Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Godwynn]

The new leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn, wants to leave NATO and get rid of the nation's nuclear deterrent.

In France, the current poll leader, Marine Le Pen, also wants to leave NATO.

What unites the far left and the far right in opposing international security?

Is it wise for Europe, especially now with hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees entering its borders, to break the collective security agreement that has shielded the continent for the past 60 years?

 

[Formaldehyde]

What does NATO have to do with "international security"? The Cold War is over, and it has been for quite some time now.

Do you really feel threatened by a few hundred thousand refuges? What do you think NATO can do to make you feel safer in that regard?

 

[red_elk]

Is it wise for Europe, especially now with hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees entering its borders, to break the collective security agreement that has shielded the continent for the past 60 years?

NATO at this point is very successful in shielding the continent from the threats which do not exist. And much less successful in preventing thousands of Muslim refugees entering Europe. Actually the stream of refugees seem to be the outcome of recent military operations in EU neighborhood, such as in Libya.

 

[Colonel]

NATO is an essential security instrument for the US and our European allies. It not only functions as a stopping factor against Russian aggression but has been used as a instrument in our peace keeping goals around the world (see ISAF). If anything NATO should be expanded and include other allied non-European nations like Japan and Australia.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What "Russian aggression" against NATO would that be? You mean how they occasionally react to NATO aggression by those who still think they are fighting the Cold War over 25 years after it ended?

The notion that the Soviet Union would first strike Europe was farcical since its inception. But claiming that Russia now has the resources to even consider it is beyond ludicrous.

 

[Colonel]

What "Russian aggression" against NATO would that be? You mean how they occasionally react to NATO aggression by those who still think they are fighting the Cold War over 25 years after it really ended?

Russian aggression in Eastern Europe is very concerning and thus requires a security instrument such as NATO. Russia needs to be contained and Eastern Europe needs to saved from the Russians. In an expanded NATO, it could be used as a counter balance force for both Russia and China.

 

[Verbose]

What "Russian aggression" against NATO would that be? You mean how they occasionally react to NATO aggression by those who still think they are fighting the Cold War over 25 years after it ended?

The notion that the Soviet Union would first strike Europe was farcical since its inception. But claiming that Russia now has the resources to even consider it is beyond ludicrous.

It might be a joke in the US, but it's not in the Baltic states.

There are reasons why all these former Warsaw Pact nations have been so keen on NATO.

In eastern Europe it's is less about Cold War-style NATO, and more about the post-Soviet situation.

 

[red_elk]

But claiming that Russia now has the resources to even consider it is beyond ludicrous.

Boogeyman is required to justify defense spending. Even if its military budget is less than 10% of NATO one. For most of general public it's enough to say that those evil ruskies are plotting against us again.
BTW, Russia is doing the same, though in its case boogeyman is quite a bit more obvious.

 

[REDY]

I dont know if its ignorance or some argument strawman but nobody claims that Russia wants attack USA. Its however proved that Russia is open to attack without warning any neighbour and NATO is therefore useful factor to give at least illussion of protection.

 

[Colonel]

Boogeyman is required to justify defense spending. Even if its military budget is less than 10% of NATO one. For most of general public it's enough to say that those evil ruskies are plotting against us again.
BTW, Russia is doing the same, though in its case boogeyman is quite a bit more obvious.

You have purposefully distorted your claim at 10%. If you look at total dollars spent Russia is 3rd in the world on defense spending. Now if you add up Great Britain, France, Germany and compare that to Russia, Russia is spending about 40 Billion less then those three countries. Russia compared to each of them individually is spending somewhere between 20-40 Billion more then each of them. Now we factor in the US, first you can't use a total cash amount spent and compare here because the US is the only Global Superpower and that total cash amount is what allows us power projection capabilities across the globe, something neither the Russians or Western Europeans require. I'd venture a guess that of our nearly 600 Billion dollars spent annually we spend roughly 100 Billion on European Operations. So between US Operations in Europe and the European Allies we have roughly a budget of around 200 Billion compared to Russia's 84 Billion. This is of course ignoring the gross difference in personnel costs, Western countries spend more of their defense budget on personnel costs compared to Russia.

 

[red_elk]

You have purposefully distorted your claim at 10%.

Yes, I exaggerated it a little bit, Russia's military budget is actually less than 1/10th of NATO one.

If you look at total dollars spent Russia is 3rd in the world on defense spending. Now if you add up Great Britain, France, Germany and compare that to Russia, Russia is spending about 40 Billion less then those three countries. Russia compared to each of them individually is spending somewhere between 20-40 Billion more then each of them.

Now, if you look at Great Britain, France and Germany's neighbors and compare them to Russia's neighbors (North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan,...), as well as take into account length of border and geographical location, you'll see that proper Russia's spending should be at least several times more than any of those three countries mentioned. And estimating US military budget by the same criteria, we can assume that US will ensure adequate security with an army of similar size with Canadian one.

Now we factor in the US, first you can't use a total cash amount spent and compare here because the US is the only Global Superpower and that total cash amount is what allows us power projection capabilities across the globe, something neither the Russians or Western Europeans require.

In other words, US will spend more just because it decided to.
Judging by events happening in the world during the last couple of decades, we can safely say that US needs to mind their own business much more than project power across the globe.

 

[Colonel]

Yes, I exaggerated it a little bit, Russia's military budget is actually less than 1/10th of NATO one.

Now, if you look at Great Britain, France and Germany's neighbors and compare them to Russia's neighbors (North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan,...), as well as take into account length of border and geographical location, you'll see that proper Russia's spending should be at least several times more than any of those three countries mentioned. And estimating US military budget by the same criteria, we can assume that US will ensure adequate security with an army of similar size with Canadian one.

You do realize only North Korea has a border with Russia right? Geography 101 over here. Iran comes close but still has no direct border with Russia. Also noting that the North Korean-Russian border is quite literally 10 miles long. Weak argument! Second, this isn't the 1930s anymore. You can adequately defend large areas with smaller armies strategically placed, never mind advance warning systems and keyhole satellites. Weak argument! Third, the US military is not merely a defensive force. We have adequte forces to project American power across the globe, to that end I was saying that it is not a fair assessment to lump the entire US Defense budget in with NATO as only a portion of our budget goes to European operations.

In other words, US will spend more just because it decided to.
Judging by events happening in the world during the last couple of decades, we can safely say that US needs to mind their own business much more than project power across the globe.

The US spends more because we have power projection capabilities which are entirely necessary, for one thing without power projection we would not be able to meet our NATO obligations.

I do like how you ignored the fact that the US and Western Allies spend far more per solider thus spending more overall on Defense because of it. For instance 25% of the US defense budget is spent on personnel costs. Compared to Russia spending at best guess 5-10% of a much smaller 80-85 Billion budget (stats come from Global Security).

 

[red_elk]

You do realize only North Korea has a border with Russia right? Geography 101 over here. Iran comes close but still has no direct border with Russia. Also noting that the North Korean-Russian border is quite literally 10 miles long. Weak argument!

It has nothing to do with geographical borders, much less length of them. For example, do you know that Russia has to maintain a sizeable military presence in Tajikistan and guard its border with Afghanistan? Just to prevent it turning into Islamic fundamentalist hellhole. Another interesting to know fact is that despite Chechen war is over, Islamic insurgency in North Caucasus is continuing. Just two examples.

And I mentioned Iran and North Korea not because they currently present threat to Russia's security. They don't. Just to put you in context, that unlike France which borders with Switzerland, Italy, etc., Russia has to deal with a little bit different kind of neighbors.

Third, the US military is not merely a defensive force. We have adequte forces to project American power across the globe, to that end I was saying that it is not a fair assessment to lump the entire US Defense budget in with NATO as only a portion of our budget goes to European operations.
The US spends more because we have power projection capabilities which are entirely necessary, for one thing without power projection we would not be able to meet our NATO obligations.

Well, that is pretty close to my point. US military is not only a defensive force, it has huge military budget, yet it presents Russia as a threat to global security and partially justifies its military spendings on that ground.

I do like how you ignored the fact that the US and Western Allies spend far more per solider thus spending more overall on Defense because of it. For instance 25% of the US defense budget is spent on personnel costs. Compared to Russia spending at best guess 5-10% of a much smaller 80-85 Billion budget (stats come from Global Security).

I don't see how it's relevant. I was comparing military budgets because they are more adequate measure of military capability, then raw number of troops. I thought this is obvious and doesn't need additional explanations.

 

[innonimatu]

What unites the far left and the far right in opposing international security?

Is it wise for Europe, especially now with hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees entering its borders, to break the collective security agreement that has shielded the continent for the past 60 years?

What security? You are talking about the organization that destroyed Libya and Syria, and caused this whole wave of refugees in the first place!

 

[Colonel]

It has nothing to do with geographical borders, much less length of them. For example, do you know that Russia has to maintain a sizeable military presence in Tajikistan and guard its border with Afghanistan? Just to prevent it turning into Islamic fundamentalist hellhole. Another interesting to know fact is that despite Chechen war is over, Islamic insurgency in North Caucasus is continuing. Just two examples.

And I mentioned Iran and North Korea not because they currently present threat to Russia's security. They don't. Just to put you in context, that unlike France which borders with Switzerland, Italy, etc., Russia has to deal with a little bit different kind of neighbors.


Well, that is pretty close to my point. US military is not only a defensive force, it has huge military budget, yet it presents Russia as a threat to global security and partially justifies its military spendings on that ground.

Russia is a threat to global security, its aggression nature towards its neighbors and economic dealings that threaten US and Western interests are a threat to peace and security of the region.

I don't see how it's relevant. I was comparing military budgets because they are more adequate measure of military capability, then raw number of troops. I thought this is obvious and doesn't need additional explanations.

The point I was making is that actual defense spending does not equate to actual military capability. My evidence behind that is for roughly the same number of troops as Russia the US spends 25% of its budget on personnel. Why this is important 25% of the US Defense budget equates to 150 Billion which is more then the entire Russian defense budget. We train our troops to a higher quality and thus it requires a larger amount of money then a mere conscript.



My overall point here being that Russia is a belligerent state bent on conquest of her neighbors. The US and her NATO allies are extremely necessary to ensure the safety, security, and national sovereignty of the nations of Europe and indeed the world.

 

[red_elk]

Russia is a threat to global security, its aggression nature towards its neighbors and economic dealings that threaten US and Western interests are a threat to peace and security of the region.

You sound almost like NATO spokesperson. Unfortunately in reality, it's NATO who bombs and destroys countries abroad. Not Russia. After 1990, Russia participated only in one inter-state war (2008, with Georgia), and that war was started by Georgia. While I can't say Russia's behavior was perfect in this period, NATO members in the same time destroyed several countries and killed hundreds of thousands people.

The point I was making is that actual defense spending does not equate to actual military capability.

Right, it doesn't. But if you mean that Russia can have similarly capable military cheaper than NATO countries, it means that Russia spends money more effectively. I don't think this is what you wanted to say.
My point is that while military budget is very rough estimation of capabilities, it's still more precise than number of troops.

Edit:
Two more facts, just FYI:
- Russia borders with China which has 2.3 million size army and second military budget in the world. That fact alone can justify having more capable army, comparing to EU countries.
- Russian army personnel consists of only about 30% conscripts and this number is declining.

 

[Agent327]

You sound almost like NATO spokesperson. Unfortunately in reality, it's NATO who bombs and destroys countries abroad. Not Russia. After 1990, Russia participated only in one inter-state war (2008, with Georgia), and that war was started by Georgia. While I can't say Russia's behavior was perfect in this period, NATO members in the same time destroyed several countries and killed hundreds of thousands people.

I'm curious to know which NATO bombings destroyed which countries. By the way, I don't recall Georgia declaring war on Russia.

Russia borders with China which has 2.3 million size army and second military budget in the world. That fact alone can justify having more capable army, comparing to EU countries.

It would if you hadn't repeatedly stressed China being Russia's 'strategic ally', and being supportive of Russian policies. Which it wasn't in the post Krushev era. Also, China has been significantly reducing its military numbers for years now.

Lastly, if the aim is to modernize the Russian army, destabilizing relations with Ukraine seems highly counterproductive, as Ukraine was supplying Russia with some materials vital to its army modernization. But this of course assumes that Putin's behaviour is overall rational, not emotional.

 

[red_elk]

I'm curious to know which NATO bombings destroyed which countries.

Iraq, Serbia, Libya.

By the way, I don't recall Georgia declaring war on Russia.

I don't recall USSR declaring war on Afghanistan, USA declaring war on Iraq in 2003. Your point?

It would if you hadn't repeatedly stressed China being Russia's 'strategic ally'

I don't remember where I called China Russia's 'strategic ally'. May be it was you who said that?

 

[Verbose]

Iraq, Serbia, Libya.

None of that was NATO.

It was of course various constellations of states that are also members of NATO. And Libya and Serbia were carried out on a UN mandate providing legitimacy for them. That only leaves Iraq in 2003, which was GW Bush's poisoned gift to the world that just keeps on giving.

There's a difference between collective action by the alliance, and what individual member states get up to outside that collective action. And it's not a trivial difference.

There seems to be some kind of deep misunderstanding of what NATO is. The binding agreement is to assist one another when attacked. There are no provisions saying they have to either assist or hinder other member states from engaging in other kinds of military activity.

 

[red_elk]

None of that was NATO.

Iraq and Libya were bombed by coalitions consisted mostly of NATO members.
Serbia (actually, Yugoslavia) bombing was purely NATO operation.

And Libya and Serbia were carried out on a UN mandate providing legitimacy for them.

None of them had UN approval for bombings. There was a resolution for creation of no-fly zone over Libya, which is quite a bit different from bombing. And during Yugoslavia crisis, NATO didn't have UN mandate for any military operation whatsoever. Simply because such resolution would be immediately vetoed by Russia.

You probably mistook it for the First Gulf war, where coalition forces indeed had UN mandate.