Why NATO needs a European pillar – POLITICO.eu

George Visa

Trump is absolutely right and he should go ahead soon with the dismantling of NATO. We will get peace and save hundred of billions to be used by American children.. Russia is not anymore a threat other then in propaganda of extreme right, Eastern European corrupt regimes and evidently ..the neocons..

NATO is already obsolete and is an instrument of aggression. As well as of huge and unnecessary expenses and unbelievable corruption in the European Union countries and in Eastern European countries

NATO is controlled by the US neocons and the little European minikingdoms as Belgium , Denmark, etc., are happy with unexpected NATO leaders, these countries were nobody before 1989.

We should always remember Yugoslavia, Irak, Libya, Afghanistan and the Eastern Europe will follow soon.

It should be disloved.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 6:52 AM CET

Sure, a European pillar sounds great. Im not sure you truly understand what obsolecence means, however. That Europeans have allowed their defensive strategies to wither so grievously that they are now almost completely dependent upon the US is not Trumps fault. Your defense will never mean as much to us as it should to you.

Meanwhile, for us there is a much bigger world beyond your provincial horizons that includes China, Iran, Venezuela, not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. That you can bring up soft power after the barbarism of Aleppo and the humiliation of Samantha Powers shows precisely why you are obsolete from our perspective. Often times your soft power undermines our interests and those of our allies such as Israel and India making us question what is the benefit of this arrangement.

No, no. Go your own way with Canada. Trudeau and Junker will make formidable opponents to Putin

Posted on 2/11/17 | 7:32 AM CET

I read that the European members of NATO spend more of the military than Russia and China combined. I suppose that it diluted somewhat because it is split between two dozen countries, so some combining of resources and specialization makes sense. Nevertheless the total budget should be more than enough to defend the continent. And except for Russia, which in reality has an economy smaller than Italys or Canadas, what external threat is there?

Posted on 2/11/17 | 9:04 AM CET

I am afraid the worlds collective unconscious will never allow Germany to have what it seeks most.. as much as they try to usher it in through the back door. Somethings can never be forgotten.. For the first time, America can believe what they thought was impossible propaganda. This is documentary evidence of sheer mass murder murder that will blacken the name of Germany for the rest of recorded history. Germany, a nation of willing executioners are wanting to weaponise again through the cleverly constructed vehicle the EU

Posted on 2/11/17 | 10:04 AM CET

General Eisenhower had no trouble hating the Germans. He wrote to his wife, Mamie: God, I hate the Germans! Strange how Germany are ahead in the gold repatriation scheme, I think they are at 89% and 3 years ahead of schedule..

Posted on 2/11/17 | 10:14 AM CET

Why is the author attempting to re-invent the wheel? And a mini-NATO, to boot? Good grief!

NATO structure is in place for decades. The only thing that has sorely deteriorated on the European side is the political will and matching financial muscle.

The author repeats the Leftist lie of the deliberately truncated Trump statement: NATO is obsolete. The full statement was that it is obsolete in fighting I*IS.

The new American Administration is committed to a strong NATO, and now with the coming elections in France and Germany, the shoe is on the European side to commit to the same politically, including the financial strength. Period.

No mini-NATO needed.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 1:34 PM CET

A lot of anger go and an take a chill pill please stop with the conspiracy theory

Posted on 2/11/17 | 2:21 PM CET

This article is hilarious. The U.S. contribution to NATO in 2016 was 66 Billion Dollars. The next closest nation was the U.K. with 6 Billion. When Clinton left office the U.S. contribution was 54%. Now it is 72%. Nobody is bullying Europe. After 25 years of neglecting their militaries Europe is now defenseless against any threat. RAND estimates under any scenario a Russian takeover of any Baltic nation in 72 hours. 63% percent of Western Europeans believe that they shouldnt get involved if Russia invades a Baltic state. European militaries are underfunded, badly trained and poorly equipped. Now comes the sober realization that Donald Trump isnt going to ask for 6 Trillion Dollars and millions of men to fight a war against Russia. Stop poking the bear. The bear is constantly planning how he can devour you and Europe is trying to figure out how to get transgender bathrooms into the barracks.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 3:39 PM CET

Its a pipe dream. Of course in theory a unified European pillar of NATO would be fantastic. individual European armies are duplicating everything 28 times over. But the fact is that it requires a united foreign and defense policy. And this is simply not on the cards. Even recently the French bought German HK 416s for their army and then the Germans decided to not buy the HK 416 but to go for a new design, So even when the French decide to throw the Germans a bone in the hope of combining their defense the Germans are like..nahwell buy our own new type of infantry rifle. Its not even close to being cost effective just constant duplication and waste of limited resources.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 4:08 PM CET

The good message is that Russia isnt an enemy any longer and Nato hasnt any enemy at the moment. Until some new enemy is detected Nato can perform logistic tasks.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 4:19 PM CET

@Ray Martinez Germany doesnt want atomic weapons. Keep your Schmarren and Schrott for yourself. Atomic weapons are out of time and are the origin of unluck and unhappiness.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 4:30 PM CET

For most European countries NATO is rather pointless. So it is going to be hard to persuade them to spend more. For example, which countries threaten the security of, say, Italy, Portugal or Belgium? The Russian bogie doesnt particularly frighten them as there are several large countries (such as Germany and Poland) between them and Russia. There are also quite a few European countries which do fine without being a part of NATO such as Ireland, Switzerland, Austria. Theoretically, half of Europe could follow their lead and just say stuff Trump, quit NATO because they just dont face any external threats. Nevertheless most of them WANT (rather than need) to be allies of the US. Which benefits the US as it gives them more clout in the world a large bloc of allies, especially economically powerful ones, is a boon and free access military bases, airports and ports in those countries lets the US extend its reach.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 7:33 PM CET

Russia absolutely is a threat to stability in Europe and the US. Russia operates hybrid war strategy rarely does this involve direct military confrontation but instead is usually on the basis of disrupting disorienting and dispiriting its oppoents at the levels of values, beliefs and identity. In that context falls the annexation of Crimea (Ukraines territorial integrty had been guarunteed in exchange for handing over USSR nuclear weapons to Russia). So too does the ongoing pressure applied in eastern Ukraine. So too does the tremendous effort placed in alternative news (e.g. RT) to create an alternative narrative. So too does bombing Syria senseless so as to intensify the flow of refugees to Europe. So too are the constant intrusions into the airspace of the Baltic states and constantly calling the bluff of NATO to respond. So too was the interference in the US election. So it will be with the forthcoming presidential election in France.

Quietly Russia has redeveloped its military technology. Missile technology now deployed forward in Kalinigrad faces no counter capability. Russian offensive cyber capability is vast.

NATO structures already exist into which European forces are integrated. The problem is that the majority of NATOs European members have just neglected their responsibilities to develop the armed forces into genune capabilities: morally (the will to fight), conceptually (professional miitary knowledge and, critically building forces around the common (US and UK writen) NATO doctrine, and physically (kit, training etc). It can all be achieved but it requires a common vision and the resolve to do so. Herein lies the rub, apart from the Poles and the Balts, the Eastern and southeastern powers are all courting Russian good will (again partly the result of a very effective hybrid warfare campaign by Putin).

In terms of capability, honestly, only the UK and perhaps France have really got the experience of conventional operations, and the networked capability to work seamlessley and reliably alongside the US This has been hard won. This said there are still major capability gaps right now even with these forces. Several states have excellent special forces capabilities but this is not sufficient. The UK and (surprisingly) Greece do pay the target 2% of GDP on Defence. Nealy all the others have let the side down badly. No excuses if Greece can pay so can you!

Given that NATO structures already exist, developing the EU Army that Verhofstadt and Schultz have been talking about will be an immense distraction (and at this rate a pointless exercise). There needs to be a re-evaluation of the force structures required to defend against obvious Russian initmidation. The only role that I think the EU can play is in preparing member states to accept certain commitments to development of defence capabilty (no money if they dont do it). Actually forming an EU Army would, IMHO be a disaster, the EU is not structured politically or morally to achieve this; NATO is. In the very long run, should the EU be around this action would have helped it towards a more unified starting position for a sizeable common force. Personally I dont think it will be around though.

The European allies have to take Defence more seriously and spend more and train more. Do not forget maritime power (God how many ship does the one ubiquitious British Royal Navy now have?). Do not forget air and space power. Do not forget cyber capability. The core for Land capability will come from the old NATO allies, in particiular the UK, Germany and hopefully France with the addition of Poland.

The NATO alliance was highly effective in deterring aggression during the Cold war and NATO military operations in the post Cold War era have been highly successful (note I am not saying that the intended political outcomes were necessarily achieved a key disinction). As a European I say clearly that whilst we have common cause with the US in so m ny regards, why should the US pay more and do more for Europes defence. We have to pull our weight.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 8:14 PM CET

What is actually needed is a real, common European Army with mixed units. Divide et impera is the oldest strategy in the world and Vladimir Putin has used it again and again against Europe.

A shared European Army would make one thing crystal clear: An attack on *any* military unit of the European Army would mean war with the whole European Union.

The risk for a war has increased dramatically because Donald Trump allowed Vladimir Putin to doubt NATOs committment to Article 5. We Europeans have to make clear: There is no doubt we defend each other.

Posted on 2/11/17 | 8:15 PM CET

We dont need or want NATO. Stop with this propaganda!

Posted on 2/11/17 | 11:51 PM CET

@Jacques

I cant see how my post is propagandist in the slightest. There are several posts in this stream from different political persuasions that present evidence and attempt some conclusions based on some sort of analysis of that evidence. Saying that we dont want or need NATO doesnt exactly lend any weight to your position. Who the hell is we? Not me. For all we know you are a stooge for Putin!. It works both ways. And unless you can generate a viable alternative to NATO (no evidence of that given parlous underspending and lack of focus on defence capability by continental Europeans and a collapsing EU then we all remain vulnerable to external aggression and we dont want or need that!

Posted on 2/12/17 | 8:18 AM CET

If Germans demonstrated their own commitment to European Security both delivering sound internal security and also contributed to Nato in proportion to their GDP, then and only then would NATO members accept this position, however, the whole precis for the authors position is seems rather disingenuous considering my two points. Forgive my cynicism but the author seems to be pushing the EU directive that Germany should take command and control of a European alliance, let us not forget the threat narrative of Russian aggression (Crimea: Propaganda and disinformation) is of the same rhetoric espoused by Hitler to vilIfy Stalins Communist Russia,resulting in a European military alliance in the form of voluntary SS divisions raised throughout the occupied countries. Those who forget lessons from history are bound to repeat the mistakes from the past

Posted on 2/12/17 | 5:21 PM CET

It is fundementally essential that Europeans take their own defense seriously. The US does not have the resources to protect us anymore. We need to be spending a minimum of 2% and probably an average of about 4%. That should be the first objective.

Spending that money efficiently and well should be the second objective. That means proper consolidations of European arms suppliers.

Posted on 2/12/17 | 6:24 PM CET

Recently Germany could not provide airlift for a battalion sized mission due to maintainence issues. The French are not the most cooperative allies when their commercial interests are effected. The British couldnt provide logistics for the Falklands without our help and have been downsizing their military ever since. Just where is the power to support this new pillar going to come from? Poland is the only NATO member taking defense seriously and they have no choice but to face this power east..

Posted on 2/12/17 | 6:24 PM CET

The only reason I like NATO because its a thorn in the undemocratic EUs side.

Of course the undemocratic EU wants to militarise, so they can prance around the world bringing democracy (aka forcing other countries to sign pro western trade treaties which is the real reason).

Posted on 2/12/17 | 8:59 PM CET

I love the way there are quite a few redneck yanks here dropping snide remarks about European defense spending and lack of cohesion. YOU GUYS HAVE DONALD TRUMP AS YOUR LEADER, YOU IDIOTS. Complaining that Europe is a waste of money is also hilarious, after spending trillions on completely f**king up the middle east. Youve become the penultimate global laughing stock, and the only reason you have respect is because youre unstable and holding the biggest stick. Everyone is waiting for you to cave in and hoping you dont take them down in the process.

Posted on 2/12/17 | 10:59 PM CET

Of course the undemocratic EU wants to militarise, so they can prance around the world bringing democracy (aka forcing other countries to sign pro western trade treaties which is the real reason).

You really need to look up the definition of democratic.

Posted on 2/12/17 | 11:01 PM CET

Just call it something else than NATO and Finland will be first to join in. We circle around NATO. Do everything else than actually apply for a membership in the fear of what Russia will do. But if its called something else, like Joint European Defence we are more than happy to be part of it.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 11:14 AM CET

@Jb

Id be interested to know what logistics help was provided to the UK during the Falklands War by whichever country you hail from. I am not aware of any. The US went to a great deal of effort back in 1982 to press the UK to desist from retaking the Islands so as not to let down its undemocratic Argentine trading partner. I think we may have acquired Sidewinder missiles from the US at that point I cant remember.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 11:31 AM CET

The suggestions in this stream that a common European Army integrated at all levels is the only way ahead is a bit naive. There is not the political will for a total unity. Whilst only the UK has so far voted to leave the UK, there are plenty of other states that want no further integration. Take Italy which has been royally screwed by the Euro.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 11:54 AM CET

@themanwithfangs Britain didnt want to get NATO involved in the Falklands for the same reason as it didnt want it involved in NI. National pride. Israel sold arms to Argentina with US explicit approval.

The EU doesnt need NATO which was always a vehicle for US involvement in Europe. We dont need to send our soldiers to fight in wars in Afghanistan and we dont need American soldiers kranking up the pressure in the Baltic states with their sword-rattling. When Trump fails, and he will fail, he will just like Bush start a foreign war to distract attention. Europe doesnt need to be involved in that. Europe doesnt need the US playing games in Ukraine and Georgia through NATO, trying to destabilise Russia.

Many EU states dont get involved in NATO so much because they know it means cowtowing to US foreign policy interests. Russia is aware of that, hence they feel obliged to increase their military presence on the borders. Without the US, Europe and Russia can seek a peaceful resolution.

Posted on 2/13/17 | 2:24 PM CET

Read more:
Why NATO needs a European pillar - POLITICO.eu