Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Depository for off topic / political posts (NO brexit related posts please)

arj1 wrote:

And my strong belief is that the main purpose of the defence force is to DEFEND the country(s) or alliance territory and not to go to the other part of the world and kill millions of people because you like it that way, or they have some resources you want (like it happened to Iraq).

I would wildly agree to that – some other nations (e.g. the French) have a different picture of their role in the world.

arj1 wrote:

1. NATO membership (NO for Ukraine and Crimea)

That is something for politicians, not for the heart of people.
The acid-test for this criteria will be a war between Turkey and one of its south eastern neighbors – at least in the German population there will be a huge debate if German soldiers die defending Turkish borders…

Germany

skydriller wrote:


ALL NATO members agreed in 2006 to contribute 2% of GDP to defence.

Malibuflyer wrote:


Don’t trust the Trump propaganda.
There has never been such an “agreement”. In the final document of the NATO summit 2006 the 2% are not even mentioned. There have been some oral statements around this but it has not been an agreement.
It was not before 2014 that these 2% were mentioned in an official document of the NATO. But here, again, no-one committed to spending it, but it was said that “within the next 10 years those countries who are currently below these 2% will make efforts to move towards them”

I would be very surprised if the NATO website contains “Trump Propaganda”…
It indeed says that later there was agreement to “bring spending up to 2% of GDP”, confirming that spending is below what it should be by most European countries (and still is) which is the point I was originally making wrt an EU army….

Last Edited by skydriller at 22 Jan 19:48

The UK spends 2% but the figure includes provision for service pensions and service family housing I believe.
Germany were not doing 2% but the amount in figures was far higher than the UKs contribution to NATO in actual cash.

France

@gallois I dont disagree. What Ive posted is from the NATO website. But the fact is that just as NATO leans heavily on the US, without the UK, an “EU army” would probably lean on the French right now.

Last Edited by skydriller at 23 Jan 08:51

skydriller wrote:

I would be very surprised if the NATO website contains “Trump Propaganda”…
It indeed says that later there was agreement to “bring spending up to 2% of GDP”, confirming that spending is below what it should be by most European countries (and still is) which is the point I was originally making wrt an EU army….

Don’t find that statement on the NATO website – and actually don’t care what kind of propaganda is promoted there. What I do know, however, is what was actually agreed between the members of the NATO summit 2014. That is the only thing that was actually agreed (as I strongly assume, that some words on NATO-website are not agreed between the secretaries of defense). And the final declaration of this summit clearly states:

“Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
- halt any decline in defence expenditure;
- aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
- aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.”

That is what was agreed. “Move towards the 2% guideline” is something completely different from “agreed to spend 2%”.

Last Edited by Malibuflyer at 23 Jan 10:31
Germany

So to conclude my Tom Clancy experiment, France and UK would send maybe a few planes.
EU would strongly condemns the use of force and call for a negociation to start.

I don’t believe one second on economic sanctions alone against China.

Next (and last, promise) exercise, should be dead easy :
Russia decides its border with Latvia should be 15km to the west. What would we do ? Latvia is Nato and EU.

US send troops but requests a significant european involvement.
France assembles :

  • an air squadron, maybe 2
  • a brigade within 1 month, maybe 2-3 later
LFOU, France

Jujupilote wrote:

Next (and last, promise) exercise, should be dead easy :
Russia decides its border with Latvia should be 15km to the west. What would we do ? Latvia is Nato and EU.

Im pretty sure there was actually a NATO exercise about exactly this scenario a few years ago…

Jujupilote wrote:

So to conclude my Tom Clancy experiment, France and UK would send maybe a few planes.
EU would strongly condemns the use of force and call for a negociation to start.

To add: Germany would quickly sign a trade deal with China that encompasses Taiwan.

@Jujupilote

You don’t say what the Russian action consists of.

If it’s merely a claim and a build up of troops in the area then NATO would probably match the build up and it would fizzle out into nothing after some cross words.

If they just walked in one day and ‘moved the fence’ 15km then I doubt there would be any military response. Political outrage yes, actual military action no.

Last Edited by Graham at 23 Jan 23:50
EGLM & EGTN

I think that the level of response would relate to the strategic/resources value of the place where the action took place…

Last Edited by skydriller at 24 Jan 04:58
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top