3 ms·

I think the best path forward for Europe should be to have both. Keep NATO as a strong alliance and build an EU Defense component as a non-alliance. That will m

by gip 5y ago

I think the best path forward for Europe should be to have both. Keep NATO as a strong alliance and build an EU Defense component as a non-alliance. That will make things much more complicated for whoever wants to endanger European security in the future.

petre 5y ago
It's the best idea. Build an EU force so that Austria and other non NATO members such as Sweden and Finland can participate.
- logifail 5y ago
  > Build an EU force so that Austria and other non NATO members such as Sweden and Finland can participate Austria is an odd example, given that it's completely surrounded by "friendlies". What would the Austrians gain by joining NATO? It's fairly clear what they would lose, which is the ability to stay out of a future NATO conflict. Thought experiment: let's imagine the UK or the US were to somehow kick off a hot war with - let's say - Chinese forces, on/around the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Do any of us seriously believe that the UK or the US just press some magic "Article 5" button and troops from all over NATO just grab their weapons and set off round the world to join in the fighting? Looking back at the history of NATO's Article 5 it's clear it has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It's political theatre.[0] [0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
  - gip 5y ago
    Article 5 only applies if a country is attacked. So if the US or UK are attacking, it doesn't apply. However if China attacks the UK in Asia, then article 5 applies and NATO countries will coordinate to respond to that, militarily of not. This is called deterrence. > Austria is an odd example, given that it's completely surrounded by "friendlies". This kind of thinking has produced the current nightmare IMO. The unwillingness to invest in common security has enabled Russia.
    - logifail 5y ago
      > Article 5 only applies if a country is attacked. So if the US or UK are attacking, it doesn't apply. Without wishing to get all silly, most wars tend to involve both sides fighting. What's the actual threshold for a NATO member declaring "an attack" to be able to claim assistance under Article 5? Their first ship sunk? Their first aircraft shot down? Their first casualty on the battlefield? First civilian killed in terrorist attack? First cyber-attack? “A serious cyberattack could trigger Article 5, where an attack against one ally is treated as an attack against all” Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General[0] It would appear to be a completely blank cheque for military action, based on suitable political theatre. Think Wag the Dog (1997 movie).[1] [0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_168435.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_168435.htm?selectedL... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog

by gip 5y ago

petre 5y ago

It's the best idea. Build an EU force so that Austria and other non NATO members such as Sweden and Finland can participate.

logifail 5y ago
> Build an EU force so that Austria and other non NATO members such as Sweden and Finland can participate Austria is an odd example, given that it's completely surrounded by "friendlies". What would the Austrians gain by joining NATO? It's fairly clear what they would lose, which is the ability to stay out of a future NATO conflict. Thought experiment: let's imagine the UK or the US were to somehow kick off a hot war with - let's say - Chinese forces, on/around the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Do any of us seriously believe that the UK or the US just press some magic "Article 5" button and troops from all over NATO just grab their weapons and set off round the world to join in the fighting? Looking back at the history of NATO's Article 5 it's clear it has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It's political theatre.[0] [0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
- gip 5y ago
  Article 5 only applies if a country is attacked. So if the US or UK are attacking, it doesn't apply. However if China attacks the UK in Asia, then article 5 applies and NATO countries will coordinate to respond to that, militarily of not. This is called deterrence. > Austria is an odd example, given that it's completely surrounded by "friendlies". This kind of thinking has produced the current nightmare IMO. The unwillingness to invest in common security has enabled Russia.
  - logifail 5y ago
    > Article 5 only applies if a country is attacked. So if the US or UK are attacking, it doesn't apply. Without wishing to get all silly, most wars tend to involve both sides fighting. What's the actual threshold for a NATO member declaring "an attack" to be able to claim assistance under Article 5? Their first ship sunk? Their first aircraft shot down? Their first casualty on the battlefield? First civilian killed in terrorist attack? First cyber-attack? “A serious cyberattack could trigger Article 5, where an attack against one ally is treated as an attack against all” Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General[0] It would appear to be a completely blank cheque for military action, based on suitable political theatre. Think Wag the Dog (1997 movie).[1] [0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_168435.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_168435.htm?selectedL... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog