Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

For discussions on politics and current events.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by marktigger »

Interesting point was made on tonights Question time on radio 4 about Donald Trumps defence and foreign policy statements and the 72% of NATO defence spending being American and the Americans getting fed up paying the bill for European defence. And Liam fox pointed out that the days of European countries getting a free ride on defence could come abruptly to a halt. The spectre was also raised of Trump being isolationist(a hallowed american foreign policy position) and breaking up NATO.

I did like his point about Obama's comment about being back of the queue for trade talks when we had been to the fore in Iraq & Afghanistan.

User avatar
Galloglass
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 01 Apr 2016, 13:29
Ireland

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Galloglass »

NATO?........NATO is simply whatever USA Foreign Policy says it is.......or whatever Trump says it is, should he be elected.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by R686 »

I think that was always on the cards, all government dept. in the states will get a wake up call under trump, government will be run along a business model and no one in business gives stuff away for nothing. will certainly be interesting to see what he does if he gets in.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/t ... ce/7365450

But on the other hand Clinton seems more hawkish. I think its time for the US to step back take a deep breath and look real hard on what both future candidates want to achieve.

glad I don't have to vote for one of those two, hard enough with the clowns here in Aus

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by RunningStrong »

Trump doesn't know what he will do, but he will continue to be very reactive to the public, for better or worse.

Let's not forget that Obama promised to get troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and generally be less war-hungry than his predecessor, Bush. And yet, Drone strikes in sovereign nations have massively expanded and there's a carrier battle group in the med on active missions.

So, it's politics, and until we see someone with a genuine history of policy (I.e. Sanders or Corbyn) I don't think we need to be too worried about what the latest bag of hot air says in election season.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:Let's not forget that Obama promised to get troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and generally be less war-hungry
Hasty exits have never been good for the "near" future... something was learned from the Iraq exit, though (as the troops in Afghan will continue to number 8 and a half k).

But that exit (the two together) was meant to fund the Pivot to Pacific, partly by reducing the standing army numbers. The other source was meant to be continued reductions/ base consolidation in Europe. Worth noting that in order not to scupper the Pivot specific prgrms, the four-fold increase for funding to bolster presence in Europe has not come through the core defence budget, but rather from the Overseas Contingency funds (which are for the equivalent of the UK quick and sharp action, to make it back home in time for tea and medals; of course, there has been nothing short & sharp lately, and the Contingency is at such a high level that it can take a hit like that and still stay on a reducing trend line).

Did not want to swell that Trump-specific thread any further, but here is a quote fro the Telegraph article linked to over on that thread:
"Last week President Barack Obama pledged unwavering commitment to defending Europe, adding that "in good times and in bad Europe can count on the United States."

Mr Trump's comments about US obligations under Nato are in line with his views questioning the US global role set out in his policy of "America First"."

So, how are the Pivot and America First different, if at all, as to directing more resource to matching and checking a strategic competitor (and less to fighting bush wars, of lesser national interest)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Hasty exits have never been good for the "near" future... something was learned from the Iraq exit, though (as the troops in Afghan will continue to number 8 and a half k).

But that exit (the two together) was meant to fund the Pivot to Pacific, partly by reducing the standing army numbers. The other source was meant to be continued reductions/ base consolidation in Europe.
A comment from a year back (above). Budget-wise nothing has changed: Obama was going to ask for +3% and Trump asked for +5% [Within the budget, this year is supposed to see a step up in readiness].

So what do we see: SF in A-stan, artillery and air support in Iraq/ Syria (small foot print, but keeping the options open to rev up if national interest comes in focus in some more concrete way).

So within the fixed total, it is still about creating the funding to match a strategic rival in its home field (both are Pacific nations, but the real US strength is in the allies, closer to China).
- a careless delegating at policy making level to the KSA and UAE (both with youthful leaders, full of energy)
- further delegating of the Israel policy to a 36-year old son in law (well, in his new company he must be feeling his age?)

So what of the middle East is left outside of this triangel drama:
- Qatar, being pushed to develop ties with Iran
- Erdogan, as unpredictable as ever (whatever his personal power grab takes, or could elevate a perception of him as a regional leader)

Back to the topic:
Turkey will leave NATO, but Nato will survive
US forward presence in the not-permanent NATO bases is funded from non-permanent allocations (Foreign Contingencies; As soon as Putin's agents in Ukraine are told to crane their neck in, the "Contingency" will have ended?)
Luckily we have a second RAF in-situ on our island; the main strike elements of USAFE. They would be the last force element to leave.
And... a little insurance policy that has been in the making for all areas in and around the Scandinavian Peninsula, save for Poland and Germany:
- assumption on my part: if Germany does not see Poland as a worthwhile buffer to support, why should we?

"Spearheaded by the UK, Sweden and Finland make the JEF a nine-nation-strong pool of forces, alongside Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Norway. The JEF builds on many years of experience between the UK and these countries.

[...]

“This is a Force of Friends, and alongside Sweden, Finland, and our other partners in this force, we remain committed to security, in Europe and around the world.”

The UK’s contribution to the JEF will include lead commando, airborne, armoured, aviation, and air and maritime task groups.

The first exercise took place last year at RAF St Mawgan, in Cornwall. Joint Venture 16 involved 1,600 UK personnel in the JEF force headquarters, known as the Standing Joint Force Headquarters and commanded by a British 2* general, which was put to the test in a dynamic fictional scenario.

Joint Venture 17 is already underway, with a similar number of personnel taking part from the Royal Navy, Army, and RAF, and is testing the UK’s operational level command and control, using force elements from JEF partner nations."

Launched in 2015! Pretty good going:
"Launched in 2015, the joint force has continued to develop and will become fully operational next year, which could mean the mobilisation of 10,000 troops to respond quickly"

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence press release 30.6.2017)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The UK’s contribution to the JEF will include lead commando, airborne, armoured, aviation, and air and maritime task groups
Somebody must have been editing the list. to make the press release fit on one page. I read the aviation part as:
ARMY aviation, and air (RAF/FAA) air and maritime task groups, where the first "and" should have been "as well as" but would have made the page overflow (?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

In this one
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/c ... 1495575707
you only need to lower the NATO star that much that the West to East vector cuts the UK in two halves... and what do you get, sitting above it:
- the nations (9) that contribute to JEF, save for the Netherlands (they have the traditional integration with the UK RM, so all that is needed is a political thumbs up for any operation)
- back to that East/ West vector: Canada should be part of the club, but the Club also has a certain orientation towards the Arctic (more the future than the present). On that "front" Canada and Denmark have competing claims... or is just that the Trudeau administration less Europe centric than most of those before his?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A little bit more of the above topic, an excerpt from the interview of both the British and the Finnish party (the folks taking part in the signing in Stockholm; there must be an interview of the Swedish Defence Minister somewhere, too):

"On 1 July, acts will enter into force in Finland to enable the provision of [ REFERS TO the French request in the connection of Mali, which was the first instance of the provision included in the Lisbon Treaty] and request for military assistance.

The force headquarters of the JEF were tested last year in Cornwall.

“This year, we will organise a Joint Venture exercise where we develop the forces towards becoming fully operational. It is entirely up to Finland to decide on the kinds of troops it considers appropriate for the JEF, which is a club of volunteers. Not every country is expected to take part in every mission,” Fallon points out.

Fallon says the JEF may train in Finland and elsewhere in the Baltic Sea region in the future.

According to Kuusela, Finland could initially offer an infantry company or, for instance, an NBC company specialising in the prevention of chemical threats. The company is about 200-strong and the NBC is about 50-strong in international operations.

"The JEF is probably faster"

Fallon emphasises the speed of the JEF. There is no formal decision-making mechanism, so, according to Fallon, the special forces of the JEF should be on location faster than e.g. NATO’s VJTF spearhead force, which must be ready to deploy within 48 hours.

“We want to keep the operations relatively informal and agile. The JEF is probably faster. I wish to emphasise that it is a group of like-minded members, separate from the NATO, who work together in practical situations.”

“The JEF is not designed against any particular threat, but as member of the JEF, Finland and Sweden can consider the other seven countries their natural allies,” Fallon defines."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A nice summary by Chatham House, 3 days ago, about how Russia mixes its posture on the ground " designed to intimidate the West with another, contradictory message [on the airwaves, like media, social media, forums...]: that those who fear a Russian military threat are 'hysterical' and hankering for the Cold War."
- seems to repeat here, too, fairly often (or not? :D )

So, as for the headline matter, the best possible protagonist for NATO cohesion (what is happening on the SE flank is a separate matter, with different drivers).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Road shows vs slide shows?
Lately, the US Cavalry bde did quite a road march through many of the newer NATO members. But to put things onto a scale
" For the past couple of years, Gen. Ben Hodges, the commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, has visited European capitals with slides that show the alliance’s logistical gaps. One shows the 1987 edition of NATO’s Reforger exercise, in which 115,000 troops from six militaries (and their equipment) travelled up to 600 kilometers by road, rail, or air to reach their mock battlefronts. Another slide shows how the alliance’s multinational defense-of-Europe exercises have dwindled to a fraction of their former size.
-Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea was a wake-up call of sorts. Last year, NATO held its largest exercise since the Cold War, gathering some 30,000 troops from 24 countries to Poland for ten days of war games.
- Aurora, of course, has nothing to do with NATO. Some member countries do participate (but so do some non-members). But add the total number (20.000) to that of the almost parallel, annual Northern Coasts number, and it is not a far cry from last year's "record" 30.000

The United States has been closing bases in Germany; France withdrew its last forces in 2014, and Britain will do so within the next several years. You can counter these trends, though, with
- US pulling the bases (USAFE, mainly) further away from the "front line" being no different from Korea to Okinawa/ Guam. Increased prepositioning for heavy land forces has been initiated at the same time
- the Eurocorps idea seems to be living some sort of renaissance in the tighter integration of French and Belgian land forces
- what should the UK do? Slow down the pullback from German bases? That's where the MBTs are enjoying their "early retirement" in aircon comfort, anyway. At the same time money does not seem to stretch to constructing everything as planned in the bases back at home. These are practicalities to be reckoned with (as is the Balance of Payments burden coming from having sizeable force elements permanently or on permanent rotation based in other countries... we do Cyprus, Falklands and Brunei, but they are not on the same scale, the Falklands is not "another country" and the expense of the Brunei presence gets refunded.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- the Eurocorps idea seems to be living some sort of renaissance in the tighter integration of French and Belgian land forces
A little setback in the fighter competition won't change that.

The Dutch mech bdes are already part of 1st Panzer. something similar has been announced with regards to Czech and Romania (I was surprised to see what kind of money Romania is going to put into their IFVs, but this explains it ("same std, all through").

Someone here mentioned a combined Italian-Spanish marines force (te announcement has passed me by), along the lines of the long-standing UK/NL force ( a key component in the much newer JEFF).

And, on top of the pudding, the standing forces (for extra-territorial affairs) would no more be a budget drain for those who contribute them, but EU budget would have funds allocated...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Nevermind the fact that both France and the US managed to get their NSS updates out on schedule and we have restricted ourselves to just reviewing capabilities, there is a commentary on the US one from the Brookings Institution that points out what (to a degree) is said between the lines of the actual document:
"This strategy is right to point out the return of great power competition and to regard Russia and China as revisionist states. Missing, however, is the acknowledgement that among these rival states, Russia is an adversary, while China is a strategic competitor. This classification would recognize important distinctions between Russian and Chinese strategies to reorder regional balances of power and reassert influence globally.
Russia over the last decade has invaded its neighbors, attempted to weaken NATO, and amplify divisions in Europe. Putin views Russia's relationship with the United States and Europe as a zero-sum game: Russian interests cannot be secured unless U.S. and NATO power are diminished. China regards the United States as a power in the Indo-Pacific region whose influence it can contest, but not displace."
- I only bolded the NATO part (should mention the EU as well as there might not be such a strong positive correlation between developments in the two; but surely negative frictions can reach a state when also the defence co-operation starts to get affected) as
1. the header for this thread says so, but
2. more importantly, there is very little that the Putin regime can do (on top of what has been done already) to affect the US global position
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:This strategy is right to point out the return of great power competition and to regard Russia and China as revisionist states
The latest on "others will also need to contribute":
"

Scaparrotti [the SACEUR] spoke just as the Army prepared to transport 3,300 troops and 2,500 pieces of equipment across Germany to strategic locations in eastern Europe as part of the American-led Operation Atlantic Resolve, meant as a show of force near the Russian border.

In Brussels, Mattis will aim to get defense ministers’ endorsement of the 30-30-30-30 plan ahead of the summit of NATO leaders in July."
- convenient to count in Bns (everyone can chip in; no excuses)
- suits us, too, as our unit of account, a BG, is like a Bn+
- we already have a Bde on the Continent, and a BG out of it forward positioned in Estonia. And going any higher (to a division, the capacity to mobilise one being the stated goal, to build towards) would leave nothing in the kitty, to address trouble elsewhere
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defence ministers have prepared this kind of menu for the next month's NATO summit (compiled by defencenews):
"

Strengthen NATO’s new command structure by more than 1,200 personnel.
Launch a NATO Readiness Initiative, the so-called Four Thirties.
Set up a Cyber Operations Centre, as part of the new Command Structure, and integrate sovereign cyber effects into alliance operations and missions.

Defense ministers also agreed that the new Joint Force Command for the Atlantic will be based at Norfolk, Virginia, in the United States and that a new Enabling Command will be based in Ulm, Germany."
- there has also been "talk" about a Baltic Command, as an adjunct to the Atlantic Command now forming
- we will see (with lots of countries hovering around the 1.3 - 1.5% mark (defence spending, of GDP), surely that will attract discussion
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Quite a bit of overlap between the NATO and EU summit agendas; e.g. Macron is rumoured to propose a French-in-the-lead joint European intervention force
- would that throw both the joint force with the UK and the rotating EU readiness Bns to the round bin (of History)?

Further (fresh from the Carnegie Endowment):
"The risk-averse Ms Merkel politically and instinctively supports an intergovernmental approach in which the member states, not the commission, would wield influence. She is loath to have a common EU budget or fund that would, as she sees it, weaken the motivation for Italy to undertake major structural reforms. Besides, her conservative bloc would not buy into an agreement that would require Germany to spend more to bail out badly run economies, in addition to ceding parliamentary oversight to Brussels. For Ms Merkel, such a concession would be political suicide.

Her other worry is that Mr Macron’s policies would lead to a differentiated Europe that would marginalise non-eurozone members. That scenario would play into the hands of populist-led governments in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, who enjoy railing against Brussels."
- the latter paragraph has wide security/ Nato implications as well
- of course only if that should be the direction of travel . Which is unlikely. We will soon hear which of Macron's ideas survive the prep meeting he is to have with the German Chancellor.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Macron is rumoured to propose a French-in-the-lead joint European intervention force
- would that throw both the joint force with the UK and the rotating EU readiness Bns to the round bin (of History)?
Euronews is not very specific, but sounds fine that a "members only" force will handle the other "needles on the compasses" while Northern Group ( not restricted to EU members) will do what it says on the tin?
"Security

Merkel has backed Macron’s call for a rapid-reaction military force.

The two leaders had previously disagreed on who should be allowed to take part, with Macron backing allowing non-member states in, while Merkel preferred limiting it to the bloc.

They compromised and said it should be “linked as closely as possible” to the current Permanent Structured Cooperation, which allows countries to coordinate their defence strategies and engagements abroad"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Missed this one (28 June) The Spectator speculating about how the scene might be set, by the time President Trump flies to Britain from the NATO meeting:

"Whitehall’s great fear is that at this meeting, Trump won’t be satisfied with simply upbraiding and denouncing the Europeans for being freeloaders. Rather, they fear that he’ll go further than that and imply that those countries that aren’t meeting the two per cent target can’t be certain that they’re still covered by the American security umbrella. This would be music to Vladimir Putin’s ears and create the most serious crisis for the western alliance since France withdrew from Nato in 1966.

Another worry of senior figures in government is what Trump might propose to promote détente with Russia. One frets that Trump might arrive at the summit and announce that he has secured peace in Europe through a deal with Putin that will see everyone pulling back their forces from the border between Nato and Russia."

Well, the Baltic states are so small that there is no space for a pullback. However, more generally, the area that Russia defends most heavily is the area just west of the Russian border, buying as much space as they can. The fact that this scenario leaves Russia in a precarious position means that the Russians are unlikely to leave the Ukrainian question where it is. Just that their plans in 2014 for the northern districts came to nothing (the area they see as a "gateway to Moscow"). The currently disputed areas, the eastern tip of Ukraine, are actually of lesser importance and have become a serious economic headwind to an already fragile Russian economy. - This same emphasis on buying as much space as possible was seen in the focus that Zapad 17 had on Belorussia.

So, what could be the price for securing this "space" by means other than sabre rattling? Let's quote some foreign policy advise from the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize speech by Z. Brzezinski
" essential that America conveys unambiguously to the Kremlin that it will not be passive, that it is not planning major political or military counter threats in order to ostracize Russia but that Russia must know that there would be a massive blockade of Russia’s maritime access to the West if Russian forces were used to occupy the capital of Latvia or to storm Tallinn, the capital of now independent Estonia. A blockade by the West that impacts the Baltic Basin ports of St. Petersburg and the Black Sea Basin port of Novorossiysk through the Dardanelles would affect nearly two-thirds of all Russian maritime trade.

A strong U.S. reaction would drastically limit Russia’s ability to engage in profitable international trade, and it would provide the needed time for the injection of much larger American and some west European forces, assisted also in Central Europe by the aroused local allies of the United States. With China probably neutral, Russia’s leadership would be thus confronted with an unpalatable local choice: an economically debilitating isolation or a highly visible pullback."

Well, nothing has happened by doing that, all hypothetical. So where would the "beef" be?

"The U.S., China and Russia Should Join to Stabilize the Mideast

Last but by no means least, the ongoing civil wars in the Middle East, fueled by religious hatreds; potential nuclear conflicts possibly unleashed by the extremists in Iran; not to mention geopolitical ambitions of an enflamed nationalistic wave in Turkey ― perhaps backed by the Russian military ― each contain the possibility of a major regional eruption.

The ideal geopolitical response is a trilateral connection between the United States, China and then Russia, with Russia in that context having no choice but to accept the reality and the necessity of a better relationship both with China and the United States."

And as a "side deal" China, by being co-operative not just as per above but in what has since been happening in the Korean peninsula, could see the US troops departing from its doorstep?

Iran, then? Would be left without external backers, and still under sanctions.

Sounds like the ping-pong diplomacy from 45 years back? Did anyone believe it would "happen" at the time?
- finally, Putin is into his last term. Without a break through, out of the external and economic stalemate he has got the country into, by as such clever (but not wise) opportunistic moves, a power struggle about succession would break out... not good for anybody
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Excellent analysis, enjoyed reading it :thumbup:

I think it is increasingly likely that the NATO summit will be an explosive affair. I fully expect POTUS to drop a bombshell and rapidly leave for his next engagement in Finland (hardly a coincidence there).

Should we expect some big announcements on future defence spending by some European leaders shortly before the summit?

Let's hope our PM feels the need to indulge in a little grandstanding to impress the Americans.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:rapidly leave for his next engagement in Finland (hardly a coincidence there).
I hope the flight is long enough for him to refresh on https://getrevising.co.uk/resources/the ... agreements:
" The Helsinki Accords were primarily an effort to reduce tension between the Soviet and Western blocs by securing their common acceptance of the post-World War II status quo in Europe. The accords [...] recognized the inviolability of the post-World War II frontiers in Europe and pledged the 35 signatory nations to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to cooperate in economic etc..."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
AstuteAssassin
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 19 Apr 2016, 19:45
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by AstuteAssassin »

I think we could see POTUS announcing a small withdrawal of some US forces stationed here in Europe, coupled with some other forces being moved out of Germany and east to Poland (Maybe give Poland that brigade they want). On top of that the US could commit less troops, ships and aircraft to NATO exercises. This way they could show Europe they're not bluffing about turning their back on NATO without actually leaving NATO, its more like a warning shot that just scrapes us.

I can't see European countries taking defence seriously until the US does actually meet words with action. As once we realise the US will turn its back on us if we don't pay up & increase our forces, then I think we'll start to see European countries doing just that, paying up & increasing forces.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Pseudo »

AstuteAssassin wrote:I think we could see POTUS announcing a small withdrawal of some US forces stationed here in Europe, coupled with some other forces being moved out of Germany and east to Poland (Maybe give Poland that brigade they want). On top of that the US could commit less troops, ships and aircraft to NATO exercises. This way they could show Europe they're not bluffing about turning their back on NATO without actually leaving NATO, its more like a warning shot that just scrapes us.

I can't see European countries taking defence seriously until the US does actually meet words with action. As once we realise the US will turn its back on us if we don't pay up & increase our forces, then I think we'll start to see European countries doing just that, paying up & increasing forces.
The problem is that European countries know that at most Trump will only be in office for just over six more years and his successor is almost guaranteed to be a lot more committed to NATO.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Pseudo wrote: for just over six more years and his successor is almost guaranteed to be a lot more committed to NATO.
It might be that the discussion in Beijing:
- Mattis: rule of law must prevail in SCS
- Xi: China will not yield an inch (is that for airspace and sea lanes, as well?)

will make both Trump and his successor too busy?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Strangely (?) the Beep has already taken this one (2 hrs) off line:


US, Nato and UK Defence Committee
Select Committees

Recorded coverage of the Defence Select Committee session on the topic of 'The indispensible ally? US, Nato and UK defence relations', with evidence from the defence secretary Gavin Williamson, the head of the MoD/FCO joint unit on Euro-Atlantic security Giles Ahern, and the director general strategy and international at the MoD Peter Watkins. From Tuesday 22 May

- of no relevance during this week?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This year's "biggie" was explained by the two commanders of it ( in the Nato press conference a month ago):

" The Trident Juncture LIVEX will take place in and around Norway from about 25 October to 07 November, with advanced activities in and around Iceland from October 15th to 17th. It will be my privilege as the Commander of Joint Force Command Naples [ Adm. Foggo] to go up to Norway and be in command of more than 40,000 participants from 30 different countries.

Trident Juncture will show the world that NATO is relevant, united and ready to defend itself in this Article 5 scenario, testing our collective defence. At the core of the exercise is the NATO Response Force, and that’s what we are qualifying to take responsibility for. There are two Joint Force Headquarters right now, the NRF responsibility resides with my counterparts in Brunssum, and we are about to embark on the certification so that we can receive that responsibility back in 2019.

And within this exercise we will have the 5,000 person Spearhead Force, otherwise known as the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, or the VJTF, exercising in Norway."

This somewhat relates to
"The UK should demonstrate its leadership position in NATO by working towards
being able to deploy a mechanised brigade within 10 days"
in https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 87/387.pdf
where that recommendation itself stems from the MoD self assessment, in answer to questions:
" When we asked the Defence Secretary about UK readiness, he
told us that a high-readiness force (consisting of 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando
Brigade) of up to 10,000 could be deployed within 2–10 days. [65]
When we questioned how
long it would take to deploy an armoured or a mechanised brigade, we were told that
the MoD is currently working towards deploying a mechanised brigade within 20 days.[66]
We were also told that a division would take 90 days to deploy.[67]"
- the last of the three stages could reasonably be said to apply to the UK-Germany-Poland axis (with repositioning now coming to the focus)
- so clearly improving the immediate follow on, as for the delay, by half would be relevant also for and especially for other areas of Ops
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply