The future of NATO

[weaver]

The following is a Stratfor analysis of recent events regarding NATO. Interesting read!


A summit of NATO heads of state scheduled for April 2-4 in Bucharest, Romania, appears to have gotten its first real jumpstart about 10 days ago with the circulation of a manifesto written by distinguished and well-respected former senior military officers from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France and the Netherlands who served at the height of their careers during the early post-Soviet years. The impressive list of names at the end of the paper includes former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili, former British Baron Field Marshal and Defense Staff Chief Sir Peter Anthony Inge, and former Inspector General of the German military and NATO Military Committee Chairman Gen. Klaus Naumann.

The EU Observer and the Guardian newspaper released some of the details of the manifesto over the past few days. This document marks the potential culmination of a series of trends that could result in deep structural changes to the alliance.

The manifesto includes:

* A more overtly stated nuclear first-strike option than NATO had previously. (The alliance currently has neither a professed nuclear first-strike option nor a no-first-use policy; this is partially dictated by the fact that only individual member states control the nukes.);
* A statement of willingness to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively to prevent states from gaining nuclear capabilities;
* A shift from unanimous consensus decision-making to majority voting, which effectively ends national vetoes;
* The end of national caveats for troops deployed in NATO operations;
* The end of decision-making by alliance members that are not participating in the NATO operation in question; and
* The ability to use force without the authorization of the U.N. Security Council when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings.”

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has struggled with the demise of its raison d’etre: the Soviet Union. After the fall of the Soviet state, serious questions emerged about whether NATO should even exist. Tensions among member states over Bosnia — and later, Kosovo — (not to mention the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq) further strained the alliance.

But now, a number of trends that were weakening the alliance have been reversed: Russian belligerence is on the rise. Putin has made clear that the waning of Russia is over (long before Russian military Chief of Staff Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky’s Jan. 19 reiteration of Moscow’s nuclear weapons policy). Moreover, NATO now includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania — all of which are former Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union states. And the governments of these new member states are extremely concerned about the potential dangers posed by the Russian bear.

In addition, the departure of French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder from the political scene marked the end of strong European opposition to U.S. moves, as well as the end of meaningful discussions about a European defense entity independent of NATO. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel’s transitions to power cemented a fundamental shift in the domestic politics and international stance of continental Europe’s two great powerhouses. Paris and Berlin have returned to the NATO camp, and they have recrowned NATO the pre-eminent military tool of European foreign policy.

Because of this, and despite the surprise of seeing a Dutchman and a Frenchman — former Dutch Chief of Staff Gen. Henk van den Breemen and former French Defense Chief Adm. Jacques, the manifesto’s other two signatories — advocate for a nuclear first-strike policy, this manifesto ultimately could prove to be anything but a lightning bolt from out of the blue.

Regardless, it will provide a charge for the NATO summit in Bucharest, which could see the largest gathering of heads of state and government at such an event in history. This manifesto almost certainly has categorically shifted the agenda from the tired old topics of European ballistic missile defense and the ongoing mission in Afghanistan to much more serious issues about the alliance’s future.

Stratfor hardly expects NATO to adopt the manifesto in full, but even a discussion of the topics broached therein would banish talk of “whither NATO” and replace it with a bit of rousing discourse on the nitty-gritty details of increasing the alliance’s functionality. That alone could result in the first truly unified and effective multinational military organization of the post-Cold War era.

Despite a few differences of opinion and some minor disputes over methodology, attacks in countries such as Spain and the United Kingdom have kept most NATO members on the same page about the U.S. war on terrorism, and no one really wants to see a nuclear-armed Iran (not to mention that Europe already is increasingly within range of Tehran’s ballistic missile arsenal). These common threads mean that, ultimately, the alliance agrees on at least a few overriding principles, such as: Freedom of the seas is good, and nuclear proliferation is bad, as is international terrorism.

The devil is always in the details, but a new consensus within NATO on the need to more effectively confront these challenges could lead to significant structural changes that better address them — leaving the world with not only a battle-hardened U.S. military that is increasingly less distracted in Iraq but also a NATO that largely operates in concert with the Pentagon and can react quickly and coherently on its own.

Such developments would shift the global military balance back toward Europe. And an increasing recognition among NATO members of the benefits of the alliance means that it (along with the United States) ultimately could continue to lead the military trends that shape the world, rather than drifting further away. This is great news if you happen to be in — or a friend of — the alliance, and somewhat terrifying if you are not.

[White-Pinnacle]

I'm amazed that the manifesto even mentioned the first strike nuclear option. I guess the member states are realizing the seriousness of the Iranian nuclear threat. I have no doubt that the Iranians willingness to use nuclear weapons (when they have the option).

The issue I see here is that obviously, not all NATO member states are nuclear capable. Many have the technology but have not developed the program. That leaves France, UK, and the US. Frankly, I can't remember if France is in NATO, I don't believe that country has been in NATO since the 60s/70s. That leaves the UK and the US. I'm curious who or which country inserted that first strike option in the manifesto? Probably the US as the US would be the one push the subject for debate/discussion and to act on the first strike option. I think the UK military probably views the US military as trigger happy at times. I also think the UK conducts a sanity check with the US on the military options which is a good thing so the US doesn't make rash decisions (it didn't work with Iraq though).

I think NATO is a great idea; however, each country has limited resources. Some are better and some really suck vacuum. I guess it's better of have friends than none at all. Also note within the NATO member states, who has nuclear weapons and tomahawk missiles? Who has the capability to reach out and touch someone?

It will be interesting to see the re-emergence of Russia especially after all the oil prices and record profits. Russia will definitely play the energy card option with Europe and use her influence. Frankly, I think it was "safer" during the Cold War as you knew who your enemies were. Us vs Them!

White Pinnacle

[Tracer]

I understand NATO's intention to look at it's reponse policy regarding a nuclear threat .

However , it is not Iran that the U.S , Canada and the other NATO allies need to be concerned with . We must keep our eye on the "Sleeping Bear" - Russia .They are the ones who supply "All" the enemies of NATO with nuclear weapons as well as enriched uranium not to mention rifles ammunition and their so called technology.

For those of us who are Christians , we know of a battle foretold by Ezekiel the prophet which will take place sometime in the future ....

It is called the "Battle Of Hamongog" - Do not confuse this with "Armageddon" .

We can read of this prophecy concerning the "Battle Of Hamongog" in Ezekiel Chapter 38 of The Old Testament"

Note : Gog , Magog ,Meshech and Tubal are all referneces to the land of Russia .

Ezekiel writes

38:2 Son Of Man, Set thy face against GOG , The land of Magog ,The chief prince of Meshech and Tubal and prophecy against him.

38:3 And say, Thus sayeth The Lord God ; Behold I am against thee, O Gog ,the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal

38:4 And I will turn thee back and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, And all thine army ,horses and horsemen , all of them clothed with all sorts of armour , even a great company with bucklers and shields , all of them handling swords ,

Look at the next verse and see who is with allied with them ..

38:5 Persia -(IRAN) , Ethiopia , and Lybia (Sworn Enemy OF USA) with them , all of them with shield and helmet .

38:6 Gomer and all his bands , the house of Togarmah of The North Quarters and all his bands and many people with them .

Now I won't continue the entire prophecy because most of you have access to a Bible and can read for yourselves if you wish too....But consider this...

Alaska was bought from Russia in 1948 I belive just off the top of my head , for "five cents an acre" ....This is the logical access point for a quick invasion and the least defended and most vulnerable point in Nrth America .The lack of ICE there could provide means for a naval invasion to deliver heavy equipment .Russia continues to build up massive stockpiles of heavy armour and rapid deployment land based weapons systems ...Why ?

Could it be the Russian's think they got a very bad deal by selling what has turned out to be a gold mine not only for gold but oil ? Would Alaskan oil ever become a factor in the Russians thinking they might want thier land back ? Would Americans living and born in Alaska ever consider giving up land for peace as your Governemt has told Israel to do ?
I don't know the answers to these questions but they should be considered .

My study on this subject has been to say the least "very Interesting " and I hope it is ok for me to share it here .
Is is possible the Russian Army will be buried on what was their own land after the defeat it is their army suffers in prophecy ?

Is it God who protects "Canada & The United States Of America"?
The Bible teaches us believers that it is .
Will God always have His protection over Canada , U.S.A , Britain , Austrailia and New Zealand ?
Finally , why would God first of all bless these countries over all others and why would He protect them ?
What would be Russia's reaction to a military strike against Iran whom they have sworn to defend ?
Just something to think about for believers and non believers alike....

[White-Pinnacle]

An amphibious invasion of CONUS across the Bering Straits is highly highly unlikely. That is the worst place imaginable for an invasion. During WW2, the Japanese invaded the islands of Kiska and Attu and were eventually pushed off one island and evacuated the other. The environmental conditions are unpredictable. Sea state condition and visibility are horrendous. Both the U.S. and the Japanese were aware that the Bering Straits was the shortest route between the opponents homelands but never really exploited that front. In fact, the U.S. didn't even try to invade Japan from the North. Talk about a meat grinder!

The Russians do not possess the amphibious capability of that magnitude. Even if they did make it across and able to build up their forces, the infrastructure is very limited for an easy invasion route. Everything would favor the defenders.

The current threats are North Korea and Iran and their surrogates.

Bottomline, the Alaska purchase is a done deal. However, just think, if the U.S. never purchased Alaska from the Czar and remained with the Russian Empire, her downfall, and the rise of the communists. The world as we know it would be vastly different especially if the Soviet Union had a foothold in North America i.e. Alaska, during the Cold War.

Not sure about the religion thing. I think it's open to various interpretation.

White Pinnacle

[Tracer]

Of course everything is open to interpretation...and I certainly do not maintain to know what this prophecy is truly saying in all its aspects , although the countries involved can not be mistaken....I merely wanted to stimulate thought on the subject.....

The prophecy continues on to actually say that this land will be where the armies of Gog And Magog end up being buried after their defeat and it will take 7 months just to bury these dead.

From a military standpoint ...isnt the most unlikely site for an invasion the one most considered by the invader ?

Soon the temperatures in the Berring Straght will be more like Florida ...

Note : lack of ice in past 3 years ...polar bears drowning etc....

I sincerely hope that my perspective from a Christian standpoint is welcome on these forums . I have been involved in a life long - non denominational study of the Prophets and I feel I have something to offer from this point of view that is interesting to some ....

[White-Pinnacle]

Tracer,

All contributions are greatly appreciated. Your perspective is interesting as it is from a Christian standpoint and I do find it fascinating. Certainly, I'm not a "know it all" although my wife has said that I'm full of useless knowledge! LOL.

White Pinnacle

[Tracer]

I appreciate being able to contribute on this forum from my Christian perspective. Sometimes it is a constant defense of my beliefs and point of view but well worth it and I find the topics interesting .

I have chosen to move the rest of my post to the forum on "God"......as it is a more appropriate area for it....

[weaver]

I would point out that the Ezekial references can also describe numerous attempts from the various Russian ethnic tribes over the past 3000 years ago as they pushed south into Turkey and the middle-east. One can further claim that the Ottoman-Turkish Empire represents this same threat referenced in Ezekial.

However

Currently, no nation has the capability to make a CONUS attack. Russia.. if it did have such an amphibious force.. would not be able to cross the straits. There is - always - 2 US Fleets in the pacific. Hawaii to Alaska is 2-3 days, max.

Since any - one - US Naval Fleet is enough to defeat any combination of all foreign powers Naval military assets that exist today, I am certain a CONUS invasion remains an impossibility for a long time to come. Expecially considering we have 12 operational fleets!

The strengthening of the NATA alliance is a direct response to Russian antagonism and resurgence. I am happy for it, looking forward to letting Europe once again get in the 'great game' as they have the most to lose because of their geopolitical position.

[Tracer]

Originally Posted by weaver

I would point out that the Ezekial references can also describe numerous attempts from the various Russian ethnic tribes over the past 3000 years ago as they pushed south into Turkey and the middle-east. One can further claim that the Ottoman-Turkish Empire represents this same threat referenced in Ezekial.

However

Currently, no nation has the capability to make a CONUS attack. Russia.. if it did have such an amphibious force.. would not be able to cross the straits. There is - always - 2 US Fleets in the pacific. Hawaii to Alaska is 2-3 days, max.

Since any - one - US Naval Fleet is enough to defeat any combination of all foreign powers Naval military assets that exist today, I am certain a CONUS invasion remains an impossibility for a long time to come. Expecially considering we have 12 operational fleets!

The strengthening of the NATA alliance is a direct response to Russian antagonism and resurgence. I am happy for it, looking forward to letting Europe once again get in the 'great game' as they have the most to lose because of their geopolitical position.

Nah -Ottoman- Turkish empire is not mentioned in Ezekiel at all.....That don't fly . Gog and Maggog are direct references to hordes from the North beyond the Caucus Mountains .

If you actually read the Ezekiel prophecy , your explanation just doesn't match my freind but , hey , nice try .......Iran (Persia)and Ethiopio as well as Lybia are allied in this invasion with Gog and Maggog and that to my knowledge has never happened in history nor was there any battlle involving these countries that took 7 months to bury their dead after they were completely annihilated as in the Ezekiel prophecy . Also this prophecy is again mentioned in the New Testament as well and spoken of as an end time battle .

This I found in wkpedia ....

In short, the battle Gog and Magog is war in the latter days (Last days) when a confederacy of nations attack Israel , which has been restored in the last days (1948 ). These nations, which attack Israel in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39, include nations, which are Muslim and have a clear animosity to Israel. Along with these Muslims nations, a northern kingdom, called Gog and Magog, which many identify, as the land Russia, will ally itself with Muslim nations, to oppose Israel in the last days .

This would lead us to think the attack is actually against the land of Israel , not as some beilve the decendants of the Isrealites or the lost 10 tribes which live in Canada and the US. At first glance it would appear the attack is to be against Israel the nation.....and this is entirely possible ....I'm not sure myself now that we have looked at it further ...

But wouldnt a Russian nuclear sub be able to mount an impressive attack on any of the U.S. Fleets if they were caught off guard . The Americans as well as us Canadians refer to Russia as (The Sleeping Bear) for a reason .

I do not think they are sleeping .The same attitude ( Well they will never come near the continental US ) was prevelent in 1944 when German U-boats parked themselves just 12 miles off of American shores and sunk the US merchant ships like siiting ducks .....

I understand your confidence in your military , I'm just not sure where you get it from . America used Nuclear weapons first in history to attack Japan as I stated in another post .I do not believe they will use them first next time .. Do you honestly think Russia will let you go first next time ?


Given the US record involving intelligence information.....Wouln't the fact that Saddam had absolutely no Weapons Of Mass Destruction as well as he had a real dislike for Ossama Bin Laden and did not harbour him and his terrorist as the US said it did , make you a little skeptical of your American Military's ability to respond to a real threat rather then respond to a false one as Iraq ? It was a Canadian patrol ship that discovered the last incursion by the Russians to the North Pole 2 years ago , not the Americans

[White-Pinnacle]

The United States is the only Superpower left in the world. It has the economic, political, and military (nuclear) capabilities that no other country has at this time. Are there other countries on the rise? Certainly there are but not to the level of the U.S. at this point.

The U.S. economy has had a profound effect on the world. Just read the latest headlines regarding the recession and it's affect on the world. The packaged subprime loans sold to worldwide investors. The Feds cutting the rates down and market effects in Asia and Europe.

Political leadership in the U.N. and NATO.

The U.S. alone has the capability to project military power anywhere in the world in short notice. No other country in the world has that capability. The nuclear triad consists of bombers, ICBMs, and SLBMs. The 2nd Fleet based in the Atlantic and the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea. The 3rd Fleet in Eastern Pacific and the 7th Fleet in the Western Pacific. The 5th Fleet is based in the Middle East uses assets of the other fleets. The Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans are significant physical barriers that are deterrents towards invasion. I believe the U.S. is down to 11 Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) and I'm not sure how many Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs). Typically when a CSG deploys, an ESG also deploys to provide the boot on the ground capability, the U.S. Marine Corps. Also consider the Command and Control aspects of these capabilities.

In a conventional war, the U.S. will roll over any country willing to go toe to toe. Many countries understand this and they go asymmetric warfare, they would be stupid to go conventional. These "high tech" capabilities are the result of money invested in military during the Reagan Presidency and continues to this day. Just think about the Global Positioning System. The U.S. is the country that administers the GPS program. The effect of GPS on warfare is revolutionary.

The Russian fleet is in disarray. I've seen pictures of ships rusting and sinking pierside. I mean ships tied to the pier and sunk because of lack of maintenance, parts, and personnel. I'm sure the Russians still have regular ballistic missile submarine patrols. The Russians have made a number of long range bomber patrols and SSGN (cruise missile capable submarines) deployments. This is in the effort to get world attention and give the impression it still has capabilities. Russia has a long way to go militarily if it wants to reclaim it's former military glory, it needs money. However, I wouldn't want to on the Russian bad side either. I'm glad to hear the Russians are finally enjoying some level of economic success after years and years of tragedies in that country. I think Europe and the U.S. has a lot to gain by having the Russians reap economic success.

Yes, the Russians can attack the U.S. fleet with a submarine but why would they? I have to admit that the U.S. anti-submarine warfare (ASW) is a bit rusty and out of practice. The British are actually better in ASW from what I heard.

I hope that I'm not giving the impression of bragging but these are facts.

White Pinnacle

Oh, one last thing, personnally, if another country's government is under a dictatorship, that's fine by me. I'm not for the spreading of democracy. You live your way and I live my way. I'm not for "my way of life is better than yours and you should live your life like mine."

I think that's the basis for a lot of the craziness in the world.

White Pinnacle

[Tracer]

Having the most powerful military machine in the world does not make you right and think you can force everyone else in the world to live by your standards which is what the US does and this is why The US is hated by more countries than any other country on earth .You manipulate countries in the middle east simply so you can control your so-called vital interests (OIL) .

Having been the only power to use "Nukes" on women and children in Nagasaki and Hiroshima does not win a lot of friends or respect iether .....

You allow your returning vets to sleep under bridges , over 200,000 of them. And mothers to be turned away from hospitals with their children because they can't pay for medical attention. Yet you have the most powerful military . I think American priorities are totally backwards compared to the rest of the world ......
Not to mention the poverty that is rampant in the U.S.

American Poverty

Your government is broken and bought by lobbyists , even Americans admit that fact.....Watch CNN Tonight .....Broken Government...

[weaver]

Wow. Tracer has been drinking the Koolaid again.