Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The NATO Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mike1976 View Post

    The US is the only relevant global military power in NATO and the US under Trump will definitely back Israel in a war with Iran. Funny how all NATO secretary generals think that what they say bears any weight rather than being the comic relief for the president of the US.
    I disagree...

    At least the last two secretary generals did a good job. Their position is not an extension of US by far. And the way they walk the line between so many different national egos is amazing. I have only respect for them.

    And France, UK are relevant military powers... not superpowers, but relevant.

    Also, keep in mind that a lot of US bases in Europe are under a NATO type agreement. I think that this limits US ability to wage war from there if the host country would object.

    But yes, most military support would be from US, probably with the tacit support of some European countries, but not through NATO. ==> All things we already expected.
    Last edited by BogT; 03-06-2018, 08:25 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Moro View Post
      NATO CHIEF: ALLIANCE WON'T DEFEND ISRAEL IN WAR WITH IRAN

      https://m.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran...th-Iran-558987
      israel has saudi arabia on its side,..






      Comment


      • Originally posted by heiliger_geist View Post

        israel has saudi arabia on its side,..





        Yeah,and egypt and jordan long before the saudies.
        it could be that normalizing relations with Israel and recognizing the state of israel the Arabs can achieve a lasting peace with the Jewish state,it may be the only way.

        Comment


        • thing is, ksa is irans neighbour, theyre also more eager when it comes to tehran plus their airspace is open for israel. as a matter of fact.. the ksa became israels bolster, buttbuddy.. you name it. well, will there ever be a war? i dont know. europe for example is not amused despite netanyahus marathon. would it affect something, i dont know. would iran be able to punch israel, i dont know.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by heiliger_geist View Post
            thing is, ksa is irans neighbour, theyre also more eager when it comes to tehran plus their airspace is open for israel. as a matter of fact.. the ksa became israels bolster, buttbuddy.. you name it. well, will there ever be a war? i dont know. europe for example is not amused despite netanyahus marathon. would it affect something, i dont know. would iran be able to punch israel, i dont know.
            I believe that there will be war/short confrontations
            sooner or later while Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and while there is no balance of terror between Israel and Iran,having note that the only real enemy of Israel in the area is Iran and its allies in the area, Hizbollah and Syria.

            Look at the example of North Korea and the United States, there will never be a war between the two while the two have nuclear capability.

            Comment


            • Three Allies establish Special Forces Command

              https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_155347.htm

              Comment


              • ^^^

                ...establishing our Special Operations Headquarters in Mons, Belgium.
                Is this going to be in the same NATO compound?

                I'm slightly curious because this is clearly a tri-nations initiative, in principle this SOF component could be used as part of other international missions and NATO already has a (larger) SOF HQ...

                NATO’s Special Operations Headquarters in Mons is providing advice and support for the development of C-SOCC, ensuring that it is developed in line with NATO doctrine and standards.
                ... so is this move to deepen the collaboration between states, or backup (to US; sorry, news these days makes me kinda paranoid), or just a normal step in the chain of command (being at company or battalion level)?

                The Dane, since Denmark is one of the tree, any insight from your national press? Thanks!

                Anyway, it sounds good!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BogT View Post
                  ^^^



                  Is this going to be in the same NATO compound?

                  I'm slightly curious because this is clearly a tri-nations initiative, in principle this SOF component could be used as part of other international missions and NATO already has a (larger) SOF HQ...



                  ... so is this move to deepen the collaboration between states, or backup (to US; sorry, news these days makes me kinda paranoid), or just a normal step in the chain of command (being at company or battalion level)?

                  The Dane, since Denmark is one of the tree, any insight from your national press? Thanks!

                  Anyway, it sounds good!
                  Not much. Other than it's part of a larger NATO strategy. More SF's, since they'll play a larger role on 'tomorrows battlefield'. Denmark is gonna double the size of our national special operations command. So it fits nicely into our plans.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BogT View Post
                    I'm slightly curious because this is clearly a tri-nations initiative, in principle this SOF component could be used as part of other international missions and NATO already has a (larger) SOF HQ...

                    ... so is this move to deepen the collaboration between states, or backup (to US; sorry, news these days makes me kinda paranoid), or just a normal step in the chain of command (being at company or battalion level)?
                    None of the countries involved has a large enough SOF component to contribute enough on it's own (certainly for an extended period of time) for EFP and VJTF. It's a virtual command without a physical HQ of it's own. It will only be fully staffed for operations and training.

                    Personally I think this is mainly meant to increase the size and complexity of training as well as improve interoperability. Dutch and Belgian SOF already train together semi-regularly. Denmark is another small nation so it makes sense that they're included. Also considering other diplomatic and political efforts that the Dutch government has been making towards Denmark and other countries (to provide a counter balance to Brexit).

                    Comment


                    • ^^^You have a point, in which case, more power to the initiative. From this perspective, it denotes a spirit of self-organization of the capabilities of member states inside NATO.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mike1976 View Post

                        None of the countries involved has a large enough SOF component to contribute enough on it's own (certainly for an extended period of time) for EFP and VJTF. It's a virtual command without a physical HQ of it's own. It will only be fully staffed for operations and training.

                        Personally I think this is mainly meant to increase the size and complexity of training as well as improve interoperability. Dutch and Belgian SOF already train together semi-regularly. Denmark is another small nation so it makes sense that they're included. Also considering other diplomatic and political efforts that the Dutch government has been making towards Denmark and other countries (to provide a counter balance to Brexit).
                        Brexit? We are talking about NATO. Not EU..

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Dane View Post

                          Brexit? We are talking about NATO. Not EU..
                          Sigh. Read again what I wrote.

                          Also considering other diplomatic and political efforts that the Dutch government has been making towards Denmark and other countries (to provide a counter balance to Brexit).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mike1976 View Post

                            Sigh. Read again what I wrote.
                            Counterbalance to what excactly?
                            We, Denmark isn't part of EU's military thing.. our Corporation with UK isn't going to be less in the future. Our new expeditionary brigade is gonna be under the command of 1st UK Armoured division(NATO). And, our current contribution to NATO's VJTF, a rather large battalion battlegroup(+1000 men), is under some UK brigade's command.
                            Last edited by The Dane; 13-06-2018, 02:27 PM.

                            Comment


                            • https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/27...ense-spending/

                              “[It is] increasingly difficult to justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO’s collective security,” said the letter, which was described to Foreign Policy by U.S. officials and foreign diplomats.

                              “I, therefore, expect to see a strong recommitment by [country] to meet the goals to which we all agreed,” it said.



                              Trump is right. Last year only 5 countries reached 2% level: Greece, UK, Estonia, Romania and Poland.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Guma View Post
                                “[It is] increasingly difficult to justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO’s collective security,” said the letter, which was described to Foreign Policy by U.S. officials and foreign diplomats..
                                The obstinacy of that argument is truly bewildering. Foreign military spending has no influence on America's defense budget for better or for worse; nor is America really committed to the defense of Europe anyway. Her military presence on this continent, now a fraction of what it used to be during the age of American-Soviet confrontation, serves but her own ends (theater sustainment mostly).

                                Besides, Trump should make up his mind at last. Russia, he says, is our friend. So, against whom does America even defend NATO so single-handedly?

                                When last I checked, America had little to complain about. Her European commitment to NATO during the Cold War rendered land war on US soil unlikely, something I'd reckon was very much in the interest of all US citizens; and Europe and Canada did rush to America's aid in the wake of 9/11, losing many a good soldier in the process.

                                Well, make no mistake; most European armies are underfunded these days. The only way that's actually "costing" America though is through a lack of foreign weapon sales. Besides, Trump's (un-)popularity around here makes any change of policies even unlikelier. In these parts you just can't win elections by saying what Trump happens to say also – so all Trump achieves is entrenching the status quo. Fuckin' a.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X