Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

For discussions on politics and current events.
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 »

Erdogan in Brussels [nominally an EU contact] on Monday. So far some deconflicting at sea, but the contrary on the land border: Euronews quoting key points from a CNN interview with the Greek PM

"'Europe is not going to be blackmailed by Turkey'

What we're dealing with is not really a migration or refugee problem," Mitsotakis said in the CNN interview. "It's a conscious attempt by Turkey to use migrants and refugees as geopolitical pawns to promote its own interest."

Moreover, Mitsotakis accuses Turkey of spreading false news about the events at the border and points out that those who are crossing are not Syrians, who are fleeing as a result of the violence in Idlib.

He defended Greece's actions, saying that his country is merely defending its sovereign borders, accusing Turkey of encouraging people to cross to Greece illegally. Mitsotakis added that "Europe is not going to be blackmailed," a fact Erdogan will have to recognise.

Greece has called the situation a threat to its national security and suspended asylum applications for a month in response.

The push to the Greek border has appeared organised, AP reported, with buses and cars ferrying people from Istanbul, and some refugees at the border saying that Turkish police had told them to go there.

Hashim, a 21-year-old Pakistani migrant who didn’t give a surname said he managed to enter Greece and was sent back to Turkey by Greek soldiers.

“Turk army say ‘Go to the border.’ When we cross Greek border, Greece army take our money, mobile (phones) and say: ‘Go back, go back,’” he told The Associated Press. “If we don’t go back, they will beat us, they will throw our mobiles and money (in) the river. And they remove our clothes. We come here in underwear. It is not human.”

On Thursday, Turkey said it was deploying 1,000 special operations police to prevent Greek border guards from sending back those who managed to cross."
... just wondering how many of the folks at the border are from Idlib; supposedly the thing that changed the situation
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 »

US troops drawdown in Germany; how come?

Number one reason: Merkel effectively torpedoed Trump's opportunity to show off with world leaders (for domestic audience) when the face-to-face format had to be called off

2. Nord Stream 2 is almost ready: will double the Russian gas entering Germany (which is too much, so some will flow further into the rest of the EU via the integrated pipeline network)
2.a A lost opportunity for US LNG, looking for new markets. 'Deals' count for a lot for this US Administration
2.b It is not good for Europe's energy dependence; but dependence works both ways, and may make Putin think twice about any further adventures, at least within Europe... just to turn the 'voters' attention away from things going not so good within Russia

So as for the thread header, Germany's defence spending (shirking away from pulling its weight) will be a heftier issue in the long run, though expect some press headlines soon, fomenting the storm in a tea cup
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 »

Above, there is a list of why's - in addition to it being the election year and Trump milling around for items that would create big headlines - but what about the impacts? The announced reduction stemming from a rigorous, inter-departmental review - not!

Why (it would seem) not:
1. The move would embolden Russia,
2. hamstring the defense of NATO’s eastern members, and
3. reduce the Pentagon’s ability to flow U.S. forces through Germany to bases around the world (the headquarters for U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Europe Command are in Germany). Their staffing counts towards the current 34k total, but the bulk of the forces are there to be quickly marshaled to vulnerable eastern-flank nations if Russia attacks (or poses to).

So other than for Africa Command, the points 1 & 3 point back to 2, as being the heftiest one
- thus those who are being hurt are the countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, who depend on U.S. capability and are prominent on the list of countries that have actually responded to the NATO "2% battle cry":
United States: 3.6%
Greece: 2.4%
United Kingdom: 2.1%
Estonia: 2.1%
Poland: 2.0%
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 »

While we are 'waiting' a trained journalist puts it together quite well; from SkyNews @17:34

Analysis: Regardless of winner, this election shows that America's place in the world order has changed
By Dominic Waghorn, diplomatic editor

" America’s allies will need to hedge their bets in future, knowing there is a substantial chunk of the US electorate who have been willing twice to vote for a revolutionary disrupter on the world stage
[...] they will know that Trump has shown the way for others like him. Trump wannabes know there is considerable support for his kind of agenda at home and abroad that they will be able to tap into in future. It turns out there is not the kind of unqualified enthusiasm for NATO, and the liberal democratic world order that allies have till now taken for granted.

This is extraordinary. America set up the institutions and wrote the rules that run much of the world in a way that suits America. For an American president to retreat from leading that order and threaten to dismantle parts of it is hard to understand.

Isolationism is nothing new to America and it has paid the price for it in the past..."
- let's see how those thoughts will be reflected, if at all, in the Integrated Review
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)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Scimitar54 »

It is rather easier to understand if you consider the following:-
1. The US desire to isolate from world events in the ‘20s and ‘30s (after WW1).
2. It took the threat of Hitler and the possibility of Total European collapse (Continental Europe and Great Britain)
together with their armed forces and in particular the Naval forces coming under German Control that led firstly
to unofficial support and then after Pearl Harbour joining the war against Germany. Largely due to the
consequent threat that this large force would pose to the US.
3. If we do not provide ourselves with the scale of forces that would ensure that something along the same lines
would apply today, then it is not surprising for at least some US citizens to think that a return to isolation would
be preferable to paying the bill for the defence of other countries. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by R686 »

Well to be fair to the topic name, Yes NATO survived a Trump White House

The question really should be is it in a stronger position now or than before Trump came along

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by Scimitar54 »

The clock is still running, there are still (at least) 10 weeks to go. Remember, that a week is a long time in Politics. :mrgreen:

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 »

I quite agree with the above.

Also, crazy policies (policy co-ordination being discarded can equate to that) can trigger decisions that will run for decades, and won't be reversed by e.g. a more sane Administration taking over). Uncertainty has already been factored into key allies' decision making.

I might be talking about the latest weapons prgrms in Europe (as always: duplicate!) - as I am, under the thread heading - but the rationale (except by Merkel&Macron) has been muted compared to the clarity in what the Japanese said in 2018:
"The government maintains that it relies on the U.S. for the ability to strike enemy bases and that weaponry violating the defense-only policy would be "used only in the event of a catastrophic breakdown among our allies," Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera has said. But Japan's stock of such equipment could grow, unless clear guidelines are enacted that distinguish between defense and offense."
- the last sentence is a journalistic addition, to deliver the hard message, but coated on lots of soft cotton
- fairly self-evident that you can't use weaponry that you have not acquired; indeed, you might not even be able to use your home-grown weapon systems if some key parts are subject to ITAR, or the like
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 »

R686 wrote:Well to be fair to the topic name, Yes NATO survived a Trump White House

The question really should be is it in a stronger position now
A part answer is the EU’s Coordinated Annual Review of Defence efforts - a first! by DefSecs and and those in charge of foreign policy in the member states - which is expected to identify a lack of drone technology, ageing aircraft and duplication of weaponry across EU members.
-in practical terms that translates to 9.5 bn$ from the EU budget into multinational prgrms
- UK & UK-based US companies can qualify as participants, on a case by case basis

Of the three topics two are long running, but after the meeting I guess we will hear which a/c are seen as critical (AWACS? Is the joint fleet going to depart from the US upgrade prgrm?)
- of course marine surveillance/ ASW fleets of a/c in the main are not in great shape either
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 »

Yes NATO survived a Trump White House

The question really should be is it in a stronger position now
As for the latter part, kit & readiness, yes.

Turkey's drift is not of Trump's doing.

But: His encouragement to Poland's and Hungary's leaders to act in the ways they have may have effects that linger longer than D. Trump himself (why on earth Slovenia is backing the two is a ?)
The two countries have been model students as for complying with NATO enhancement initiatives, so what's the problem? As they are blocking the EU budget and the recovery fund married to it, it is a bit of a problem... but not a NATO problem.
- however, it could be that the Commission will demarry the two proposals so that QMV can be used to clear the way forward
- thus the three countries mentioned would not contribute to NOR get anything from the Fund, if they vote against it
- how much this kind of slap on the wrist would affect other policy areas/ alignments (Orban seems to be a great friend of Putin; the Poles not much so) is hard to tell
... anyway, the loss of a wall of money headed their way may clear the thinking, just by the (other) fact that there exists a way to stop their unruliness (not within their own borders, but) in the wider co-operation

In this one https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... 2/6207.htm 4.45 through to 4.64 for anyone (the least bit :) ) interested
- it has i.a. "Lord Brittan of Spennithorne told us that "the [Lisbon] change in the voting arrangements, which frankly give more power to the larger countries and less to the smaller ones, makes it more difficult for [new Member States] to be trouble makers"
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
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by SKB »

NATO has survived a Trump White House.
But which non-NATO country will the next US Democrat President wage war on?! :mrgreen:

downsizer
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Would NATO survive a Trump whitehouse?

Post by downsizer »

SKB wrote:But which non-NATO country will the next US Democrat President wage war on?! :mrgreen:
I love the fact that you find war amusing. Probably because:
a)you've never had to put yourself in that position. and
b)you've never lost friends and colleagues who have.

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 »

Jut to keep @SKB busy for, as in what to research or what to watch out for in the 'remaining' 50 days, Brookings has a hint:
"
the Natanz nuclear facility, where Iran has now reportedly enriched 12 times the amount of fissile material permitted under the Iran nuclear deal. Moreover, going public with its relationship with Israel may not be the boon for Saudi Arabia in Biden’s Washington that it might seem. A Saudi opening to Israel could provide a short-term boost for the kingdom on Capitol Hill and in the media, but it wouldn’t address the underlying issues that have led both Democrats and Republicans to rethink the bilateral relationship. The rethink was triggered first by the Saudi intervention in Yemen and the horrific humanitarian consequences of the war there. But layered on top of that issue are brazen Saudi breaches of international and diplomatic norms [...] and manifest disrespect for its longstanding partnership with the United States"
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 »

While the terminology might be tending a tad towards grandiose, this
"a new “Atlantic Charter” today, designed to emulate that which was signed by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in 1941, which sets out their shared international ambitions of promoting democracy and freedom"
will still be better than us declaring 'splendid isolation'.

A UK division capable of manoeuvre warfare isn't a topic for the G7, but in the next NATO meeting is sure to arise, like 'if you disband, little by little, your 3 Div... when might the 'new' one be available'?
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