NATO - myth or legend?

[Heathen Hammer]

People often ignore secondary aspects of NATO.

E.g. all NATO members reveal their defense budgets, military investments and R&D projects to each other. This is how France and Germany both have no reason to suspect the other is running a covert rearmament project. The NATO system prevents that. In a similar vein mutual defense removed indivdiual defense pressures which heightened militarization. Maybe too successfully in Western Europe but after two world wars between highly militarized European countries this is possibly the better option. Also interoperarability means European countries depend on each other more, there are joint operations, joint exercises etc.

That isn't necessarily a good thing and a huge setback on their sovereignty.
European countries need to become more independent form each other.
Militarization could help European countries in a lot of aspects.

That nations still act independantly beyond this framework is because as long as no article 5 is invoked and it only was invoked very loosely against the Taliban, then all nations can act independantly and in their personal interests. The only base agreement is the mutual defense and that main assurance is not article 5 but e.g the US putting US soldiers where they would get killed if someone attacked another NATO member. Some of the reason of putting US, British and French soldiers in Germany were not about keeping Germany down somehow, but to guarantee germany that from minute one other NATO soldiers would be fighting and dieing in germany so none would bug out if germany were attacked. This was an important guarantee so West Germany saw no need to find an indvidual agreement with Russia or militarize excessively herself.

That was the case throughout Cold War, somewhat, but there is literally no practical use for it now, aside form, perhaps, training and exercises.

Overall beyond its immediate defense agreement it has far more integration between nations concerning security beyond simply where to invade next or who the enemy is.

It is a huge burden on taxpayer, who not only has to pay for vast military-industrial complex expenses, but also to maintain and support armies of dwarf-states of Eastern Europe.

[Gaul]

It is a huge burden on taxpayer, who not only has to pay for vast military-industrial complex expenses, but also to maintain and support armies of dwarf-states of Eastern Europe.

There's no such thing as a dwarf state, anywhere, you are comparing apples with oranges.

America has so much immense wealth even our 4x superior military (and it's budget) is easily supportable, with little additional burden on our taxpayers. But it can be related as, if we had a zero military budget, we could easily feed and clothe the poor throughout planet earth. Our military is well kept so we can force countries to do what we want. Our wealth is so great we can first bribe countries to do what we want, through foreign aid and trade deals. If this fails, back to the military. Our only true allies are England and Israel. The rest is our money talking.


These recent NATO provications (all seeming to happen within the past 24 hours) is backing Putin into a corner. He knows he has to react, somehow, so please leave all his options as possible. But I know, honestly, him wiping out a city of 3 million won't make him sleep better at night. But please, do not corner the bear.

Yes, I'm sure there was an "article 5" sort of thing in Poland's full intergrated membership in the Allies of England and France before WW2. But that didn't stop the Allies from doing nothing after Poland was invaded.

[Dromikaites]

There were no British or French troops in Poland in 1939.

There are American and West-European troops in the Baltics, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

Also it helps to understand the following strategic implications of the AEGIS system deployed in Europe (land assets in Eastern Europe and Turkey and naval assets in Western Europe): they are more than just a way to severely reduce the Russian nuclear threat. They also serve as a means to deny Russia the ability to wage conventional or "hybrid" warfare like it did in Ukraine.

For instance the presence of the AEGIS Ashore facility in Romania means NATO needs to defend it also against conventional attacks (land based and airborne).

On one hand that means bringing to Romania enough assets as to defeat any Russian surprise attack (like it was the case with Western Germany during the Cold War), on the other it means US and NATO need to make sure Romania is politically stable.

The last requirement is done through a combination of building up the local economy, forcing political reforms which make the Romanian state more Western-like and assistance in combating Russian espionage, Russian propaganda and Russian-sponsored astroturfing.

The same process will have to happen in Poland, where the second AEGIS Ashore system will be installed. This means both countries would benefit from acquiring military, intelligence and economic defenses which would have been hard to acquire otherwise. In both the case of Poland and Romania there has never been a doubt about their willingness to resist Russia. What has been missing since the 18th century until now was their ability to do so.

Until NATO decided to build the AEGIS system, that ability had to rely on the political willingness to uphold article 5. By building the AEGIS system NATO became committed militarily, economically and intelligence-wise to stopping Russia at those countries' borders just like during Cold War 1 it was committed to support West Germany.

A Russian attack or Russian-sponsored terrorist activities will from now on kill not only locals but also soldiers, intelligence officers, economic and political advisors belonging to the Western nations. As such since two days ago when AEGIS Ashore became operational there is no doubt anymore about upholding article 5.

[AnthoniusII]

There is a Golden Rule through out the Entire Human History.
Superpowers NEVER fight for "small" allies sake , against each other. They promote , enforce their allies to do the fightings FOR THEM.
Espesialy in the times after WW2 that a major conflict between 2 or more superpowers will end up in to the planet's end.
Examples?
Tcechoslovakia (before and after WW2).
Polland (before WW2).
Cyprus (durring the Turkish invasion) Soviet Union had a military aid/suport pact that never happened.
IRAN after the Islamic Revolution (USA financed Iraq to invade and did not invade its self).
Examples are countless...
Most recent?
Ucraine. EU and USA signed a defence pact with Ucraine but they never intrefear when Russia took Crimea!
Yes NATO has troops in to the Baltic states.
According to the most recent scenarios , Russia will defeat Baltic states in less than 2 days!
Do you think that USA will start a nuclear war with Russia if Russia will invade Batlic states?
EDIT: Paradox with a bit of sarcasm.
EU Baltic states suported GREXIT..
NATO in the latest defence scenarios sents an entire Greek Tank Brigade to defend them!!!

[Abdülmecid I]

Polland (before WW2).

Umm, WW2 started because of the German invasion of Poland.

Cyprus (durring the Turkish invasion) Soviet Union had a military aid/suport pact that never happened.

There never was a military alliance between Cyprus and the USSR. Even if there was, it would be null, since the Turkish intervention was a legal response, under the terms of the treaty concerning the independence of Cyprus, to the legitimate Cypriot government being overthrown by far-right militias and foreign forces.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://irice.univ-paris1.fr/spip.php?article1044

IRAN after the Islamic Revolution (USA financed Iraq to invade and did not invade its self).

Saddam invaded Iran on his own initiative. He had planned the invasion to settle some territorial disputes, that followed an Iraqi diplomatical defeat, for which Saddam was mainly responsible. The US did help Iraq disproportionately, but the goal of that policy was to make the Iraqi army capable of prolonging the conflict, not of encouraging Saddam to invade his neighbor. Even after the first crushing Iraqi defeats, Saddam was still obsessed with continuing the war, until he knocked out Iran out of the war.

IUcraine. EU and USA signed a defence pact with Ucraine but they never intrefear when Russia took Crimea!

Again, there is no defense pact between the US and Ukraine. Both Russia and the US guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty, according to the Budapest Memorandum, but that doesn't constitute a defensive alliance.

[AnthoniusII]

Umm, WW2 started because of the German invasion of Poland. There never was a military alliance between Cyprus and the USSR. Even if there was, it would be null, since the Turkish intervention was a legal response, under the terms of the treaty concerning the independence of Cyprus, to the legitimate Cypriot government being overthrown by far-right militias and foreign forces.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://irice.univ-paris1.fr/spip.php?article1044

Saddam invaded Iran on his own initiative. He had planned the invasion to settle some territorial disputes, that followed an Iraqi diplomatical defeat, for which Saddam was mainly responsible. The US did help Iraq disproportionately, but the goal of that policy was to make the Iraqi army capable of prolonging the conflict, not of encouraging Saddam to invade his neighbor. Even after the first crushing Iraqi defeats, Saddam was still obsessed with continuing the war, until he knocked out Iran out of the war. Again, there is no defense pact between the US and Ukraine. Both Russia and the US guaranteed Ukraine's sovereignty, according to the Budapest Memorandum, but that doesn't constitute a defensive alliance.

You seem to have answers to all my points ,don't you?
And YES there was a Soviet Unit-Cyprus pact. That included arms sales (ussing material from SU allies such Chechoslovakia), and military aid in case of invasion.
But ...you did not "chalenge" my post about the 1987 Turkish invasion attemp with NATO's and EU's tolerance and HELP.
Why???
About Polland.
It seams that Turkish schools ignore WW2 history (maybe because Turkey faught about 8 hours in that war)!
Have you ever knew that Polland-Anglo/French military pact? Have you ever heard about the "shadow" war on 1939?
Officialy UK and France declaired war against Germany because of its invasion in Polland. Later Gherring admited that if France and UK invaded Germany a week after Germany's invasion in Polland there was no army to stop them! You see...Things changed from other incidents and not because of the invasion in Polland.

[Abdülmecid I]

And YES there was a Soviet Unit-Cyprus pact. That included arms sales (ussing material from SU allies such Chechoslovakia), and military aid in case of invasion.

I know about the arms sales, but I doubt about the military aid in case of an invasion. Can you provide a link, instead of simply repeating your claims without proper citation? Although it still remains a fact that the first Turkish intervention was done in defense of the legitimate Cypriot government, against a foreign coup that threatened the Cypriot democracy and independence.

But ...you did not "chalenge" my post about the 1987 Turkish invasion attemp with NATO's and EU's tolerance and HELP.

I'm not in a crusade to challenge all your posts. Although I doubt about its accuracy, I don't know enough to debate that point.

It seams that Turkish schools ignore WW2 history (maybe because Turkey faught about 8 hours in that war)!

Ignoring the off-topic, thinly veiled innuendo against what you falsely assume to be my homeland, I agree that yes, Turkey wasn't attacked, in contrast to Greece, for example, by the Axis powers, so she wasn't forced to early participate in the war, like Greece.

Have you ever knew that Polland-Anglo/French military pact? Have you ever heard about the "shadow" war on 1939?

Umm, yes, I do, that was the point of my post, which you probably missed completely. Indeed, France and the UK didn't fully escalate the war, mainly because of political and tactical misconceptions. Still, they declared war against Germany, which, in a couple of months, led to the bloodiest human conflicts across the entire world and the quick surrender of France.

[Mangalore]

That isn't necessarily a good thing and a huge setback on their sovereignty.
European countries need to become more independent form each other.
Militarization could help European countries in a lot of aspects.

The EU countries combine the highest military exepnditure after the US. A higher militarization would only be aimed at either each other or at Russia. In fact, we see some U-turns concerning Russia. E.g. the German defense minister realizing a professional army is all well and good but suddenly lacks the meat to actually wage a conventional army as well as realizing that international stabilization mission are an entirely different thing from having a heavy tank battalion. Both stuff they are now in a hurry to attempt to fix, including recalling equipment from storage.

Otherwise: Why do European countries need to be more independant from each other? They act pretty independent all the time, not always to good effect for Europe. Best examples, financial crisis, refugee crisis, Lybia, Iraq. In all cases European countries made independent decisions concerning their foreign policy, in two cases to the detriment of the EU and other European countries in favor of their national interests. We do not need to debate those cases to see very independent actions by various countries.

Arguably in all those cases the existing internaional organizations softened the foreign policy countries would have employed if all sides were still in the 19th century. Someone tries to default on their debt with you? Back in the day we invaded folks for that.

That was the case throughout Cold War, somewhat, but there is literally no practical use for it now, aside form, perhaps, training and exercises.

It's still kind of applies. The reason US and other European troops are moved into Baltic states is not mainly the fear of the Russian bear but until those troops are in those countries, those countries as well as Putin know it is very easy for all other NATO members to ignore a threat or just walk away if it is more convenient to them. This is putting money where your mouth is and while not nice and convenient for Putin and interpretable as a snub to Russia it is also a way to make the positions clear so there are no misinterpretations about risks and consequences.

It is a huge burden on taxpayer, who not only has to pay for vast military-industrial complex expenses, but also to maintain and support armies of dwarf-states of Eastern Europe.

Just at the top of your post you called for higher militarization of European states. Now you claim existing militarization which is extremely low is already too expensive. Fact is, if we remove NATO from the equation all European states would heavily increase their defense budgets, particularly the big nations, while the security of most small nations would be entirely compromised either leading to give up on competing militarily which would mean entering into a really onesided dependancy with a bigger neighbor or militarizing even more. Not everyone lives in the Alps and can rely on centuries of detente neutrality.

[Gaul]

There were no British or French troops in Poland in 1939.

read

Later Gherring admited that if France and UK invaded Germany a week after Germany's invasion in Polland there was no army to stop them!

A quick attack in the west when only 10% of the German army was still stationed there would have brought WW2 to an end in 2 months. Britain and France didn't for an instant start fighting until their own countries were threatened.

Poland will not allow itself to be fooled by "article XYZ123" or any other promise of western assistance. History has proven they are un capable of being relied on.

Sorry to everybody else, I don't have time today to read the other arguments. Good night all.

[Dromikaites]

Poland seems quite happy with her NATO membership. It wouldn't be building an AEGIS Ashore base without trusting NATO would be defending it, would it?

To sum it up: the countries most exposed to a Russian attack trust NATO while the Western countries send their soldiers and materiel (planes, armor, AA batteries) to the East in order for Russia to understand an attack on the Eastern members of NATO means an instantaneous war with the West.

So what on Earth are you talking about?

[Vanoi]

A quick attack in the west when only 10% of the German army was still stationed there would have brought WW2 to an end in 2 months. Britain and France didn't for an instant start fighting until their own countries were threatened.

Armies don't work that way. France's nor The UK's Army was mobilized to suddenly invade Germany unlike the German Army which was mobilized before hand in the Polish invasion.

[Anna_Gein]

Since the end of the Cold War Nato became slowly a joke. Should a country be invaded by Russia Nato will not move a finger. It is obvious France GB or USA will not let a single of their citizen die for Lithuania or Estonia.

Even in Afghanistan (the sole case of article 5 being used) many countries tried their best to avoid their duty. Germany had rules of engagement so strict their troops just did not fought the Taliban insurgency. Italy paid Taliban (and putted coalitions forces in danger like French Forces at the Uzbin Valley). The Royal Navy is in a pitiful state. British forces currently need French carrier for training. Germany armed force are shameful compared to the country wealth.

Following the 13 November terror attack, France made a point to not use article 5. US military leadership now realize their footprint is so small in Europe that Nato would not stand a slight chance in case of Russian invasion of Baltic states.
That dumb "reassurance initiative" made by Obama does not make for the hards fact that US forces in Europe are a tenth of what they were in 1990 nor that there is not a single US armor brigade in Europe. That Fancy 5 000 spearhead force supposed to be built would not even hold Debaltseve or Aleppo.

Hell US are currently fueling an anti Turkey (aka nato member) insurgency in north Syria.

Take a look at how Russia is treated by the West concerning the War in Ukraine and Syria. The same thing would happen if any Nato country was invaded. Some agencies would try to portrait Russian aggression for what they are. But the leading authorities would still treat Russia as neutral and maintain that fiction.

[Condottiere 40K]

NATO was becoming a joke, until the morning after Green Men sprouted all over Crimea.

Then suddenly, everyone west of the Urals started looking for a security blanket.

[Gaul]

Armies don't work that way. France's nor The UK's Army was mobilized to suddenly invade Germany unlike the German Army which was mobilized before hand in the Polish invasion.

I wasn't aware of France or UK's mobility at that point. I thought they were simply sitting behind the Magoint whatever Line.

Since the end of the Cold War Nato became slowly a joke. Should a country be invaded by Russia Nato will not move a finger. It is obvious France GB or USA will not let a single of their citizen die for Lithuania or Estonia.

Thank you, Anna Gein. Lithuania and Estonia Latvia should get Putin on the line. Work something out before hand cause NATO can't be trusted.

[Knight_Of_Ne]

I'm sorry, but since when has NATO been unreliable or untrustworthy?

Where is the evidence of NATO's unreliability and untrustworthiness? The only time it ever truly was called upon was in 2001, and it answered, right or wrong. NATO has done nothing but succeed at its intended purpose since its inception, it is a defensive pact and so far no power has dared test it, and with good reason.

Until the day a NATO nation collapses to a non-NATO power, you will have no credible argument against it.

[Dromikaites]

Thank you, Anna Gein. Lithuania and Estonia Latvia should get Putin on the line. Work something out before hand cause NATO can't be trusted.

Huh?!

Are you unaware NATO has already deployed troops to defend the Baltics and more are on the way?!

[Gaul]

Yes, that big 600 personel. I forgot.

Well, NATO hasn't shown unreliability, but what I was saying, the "NATO" before WW2, those leading 3 powers, have fully shown it will only take up the fight for a dominion nation if there's something that might be gained. America in WW2 only really cared about getting the Japanese out of the rest of Asia. WW2 France and UK, we like Poland (just not too much). And those French fortifications could have held out for months, even besieged. But France's commander in chief wanted to collaborate, so he ordered the fortifications emptied, and the garrisons to surrender as POWs. So you see France liked Germany more than Poland. UK likes anyone who can speak English and make them rich, and in reverse, so does America. But I must say, UK's inaction did leave Churchill and Britain in their pants throughout 1940 ---- their greed almost killed them.

[Dromikaites]

Yes, that big 600 personel. I forgot.

The Baltic States pretty much fit together in a 1000km long by 300km deep rectangle along the Baltic Sea coast. As such they lack strategic depth, meaning any Russian troops invading them would be hit by the NATO assets in Poland and the Baltic Sea.

The number of NATO land forces in the Baltics will be further increased after the next summit but their main role is to act as "trip wire": their presence guarantees Russia will automatically be at war with the US, Britain and Germany from the first seconds of the invasion, even without article 5 being invoked.

The real defense forces of the Baltic States are based in Poland, Germany, Norway and Denmark. They consist of the planes, ships and missiles which will hit the advancing Russian troops, should Putin be foolish enough to attempt an attack.

Well, NATO hasn't shown unreliability, but what I was saying, the "NATO" before WW2, those leading 3 powers, have fully shown it will only take up the fight for a dominion nation if there's something that might be gained.

Unlike the pre-WW2 alliances NATO has:
1) A permanent command structure;

2) Permanent military bases (and more are built in the East as we speak);

3) Rapid reaction forces;

4) Permanent monitoring of the potential enemies, making any surprise attack impossible.

None of those existed prior to WW2. All were built into NATO from the beginning precisely because the lessons of WW2 were still fresh in the founders' memory.

America in WW2 only really cared about getting the Japanese out of the rest of Asia. WW2 France and UK, we like Poland (just not too much).

I wonder why WW2 was ever fought under those circumstances.

And those French fortifications could have held out for months, even besieged. But France's commander in chief wanted to collaborate, so he ordered the fortifications emptied, and the garrisons to surrender as POWs.

You don't have any clue about what actually happened, do you?

So you see France liked Germany more than Poland.

Yeah, that's why France surrendered only after losing half of the territory and being unable to defend the other half.

UK likes anyone who can speak English and make them rich, and in reverse, so does America. But I must say, UK's inaction did leave Churchill and Britain in their pants throughout 1940 ---- their greed almost killed them.

If that was the case I wonder why Britain didn't accept Hitler's peace overtures after the fall of France.

I understand from your signature that you worship The Shirtless One. I also understand NATO having already built an anti-ballistic missile system in Romania and building a second one in Poland got The Shirtless One soil his camouflage pants. I am willing to accept that the upcoming NATO summit is going to further limit Rusia's ability to bully her neighbors.

However none of the above reasons are an excuse for neglecting your homework before posting. After all this section is called "The Political Academy"

[Gaul]

I don't believe a word you say. And again, we'll just have to wait and see. NATO has shown more cold feet than Russia has. You know NATO is still an alliance, carrying military weight and political weight?

[Dromikaites]

With an economy smaller than Italy's and shrinking, Russia isn't exactly well equipped for Cold War 2, is she?

If you were wondering why NATO is "provoking" Russia, now you have the answer.

If you are wondering why the Baltic States, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine still dare to "defy" Russia, the answer is the same: the more Russia is huffing and puffing, the more strained her economy would be.