Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[Yeekim]

Because a defensive alliance that does not include world's foremost military power is so much more useful than one that does. Indeed, exclusively European setup makes infinitely more sense. Why drag this dead weight called the US along?

 

[REDY]

What do you think about Turkey? I am somewhat worried about its commitement to alliance lately.

Some commentators say that there is possibility of coup or even civil war. Erdogan seems as another bad guy. And Turkish role on war againist islamic state is dubious.
Can we and should we alienate Turkey?

 

[red_elk]

As for Latvia-Estonia, meh, sell them to Russia (Finland too).

Russia doesn't need them, it's not XIX century.
It would be enough if Russian language and speakers there had the same status as Latvian/Estonian ones had in USSR.

 

[FriendlyFire]

What do you think about Turkey? I am somewhat worried about its commitement to alliance lately.

Some commentators say that there is possibility of coup or even civil war. Erdogan seems as another bad guy. And Turkish role on war againist islamic state is dubious.
Can we and should we alienate Turkey?

Nato memberships requirements means that Member nations must be democracies. I would expect suspension for a bloodless military coup or expulsion if it was a bloody coup.
Turkey joined Nato primarily I suspect because of tensions with Greece, by joining it has eased / frozen its problems.

 

[Cutlass]

Turkey's NATO membership has survived past military coups. It's in an oddball position. We need them enough to not kick them out, even though we don't like the coups. But the reason for the coups is that sectarian leaders keep winning elections, and we like them even less.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I think that Nato will at some time be replaced with some other alliance featuring nuclear powers too. It would make more sense by now to be a european alliance, and actually that one might be able to keep the more invasion-happy nations in line (particularly England, but afaik France is quite involved in its x-colonies' wars/issues).

At any rate if that new alliance has nukes it won't go to war with other nuclear powers, which means it won't have enemies that can actually threaten it in the context of a war. Which is pretty much all that America-led Nato was good for in the years after ww2.

As for Latvia-Estonia, meh, sell them to Russia (Finland too).

How dare you not Mention Germany when it comes to invasions and annexations !

Yes sell the Baltic Tiger to Russia, that would be so like Greece to sell off the money making countries in the EU and keep the money losing countries instead. And more to the point German Protectorate client state and Germany is not going to give up several EU votes.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Turkey's NATO membership has survived past military coups. It's in an oddball position. We need them enough to not kick them out, even though we don't like the coups. But the reason for the coups is that sectarian leaders keep winning elections, and we like them even less.

Greece and Turkey were admitted to Nato at the same time, seems that Nato expansion is done for strategic interest which superseded most of the requirements.

In order to join the alliance, candidates must fulfill a series of military, political, economic, and legal criteria that have been outlined by NATO in separate membership action plans, or MAPs.

Candidates are currently stepping up efforts to complete the conditions set forth in their individual MAPs, just as alliance experts are working on their final assessments of each country's progress.

However, some analysts point out that judging to what extent a country will be able to fulfill NATO's conditions is difficult, since many of the admission criteria -- barring the military conditions -- are hard to quantify, and a country's strategic importance may at times be considered ahead of its democratic and economic development.

The first chapter -- political and economic issues -- requires candidates to have stable democratic systems, pursue the peaceful settlement of territorial and ethnic disputes, have good relations with their neighbors, show commitment to the rule of law and human rights, establish democratic and civilian control of their armed forces, and have a market economy.

The defense chapter provides for candidates to reform their armed forces and to contribute militarily to the collective defense, while the resource chapter deals mainly with allocating sufficient funds to defense.

The last two chapters, security and legal issues, require aspirant countries to ensure the proper security of sensitive information according to NATO standards and bring national legislation into line with that of the alliance.

But analysts say it is hard to make objective assessments of aspects such as the quality of a country's democracy.

NATO in the past did give priority to geostrategic considerations and did admit countries with both border problems and insufficiently consolidated democracies, such as Turkey.

Gedmin said, however, that by admitting quarreling neighbors Turkey and Greece into the alliance, NATO managed to contain and reduce the intensity of territorial disputes over a number of islands in the Aegean Sea.

Gedmin said that, in the runup to NATO's expected second wave of enlargement later in 2002, geostrategic considerations might once again counterbalance other criteria.

He pointed to the three Baltic states -- Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia -- which he said NATO is contemplating admitting as a group into the alliance, even though some of them lag behind others in fulfilling what he called "narrow admission criteria."

Gedmin stressed that, in the end, NATO will admit those countries that, on balance, bring more benefits to the alliance and to regional security than they bring costs or risks.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Turkey's NATO membership has survived past military coups. It's in an oddball position. We need them enough to not kick them out, even though we don't like the coups. But the reason for the coups is that sectarian leaders keep winning elections, and we like them even less.

Perhaps "we" should trying minding our own business for a welcome change, instead of incessantly meddling in the affairs of others.

Turkey was admitted into NATO because they were so close to the Soviet Union. The US even based MRBMs there that were withdrawn as part of the "secret" settlement from the Cuban Missile Crisis, which occurred because they hypocritically complained about the Soviet Union responding in kind.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm kind of coming around to Tim's take on why the US is fine with paying for the EU not to maintain competitive international militaries of its own.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, I'm not sure why the US should pay for a situation that doesn't exist. I'm also not sure if US payments have anything to do with failed attempts to establish some sort of paneuropean military.

 

[CavLancer]

Because a defensive alliance that does not include world's foremost military power is so much more useful than one that does. Indeed, exclusively European setup makes infinitely more sense. Why drag this dead weight called the US along?

In the late 70s I was a border guard on the border of West Germany between the West and Soviet occupied East Germany and NATO West Germany and Soviet occupied Czechoslovakia in the 2nd ACR, or Armored Cavalry Regiment. Our job was to slow the anticipated Soviet advance by 24 hours, enabling NATO divisions to come on line to stop the advance. During those 24 hours it was anticipated that we would sustain 80% losses. That's right, 4 out of 5 guys dead, wounded, or captured. One day. The Soviets had all of NATO at 3-1 in tanks iirc, 2 to 1 in fighter aircraft...a hundred to one against our regiment, for 24 hours. For this we trained endlessly and got to wear the black beret as an elite unit.

It was a mess. The US was spending 6 something % of GDP on military, the Europeans 3 something %. That includes the Germans who already had a portion of their country occupied by the Soviets. Unlike East Germany in the Warsaw Pact, West Germany was a voluntary member of NATO, making decisions for themselves. In the time I was there I learned that the only Germans who understood their mess were the ones on the border. The ones away from the border but no less under threat were oblivious, but no less than their government which seemed eager to lose. Under such odds all wargames ended in conventional loss and battlefield commanders calling for nukes to plug holes. It was as if that 97% of the Europeans economies were so important to them that they would rather fall to an oppressor than do what was needed. When the UK withdrew an important unit from their zone, the US replaced it with a US unit in the UK zone. The UK out of embarrassment eventually moved the unit back and the US pulled out. Idiots. Let me repeat. Idiots think that the US was somehow oppressing the poor local Europeans. No. Europe had by this time recovered from WW2 and was getting rich letting the US defend them. I lost a lot of respect at that time, and haven't seen any reason to get it back since. We were and are defending Europe from invasion. Since the supposed end of the cold war the Europeans have further reduced their forces, like its all over with. The Russian military has been growing and modernizing as fast as they can. The tanks the Polish use are old Wehrmacht Leopards which the Germans didn't feel they needed anymore since the Soviet Union broke up. Well, Russians are Russians and always will be. Does Europe have the force needed to oppose Russian invasion in Ukraine? No. That's why they do n o t h i n g but sit by and slow trade and whine about how much its costing them, like the US should pay them back. Nothing about the Ukrainians bleeding out facing a superior expansionist force in their stead. Sure, a few West Europeans volunteer and fight Russians beside the Ukrainians defending their homeland, but far too few. Its only the former Warsaw Pact countries such as Poland who seem to have a clue what they are facing, and of course the US. Did you know the Russians are threatening Poland because Poland is taking down the statue of a Soviet general who killed Poles who resisted the Soviets? Who will stand with the Poles? Who? Only the US has the determination and strength. NATO is nothing without the US. Dead weight eh? You are clueless.

Turkey is a member of NATO because they share a common border with Russia which the Russians have used for invasion before. They understand that to share such a border and survive requires a common effort.

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem during the Cold War, though, was that neither side knew how warlike the other was, so had to act as if the 3rd Shock Army would be rolling across the border tomorrow. I think, post-1990, we've found that both sides were in the same boat - neither wanting a war, but each terrified that the other would start one.

 

[CavLancer]

Every single day a Soviet general met and informed the Supreme Soviet whether the Soviet army thought they could defeat NATO and capture West Germany to the Rhine if they invaded that day. There never was any discussion on the NATO side of attacking the Warsaw Pact. That would have been ludicrous. Everyone knew what was what, I certainly did.

FDR was great for America but he was too worn and old by the end of the war. The UK and France declared against Nazi Germany because Germany invaded Poland. Yet, Poland was left in the hands of an oppressor. Churchill wanted to make the Sovs back off, but FDR failed Poland and would not support the UK. Pity...Poland would have been a great help to the West, and was the reason the democracies fought.

 

[Flying Pig]

Every single day a Soviet general met and informed the Supreme Soviet whether the Soviet army thought they could defeat NATO and capture West Germany to the Rhine if they invaded that day. There never was any discussion on the NATO side of attacking the Warsaw Pact. That would have been ludicrous. Everyone knew what was what, I certainly did.

Really? I've never heard that. I might venture as well that we never planned to invade the Warsaw Pact because we knew that we would lose, rather than out of any peaceful feelings.

 

[CavLancer]

I heard that from the mouth of an ex Soviet general at the time after the wall was coming down and the Soviet Union coming to pieces. All those guys were looking for a paycheck back then. It was a BBC documentary iirc.

Sure, iirc 16ish NATO divisions could not defeat 30+ first line Soviet divisions stationed opposite us mainly in East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

 

[red_elk]

I think, post-1990, we've found that both sides were in the same boat - neither wanting a war, but each terrified that the other would start one.

There were Warsaw Pact documents, found in Czechoslovakia, IIRC. According to Soviet military analysts, USSR was able to overrun Europe in 2-3 weeks. And there were plans to launch invasion in the event of any attack, conventional or nuclear, from NATO against USSR or Warsaw Pact members. Most probable scenario was to launch it in case of massive disarming nuclear strike against USSR.

Of course, Soviets were aware that pre-emptive invasion would most certainly escalate to nuclear exchange and therefore the plan was to be executed only in case if the war was already started, with the aim to destroy NATO forces in Europe.

 

[Wastl]

That includes the Germans who already had a portion of their country occupied by the Soviets. Unlike East Germany in the Warsaw Pact, West Germany was a voluntary member of NATO, making decisions for themselves. In the time I was there I learned that the only Germans who understood their mess were the ones on the border. The ones away from the border but no less under threat were oblivious, but no less than their government which seemed eager to lose.

I agree with most of your post, but this part ignores a few things. Like for example Germany being the losers of WW2 and being treated as such to a large extend. Not only was Germany in pretty bad shape after that war, leading to quite a large war-weariness, but there was also the attempt of denazification and demilitarisation, with every German getting beaten over the head with the fact that Germany did horrible things and was to blame for the death of many innocent people. There simply was no way to try and get the militaristic attitude that existed prior to the war out of the heads of the people while at the same time clamoring for militarisation and the need to have a large army against the Soviets.

In addition to that, France and Britain were very much against anything that would have made Germany strong again. Both didn't even like the idea of Germany uniting again, and that was in 1990, things were far worse in earlier decades. Building up Germany to the point of making it a true counter-weight to the Soviets would never have been accepted by any neighbour. They much preferred to keep Germany somewhat weak, and if that meant eventually having to nuke the enemy while he is in Germany, well, better there than further to the west.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The problem during the Cold War, though, was that neither side knew how warlike the other was, so had to act as if the 3rd Shock Army would be rolling across the border tomorrow. I think, post-1990, we've found that both sides were in the same boat - neither wanting a war, but each terrified that the other would start one.

Only the US and Europe obviously weren't "terrified" at all of a Soviet first strike. If they had been, they would have been practicing civil defense drills like the Soviet Union did right up to the time of their downfall.

Really? I've never heard that.

Because it is obviously not true.

 

[CavLancer]

Wasn't much west left after the Rhine. France was at best luke warm, like they could have survived with 30 Soviet divisions on the Rhine. France was marginal in NATO when I was there. No French forces were committed to NATO at that time though there were 2 or three divisions in the part of Germany the US and UK gave them after the fact to keep De Gaulle happy. There were iirc 2 Dutch divisions of dubious quality, Belgians, don't recall, UK downsized force, this was before the North Sea really paid off, the Germans who equaled all in country US forces in 'sister' divisions, and the US. So the US and Germans were the bulk of what little there was. If I'm Germany at that time I'm 2 to 1 in land forces to the US just to hold the line so Germany didn't get nuked to stop the Soviets.

We had two duty stations, Bamberg away from the border and Hof at the border. In Bamberg I went out with a friend to get a couple beers and talk. The bar we chose would not serve us because we were US forces. So, in this you might be right. Even though we were the only thing between the population and the Soviet army the ingrates wouldn't take our money. Hof at the border this never happened, these were the friendliest Germans I've ever met to this day. They k n e w.

 

[CavLancer]

Only the US and Europe obviously weren't "terrified" at all of a Soviet first strike. If they had been, they would have been practicing civil defense drills like the Soviet Union did right up to the time of their downfall.

Because it is obviously not true.

Its fun to see people rewrite the history I lived. Personally I think you would have done well as Stasi or KGB, but not as regular population under the communist boot. You would be crying even louder than you do as a citizen of a democracy with your freedoms to throw away.

Edit: Come to think of it you wouldn't have the freedom to denigrate the system under the Soviets the way you do under a democracy. Better stay here and complain, its safer.