Foreign Policy Shifts?

[Flash]

I agree with a lot of that. The question has to be asked: why are 300 million Americans paying to support 600 million NATO ally members from 150 million Russians? It was one thing immediately after WW2, but now the Europeans can certainly afford to shoulder more of the burden of their own defense. Germany is spending only 1.19% of their GDP on defense...

Peace and security, the the result of that has been unparalleled peace and prosperity not only Europe but us as well. While most European NATO countries don't contribute enough our contribution has also dropped significantly as well, from 6 US Army divisions and supporting troops of roughly 213,000 soldiers to just 3 combat brigades of about 27,000 now. And that is just the Army. Ours is one of several commitments while for almost all the Europeans it is their only one.

Also from a realist point of view our troops stationed in areas around the world give us an outsized say in what goes on in those countries and regions, much more so than if we weren't there. I would rather us have that say and use it to our interest than leave to others.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I'll try to help him out a bit.

@Randy Daytona do not forget that while, in your words, 300m Americans are paying to protect 600m Euros from 150m Russians - the US gets a lot out of partnerships as well. If you're not willing to cede that there is tangible benefit from it now, can you at least recognize that it's good to have allies on what we might call retainer?

BTW, any issue with 300m Americans paying to protect 8m Israelis from myriad threats?

Didn't Churchill have something to say on this matter...?

I do not disagree with any of that. I believe the alliance has been - and continues to serve - a useful function. What I am saying is that our NATO allies should spend more on defense, especially if our main threat is now coming from China, not Russia. Multiple Presidents and SecDef's have asked NATO members to spend at least 2.0%

As for the comparison between Europe / Russia and Israel / the Middle East, Europe is more populous, has a greater industrial base and a greater GDP than Russia. Israel is at a significant disadvantage, not to mention surrounded. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Flash]

I do not disagree with any of that. I believe the alliance has been - and continues to serve - a useful function. What I am saying is that our NATO allies should spend more on defense, especially if our main threat is now coming from China, not Russia. Multiple Presidents and SecDef's have asked NATO members to spend at least 2.0%.

I don't think threatening the existence of the alliance is a, uhhh....diplomatic way of going about getting members to pony up though. And yes, in an alliance diplomacy and friendly relations actually do matter.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Apples and Oranges.

Not in the context of your simplistic 300m for 600m from 150m bit.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Not in the context of your simplistic 300m for 600m from 150m bit.

Europe is much more populous, affluent, and industrialized than Russia, and Western Europe holds major geographic advantages in a conflict with Russia. Yet they depend on us for their defense.

Israel is much more industrialized than their enemies but they are surrounded and heavily out numbered. It makes sense that they depend on us for their defense. What he said makes sense. What you said.... Not so much.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Yeah bro, got it. The point was that if we're just going to do simple we pay x for y number of people because of z number of bad guys, then what's the point of considering the valid points you just made.

 

[Flash]

Europe is much more populous, affluent, and industrialized than Russia, and Western Europe holds major geographic advantages in a conflict with Russia. Yet they depend on us for their defense.

They depend much more on the deterrence of us and the alliance than our physical presence there nowadays, which is largely a token force compared to what we used to have there just 25 years ago.

 

[jmcquate]

Peace and security, the the result of that has been unparalleled peace and prosperity not only Europe but us as well.

I would argue that "peace and security" came about due to as much, or more because of our nuclear deterrence rather than NATO. I don't think the Soviets were ever overly concerned with NATO's conventional forces.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Not in the context of your simplistic 300m for 600m from 150m bit.

The wikipedia link enclosed most of the data points and was a concise way of presenting the data to not take away from the main point that in the 21st century, China - not Russia - is the bigger threat.

I would argue that "peace and security" came about due to as much, or more because of our nuclear deterrence rather than NATO. I don't think the Soviets were ever overly concerned with NATO's conventional forces.

I remember the controversy over Pershings and the neutron bomb to counter the Soviet tank armies - big news back in the 1980's. And that doesn't even touch on the silos sitting in the Midwest...

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Yeah bro, got it. The point was that if we're just going to do simple we pay x for y number of people because of z number of bad guys, then what's the point of considering the valid points you just made.

But in the context of his argument that Europe needs to pull their weight, it was fitting. Germany for example has a population of over 80 million, a powerful economy and industrial base, but has an army of 60,000 with something like 250 tanks.

 

[Flash]

I would argue that "peace and security" came about due to as much, or more because of our nuclear deterrence rather than NATO. I don't think the Soviets were ever overly concerned with NATO's conventional forces.

Then why did the Soviets invest so much in conventional arms to counter ours and NATO's? Quite a few of the best Soviet arms were specifically designed to counter or overcome conventional threats, and it was the money spent on those that helped bankrupt the USSR.

Nukes are an all or nothing proposition, once you cross that Rubicon it is hard to go back. So while they presented an overarching deterrent against Soviet action smaller actions like the invasion of peripheral states were not deterred by nules but also by capable and sizeable conventional forces.

But in the context of his argument that Europe needs to pull their weight, it was fitting. Germany for example has a population of over 80 million, a powerful economy and industrial base, but has an army of 60,000 with something like 250 tanks.

Threatening to abandon or disparaging a successful alliance isn't the way to get lagging members to pony up money though.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Threatening to abandon or disparaging a successful alliance isn't the way to get lagging members to pony up money though.

This just came out in Foreign Affairs today. Don't agree with everything in it - but it is an interesting perspective from Doug Bandow at the CATO group.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-01-25/trump-and-us-alliances?cid=int-lea

 

[zippy]

ISAF, motherfucker, do you speak it?

I Saw Americans Fighting as well. Would you like a patch with that?

 

[Uncle Fester]

The basic error with the new admin's strategy is that it assumes every other nation considers the US an indispensable partner. It seems not to have occurred to them that they can, in fact, walk away from us as well. If allied nations don't consider us a reliable trade, diplomatic, or military partner any longer, then they may cut deals with Russia or China, form regional coalitions, etc. Loss of alliances means loss of influence. Do we spend a lot on NATO? Yep. But we are actually buying something with that money.

 

[Flash]

The basic error with the new admin's strategy is that it assumes every other nation considers the US an indispensable partner. It seems not to have occurred to them that they can, in fact, walk away from us as well. If allied nations don't consider us a reliable trade, diplomatic, or military partner any longer, then they may cut deals with Russia or China, form regional coalitions, etc. Loss of alliances means loss of influence. Do we spend a lot on NATO? Yep. But we are actually buying something with that money.

That is exactly what it is likely to happen with the collapse of the TPP.