That's certainly one point of view. The US will go unilaterally of course. However, they will always want allies to help out as it shows a united front (United Nations?) rather than just the US doing its thing. If you think that's a 'fig-leaf against the charge of unilateralism' so be it. I disagree.

I've worked with US forces on and off for a few years and know without them, much of our planning would go for a ball of chalk. However, people don't like to realise that. When there's trouble in 'x' country and our nearest warship is five days away, plus the airlift to get to a nearby friendly country which will refuel your aircraft and allow troops to land is negligible, guess who has assets nearby and can help?
Well I like to think that the contribution of Britain, Canada et al, is more than a fig-leaf. That's a different thing.

I think if you're Albania or Slovenia, it looks a bit different.
 
Well I like to think that the contribution of Britain, Canada et al, is more than a fig-leaf. That's a different thing.

I think if you're Albania or Slovenia, it looks a bit different.
Not sure I understand your point. Are you saying Slovenia and Albania only think they're invited to the party to show that it's not 'a fig-leaf against the charge of unilateralism'? ie they're only invited as 'fellow flag wavers' and know they're only that?
 
Not sure about Albania but I know Slovenia is extremely proud and happy to be a part of NATO or at least their troops were when on Ex there a couple of times.

What their govt thinks I have no idea but their people voted yes to join: Report on the Results of the Referendum
For many of the former communist countries the EU and NATO are seen as being symbols of modernism and turning away from the dull grey past. To most of the public NATO membership was more about domestic politics and national self image than it was about actual defence policy. Hence, there was often a gap between the act of joining NATO and actually making useful contributions to it.
 
For many of the former communist countries the EU and NATO are seen as being symbols of modernism and turning away from the dull grey past. To most of the public NATO membership was more about domestic politics and national self image than it was about actual defence policy. Hence, there was often a gap between the act of joining NATO and actually making useful contributions to it.
My experience as above on Ex and talking to a fair variety of their English speaking (or translated) troops was that they couldn't wait to get away from the country that attacked them and were extremely happy to belong in a partnership they felt brought benefits, that honoured commitments and they wanted to contribute to. They wanted that defence as they had seen what happened to them and their neighbours.

Every time they mentioned the mech unit it was always suffixed with the phrase 'allocated to NATO operations'. Good blokes, some 'tired' tactics and some very tired kit in hangers e.g. M36 Jackson but their enthusiasm for working with the Brits was unabashed imx and they certainly wanted to do more.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top