US versus NATO

[PPCLI Guy]

We already deploy a heavy unit from CONUS to Germany.Once  in country they can marry up with pre-positioned stocks. Trump is right that Germany cutting a deal for gas with Russia undermines NATO. The US or Canada would sell them the gas they need to stay warm.

https://www.army.mil/article/185234/34_abct_rotates_forces_from_poland_to_germany

Hmm.  Not that long ago (until fracking came along, with completely unknown impacts on a very fragile aquifer in the US), America the Good and Moral was buying oil from Saudi Arabia (home of AQ), Venezuela (Hugo Chavez anyone?), Nigeria (Hello kleptocracy), and, oh yes, land of rapists and MS 13, Mexico.

Where does any country get off dictating where another country should buy its oil from, especially with a record like that?

 

[tomahawk6]

It should be a matter of national security.NATO exists primarily to stop a Russian invasion.Now all they would need is to turn off the gas in winter.Of course it was that way for the US until we lessened our dependence on foreign oil. The US is a major producer of natural gas we should be the go to source for Europe.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It should be a matter of national security.NATO exists primarily to stop a Russian invasion.Now all they would need is to turn off the gas in winter.Of course it was that way for the US until we lessened our dependence on foreign oil. The US is a major producer of natural gas we should be the go to source for Europe.

The US can't beat Russian gas prices. Economics 'trumps' politics in this case:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/russia-tightens-grip-on-europe-s-gas-supply-with-gazprom-deal

 

[CBH99]

Lets not forget the other side of that 'security sword' when it comes to Europe buying its gas from Russia.

Europe buying it's gas from Russia helps prop up the Russian economy & energy industry.  Which helps keep the country stable.  Which, in turn, helps it to build the professional & capable armed forces we end up so worried about.

How's that for 'it's an odd world'?



A financially & politically stable Russia, regardless of how much we like/don't like Putin (Personally, I'm kind of a fan to be honest) - is much better than a Russia that is even more economically depressed than it is now.  For political stability, internal & external stability, etc.

Also, a Europe that is purchasing a natural resource from Russia & helping stabilize the Russian economy is an economic/trade/financial resource that Russia values.  Russia has far more to gain by selling natural gas to Europe than it does in 'turning off the taps', and in turn, eliminating a massive source of revenue.

Do you tend to invade the very countries that are propping up your own economy?  Nope. 

It's great to say "We need tanks & planes & ships incase those crazy evil Russians suddenly invade us!"  It's much less interesting to say "We have a co-dependent economic relationship that acts as just as much of a deterrent as the weapons do."  Less interesting, but just as important, if not moreso.

Eliminating Russia out of the world stage even more, and purchasing their natural gas from the US, would be a huge step in the wrong direction in terms of European/Western Russia financial stability, and hence a militarily stable status quo.

(All of this nonsense about Russian aggression gets tiring, especially from the mainstream media.  Yes, they can mass lots of forces.  So can we.  They can launch lots of planes with missiles.  So can we.  They can deploy lots of ships in that region.  We can do that too.  They don't want to invade Europe for plenty of obvious reasons, and Europe doesn't want to invade Russia either.  The whole thing is just dumb.)

 

[Good2Golf]

The lack of stability and certainty surrounding Russia was much of NATO’s (and the US in particular’s) own doing.  Looked at through the Russian lens, from Clinton onwards, NATO’s relentless crawl towards Russia’s Western Border can’t be seen as anything else than a deliberate and measured progressive action to gain comfrontatuonal proximity and encroach upon Russia’s terrestrial approaches. Nations (Canada in particular due to deep Ukrainian ties) get harumphy about Crimea, but what of Grenada’s invasion in 1982, etc.?  Does the West have a get out of jail free card it can play for bad behaviour, that Russia (or China, let’s say) doesn’t get?

Anyway, there aren’t enough LNG carriers for Fracknation to supply Germany.  Best COA to reduce Germany’s/Europe’s dependency on Russian natural gas is nuclear power, and Europe (or at least Germany) is looking to decommission its nuclear power plants...not a strategically smart move IMO.

Now, if Trump’s actions on the NATO file is actually a well-planned campaign designed to force a transition out of NATO of some of its Eastern fringe, thereby reducing tensions with Russia, I’ll actially give the guy and his team grudging kudos for, albeit indirectly, shaping a stabilized relationship with Russia.

Regards
G2G

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The lack of stability and certainty surrounding Russia was much of NATO’s (and the US in particular’s) own doing.  Looked at through the Russian lens, from Clinton onwards, NATO’s relentless crawl towards Russia’s Western Border can’t be seen as anything else than a deliberate and measured progressive action to gain comfrontatuonal proximity and encroach upon Russia’s terrestrial approaches. Nations (Canada in particular due to deep Ukrainian ties) get harumphy about Crimea, but what of Grenada’s invasion in 1982, etc.?  Does the West have a get out of jail free card it can play for bad behaviour, that Russia (or China, let’s say) doesn’t get?

Anyway, there aren’t enough LNG carriers for Fracknation to supply Germany.  Best COA to reduce Germany’s/Europe’s dependency on Russian natural gas is nuclear power, and Europe (or at least Germany) is looking to decommission its nuclear power plants...not a strategically smart move IMO.

Now, if Trump’s actions on the NATO file is actually a well-planned campaign designed to force a transition out of NATO of some of its Eastern fringe, thereby reducing tensions with Russia, I’ll actially give the guy and his team grudging kudos for, albeit indirectly, shaping a stabilized relationship with Russia.

Regards
G2G

Yes and everyone is quick to forget these terribly embarrassing moments:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-audio-reveals-embarrassing-u-s-exchange-on-ukraine-eu-idUSBREA1601G20140207

Obama and Clinton are history but I remember when the Orange Revolution happened, there was some pretty clear evidence that the US was actively involved in orchestrating Regime Change in Ukraine. 

 

[Journeyman]

Trump is right that Germany cutting a deal for gas with Russia undermines NATO.

I guess we'll have to wait a few days to see Trump's rhetoric/tweets from his Putin meeting;  I'm sure they'll strengthen NATO.  op:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We already deploy a heavy unit from CONUS to Germany.Once  in country they can marry up with pre-positioned stocks. Trump is right that Germany cutting a deal for gas with Russia undermines NATO. The US or Canada would sell them the gas they need to stay warm.

https://www.army.mil/article/185234/34_abct_rotates_forces_from_poland_to_germany

Except the grits, likely, won't allow a single gallon or cubic meter to come out of the ground, let alone ship it to Europe.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I know that this thread is focused on NATO and the US but I'd like to ask this question.  What about Trump threatening to kick Canada out of NORAD or reduce our leadership role (i.e. no longer a CDN in 2nd in Command) unless we substantially start to fund/increase our military spending?  I mean, if he's making this much noise about NATO, why not similar noise about NORAD?  Our CF18's are not getting any younger, the timeline to replace them is totally up in the air (and knowing our track record over the last 30+yrs on these things I'm not hopeful) and there is the chance that we'll have nothing at all to contribute to the air defense of NA in another 5-7yrs.... To me, this seems like the golden goose opportunity for Trump to strong arm us into actually spending more.  I wonder if any of the Mandarins in Ottawa have thought about this angle...

 

[Altair]

I know that this thread is focused on NATO and the US but I'd like to ask this question.  What about Trump threatening to kick Canada out of NORAD or reduce our leadership role (i.e. no longer a CDN in 2nd in Command) unless we substantially start to fund/increase our military spending?  I mean, if he's making this much noise about NATO, why not similar noise about NORAD?  Our CF18's are not getting any younger, the timeline to replace them is totally up in the air (and knowing our track record over the last 30+yrs on these things I'm not hopeful) and there is the chance that we'll have nothing at all to contribute to the air defense of NA in another 5-7yrs.... To me, this seems like the golden goose opportunity for Trump to strong arm us into actually spending more.  I wonder if any of the Mandarins in Ottawa have thought about this angle...

NORAD without Canada is just American flying around in American airspace, no?

I'm sure some people with more knowledge than I will respond, but I would imagine access to Canadian airspace would be rather important to the US.

 

[Cloud Cover]

It seems to me we are are hardly in any position to deny or prevent the US from using our airspace for the very same purposes they use it now, and more.

 

[Czech_pivo]

NORAD without Canada is just American flying around in American airspace, no?

I'm sure some people with more knowledge than I will respond, but I would imagine access to Canadian airspace would be rather important to the US.

Who's Nuc's do you think are up in the Arctic patrolling under our ice? 
If a threat coming over NA towards the US was occurring, the US would be over our air space well before they asked for our permission....

 

[Altair]

Who's Nuc's do you think are up in the Arctic patrolling under our ice? 
If a threat coming over NA towards the US was occurring, the US would be over our air space well before they asked for our permission....

It seems to me we are are hardly in any position to deny or prevent the US from using our airspace for the very same purposes they use it now, and more.

Naturally, but NORAD formalizes the process.

I mean, I guess they could kick us out of NORAD, but when it comes to interceptions there may be no coordination. Might be crowded should both the US and Canada respond, and worst yet, get surprised.

 

[Good2Golf]

I know that this thread is focused on NATO and the US but I'd like to ask this question.  What about Trump threatening to kick Canada out of NORAD or reduce our leadership role (i.e. no longer a CDN in 2nd in Command) unless we substantially start to fund/increase our military spending?  I mean, if he's making this much noise about NATO, why not similar noise about NORAD?  Our CF18's are not getting any younger, the timeline to replace them is totally up in the air (and knowing our track record over the last 30+yrs on these things I'm not hopeful) and there is the chance that we'll have nothing at all to contribute to the air defense of NA in another 5-7yrs.... To me, this seems like the golden goose opportunity for Trump to strong arm us into actually spending more.  I wonder if any of the Mandarins in Ottawa have thought about this angle...

Decades of joint air(space) defence notwithstanding, if America (Trump) wants to go it alone and terminate the NORAD agreement as a clunky 'Art of the Deal' negotiating tactic to get Canada to significantly increase defence spending, he could very well get his (short-term) wish.

Unburdened by that pesky interoperability (with the US) thing, one might even see this in years to come if Macron supports Trudeau in a supportive, vice confrontational Trumpian manner...gone are the days of blind parroting of the "always have and always will be the closest of friends."  There could be a transition from "best friend" to "good/decent neighbour."

For those who say, "No way," we're well into the New Uncertainty World Order, so one should "never say never." :nod:

If America is willing to risk pushing allies away for periods much longer than just the few months it will take to get past the mid-Terms, then it has to realize that these are becoming significantly more possible outcomes.  America can't just file for a "Friendship Chapter 11"...

"On verra."

Regards,
G2G

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-takes-questions-nato-july-1.4743477

Trudeau insists Canada spending enough on defence, as Trump declares victory at NATO - CBC News · Posted: Jul 12, 2018
Canada's PM reacts to Trump saying he convinced NATO allies to increase contributions

Extract: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada hasn't committed to spending new money on defence, despite U.S. President Donald Trump's comments that he convinced NATO allies to dramatically hike spending. Instead, Trudeau said at the wrap of the summit in Brussels, Canada has reaffirmed its commitment to work towards contributing two per cent of its gross domestic product to military spending and reverse any cuts. Trudeau said Canada has been "taking the right approach" on defence spending, pointing to the Liberals' plans to increase the defence budget by 70 per cent over the next decade to $32.7 billion. "The president has been consistent that he wants to see people spending more on defence in their countries and we are very pleased we are doing that," Trudeau told reporters. "We'll always step up, with cash yes but also with commitments and capacity. That's what NATO is looking for."


I hope this is not another case, the G7 Conf being the first, that Trump thought he had Canada's agreement, then found out that Trudeau said something else at at his presser.

One of the comments at CBC:

Trudeau has a plan to get Canada’s spending up to 2% of our GDP.  Unfortunately his plan is to reduce our GDP.

 

[Altair]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-takes-questions-nato-july-1.4743477

Trudeau insists Canada spending enough on defence, as Trump declares victory at NATO - CBC News · Posted: Jul 12, 2018
Canada's PM reacts to Trump saying he convinced NATO allies to increase contributions

Extract: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Canada hasn't committed to spending new money on defence, despite U.S. President Donald Trump's comments that he convinced NATO allies to dramatically hike spending. Instead, Trudeau said at the wrap of the summit in Brussels, Canada has reaffirmed its commitment to work towards contributing two per cent of its gross domestic product to military spending and reverse any cuts. Trudeau said Canada has been "taking the right approach" on defence spending, pointing to the Liberals' plans to increase the defence budget by 70 per cent over the next decade to $32.7 billion. "The president has been consistent that he wants to see people spending more on defence in their countries and we are very pleased we are doing that," Trudeau told reporters. "We'll always step up, with cash yes but also with commitments and capacity. That's what NATO is looking for."


I hope this is not another case, the G7 Conf being the first, that Trump thought he had Canada's agreement, then found out that Trudeau said something else at at his presser.

One of the comments at CBC:

Trudeau is small stuff, Macron is taking the lead here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/12/trumps-claim-that-nato-will-boost-defense-spending-disputed.html

President Donald Trump closed out his chaotic two-day visit to NATO Thursday by declaring victory, claiming that member nations caved to his demands to significantly increase defense spending and reaffirming his commitment to the alliance.

But there were no immediate specifics on what he had achieved, and French President Emmanuel Macron quickly disputed Trump’s claim that NATO allies have agreed to boost defense spending beyond 2 percent of gross domestic product.

I expect attacks on Macron over twitter shortly.

 

[Good2Golf]

...I expect attacks on Macron over twitter shortly.

I call dibs on "Dishonest" and "Weak" for the next game of Trump Twitter Bingo!  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

Once again there is a huge element of unreality in the reporting of the events and what is going on. Why, for example is everyone hysterical about President Trump calling for NATO to actually meet their 2% commitments, especially when President Obama had the same talking points:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/09/press-conference-president-obama-after-nato-summit

What is missing in the analysis is, much like the President is upending the post war domestic, trade and diplomatic conventions which are not really applicable to the post Cold War world anymore, he is also taking a position to radically change the Alliance structures as well. Having "allies" which free load off the United States or fail to make meaningful commitments (very recently it was revealed that the German armed forces had only 10 operational fighters. I am looking for the link, but I believe their submarine fleet is also in a similar state of disarray). And the image of arming against Russian aggression while paying the Russians for strategically important items like fuel also provides a bit of cognitive dissonance, you certainly open yourself to a lot more leverage by the Russians, rather than less...

Frankly, I believe this is a team effort by the entire Trump administration, we should actually be looking for evidence of Secretary Mattis, Secretary Pompeo or John Boulton's fingerprints. The President provides the visible public "push" against entrenched interests and ideas, but maybe a far more useful exercise is to examine who and where these "pushes" are directed against, and figure out the desired end goals of the United States. Given the enormous disparity between the economic, hard and soft power of the United States and Canada, it would be especially useful to see where these goals are aligned with our own interests, far better to run alongside the train and jump aboard than to stand in front of it on the tracks with your hands raised attempting to stop it. (This gets to the idea of deciding if we want to be a North American nation or a European one, a very serious discussion will have to be had to truly determine if CETA and TPP actually do provide a sufficient counterweight to North American and American trade. Regardless of what we choose, the United States will always be on our border, and an angry United States without us having any recourse is not going to be a pleasant experience.

Edit to add:

 

[tomahawk6]

The US pays 3.5% so we would need to increase spending a small amount to hit the 4% mark.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Once again there is a huge element of unreality in the reporting of the events and what is going on. Why, for example is everyone hysterical about President Trump calling for NATO to actually meet their 2% commitments, especially when President Obama had the same talking points:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/09/press-conference-president-obama-after-nato-summit

What is missing in the analysis is, much like the President is upending the post war domestic, trade and diplomatic conventions which are not really applicable to the post Cold War world anymore, he is also taking a position to radically change the Alliance structures as well. Having "allies" which free load off the United States or fail to make meaningful commitments (very recently it was revealed that the German armed forces had only 10 operational fighters. I am looking for the link, but I believe their submarine fleet is also in a similar state of disarray). And the image of arming against Russian aggression while paying the Russians for strategically important items like fuel also provides a bit of cognitive dissonance, you certainly open yourself to a lot more leverage by the Russians, rather than less...

Frankly, I believe this is a team effort by the entire Trump administration, we should actually be looking for evidence of Secretary Mattis, Secretary Pompeo or John Boulton's fingerprints. The President provides the visible public "push" against entrenched interests and ideas, but maybe a far more useful exercise is to examine who and where these "pushes" are directed against, and figure out the desired end goals of the United States. Given the enormous disparity between the economic, hard and soft power of the United States and Canada, it would be especially useful to see where these goals are aligned with our own interests, far better to run alongside the train and jump aboard than to stand in front of it on the tracks with your hands raised attempting to stop it. (This gets to the idea of deciding if we want to be a North American nation or a European one, a very serious discussion will have to be had to truly determine if CETA and TPP actually do provide a sufficient counterweight to North American and American trade. Regardless of what we choose, the United States will always be on our border, and an angry United States without us having any recourse is not going to be a pleasant experience.

Edit to add:

Excellent find, and I rest my case :nod:

Obama tells 'complacent' Europe to hike military spending

It follows remarks last month in which Mr Obama said European states are “free riders” by demanding the US act in North Africa without putting any “skin in the game”.

Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, has said Nato is “obsolete” and the US cannot “afford to be the policeman of the world.”

In Europe, the share of domestic spending on the military has fallen six years running, to an average of 1.4 per cent.

The US spends 3.6 per cent, while the UK spends just above two per cent. At the bottom of the table are Luxembourg (0.47 per cent), Hungary (0.85 per cent) and Spain (0.89 per cent).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/25/obama-tells-complacent-europe-to-hike-military-spending/