Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Nov 14 13:38:23 PST 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Macron - Brain death of Nato
jergul
large member
Thu Nov 07 15:23:29
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50335257

President Emmanuel Macron of France has described Nato as "brain dead", stressing what he sees as waning commitment to the transatlantic alliance by its main guarantor, the US.

Interviewed by the Economist, he cited the US failure to consult Nato before pulling forces out of northern Syria.

He also questioned whether Nato was still committed to collective defence.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a key ally, said she disagreed with Mr Macron's "drastic words".

Russia, which sees Nato as a threat to its security, welcomed the French president's comments as "truthful words".

Nato, which celebrates 70 years since its founding at a London summit next month, has responded by saying the alliance remains strong.
What else did the French president say?

"What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of Nato," Mr Macron told the London-based newspaper.

He warned European members that they could no longer rely on the US to defend the alliance, established at the start of the Cold War to bolster Western European and North American security.

Does the US contribute too much to Nato?
What is Nato?

Article Five of Nato's founding charter stipulates that an attack on one member will produce a collective response from the alliance.

But Mr Macron appeared unsure whether it was still valid when asked. "I don't know," he said.

The alliance, Mr Macron is quoted as saying, "only works if the guarantor of last resort functions as such. I'd argue that we should reassess the reality of what Nato is in the light of the commitment of the United States".

The French leader urged Europe to start thinking of itself as a "geopolitical power" to ensure it remained "in control" of its destiny.

===============

"I don't know".

Anyone here feel they know what Trump will do if Norway is attacked?
Paramount
Member
Thu Nov 07 15:43:16
I don’t know. Maybe he will insult someone. And then meet with Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Barbaria.

Attacked by who, btw? By Russia? Sweden?
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Thu Nov 07 16:05:49
If Russia invaded Norway Trump would condemn both sides and hope they work it out.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 07 17:10:17
Macron's problem here is that he invariably ties self-defense to the EU, to the point where a defense pact can only be implemented as a function of advancing to ever-closer union. Say what you will about the US, but we never demanded sovereignty surrenders from our European partners in exchange for military aid.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 07 17:29:08
Oh noes, we're not using NATO as a bludgeon for regime change anymore :'(
Paramount
Member
Fri Nov 08 02:34:39
I think it is pretty clear that Trump has chosen Saudi Barbaria and Israel over an alliance with European democracies.

But it is not that this is Trump’s idea. The idea comes from far-right Israeli nationalists (zionists), people from the settler movement.

In a time when Israel started to see itself becoming more and more isolated, turning into a pariah state, they declared war on liberal democracies of the world, and started to support far-right nationalist and fascist leaders and groups, because it is there where Israel would find understanding and support.

People like Saudi’s Mohammed, Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Hungary’s Orbán, India’s Modi. Israel has made sure that these anti-democratic and far-right nationalist states are the USA’s new allies. The goal is to replace Europe’s liberal democracies with nationalist and far-right regimes who are supportive of Israel – its settlements and genocidal policies. Splitting the EU and to have the US crap on NATO and its traditional democratic values is a mean to achieve this.

That Putin’s Russia may benefit from this too is just a side effect. Putin is not going to object.

Macron is of course right. If we want to defend our freedoms and our way of lives, we can no longer rely on the US. NATO is currently brain-dead. People who wants to continue to live in liberal democracies has to take control of our their own destiny. The US (due to its prefered alliance with barbaric states) is not a part of our equation because we don’t share the same vision.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Nov 08 04:28:32
We live in a social democracy where the state controls our destiny anyway.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 08 05:02:29
Well, there are a couple things.

I think Macron is basically outlining a new energy policy and is linking it to European Sovereignity.

"only works if the guarantor of last resort functions as such"

He is speaking of nuclear weapons, not of the USA.

My jergulmath prediction is that France will soon be pushing to replace aging nuclear plants with new ones instead of reducing reliance on nuclear energy.

He will also soon suggest modernizing the French nuclear arsenal to a point where it alone can function as "the guarantor of last resort" for European interests (France still has gravity bombs in its nuclear arsenal, so I do not really envision a change in the raw number of nuclear devices).

On this limited perspective, he is just putting words on what we already knew: The US will not go to nuclear war with Russia to defend European interests.

I am frankly not sure it ever would have (though body blocking with troops in central Europe undoubtably worked for as long as we were speaking of 10ns of thousands of them).
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 08 05:03:09
yay brexit.
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 08 14:30:27
Mr. Macron’s comments “will really damage NATO and could be seized upon by its opponents, including Trump,"

Random talking head...but Nato's opponents include the US head of state.

Big words.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 03:28:01
The thing is, France does have what we can call strategic depth.

It is far enough away from the post Soviet frontier and has a nuclear barrier that more consistently protects its territory than is true for non-nuclear states.

The roll out time for weapon systems is so long that all major conflicts are fight with what you have, so the military industrial base is irrelevant.

It could in many way replace the United States if we considered a truly independent regional European military force.
Seb
Member
Sat Nov 09 04:26:58
jergul:

It can replace the US but still leaves the fundamental question: Would france trade Marseilles for Riga?
Seb
Member
Sat Nov 09 04:30:14
In some ways the US has greater credibility as any theatre level nuclear war in Europe is survivable for it and Russia - but would have devastating consequences for any European country - so there are de-escalation windows etc.

France or the UK would find it much harder in such situations to disentangle strategic, tactical and conventional elements in any conflict.

Of course, that might help stabilize things but only if the Russians consider it credible - and they tend to see things the other way: it undermines the credibility of France intervening to oppose Russian actions in it's near abroad.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 04:39:53
Seb
Would Lithuania want France to make that trade (its not actually a trade, as both would still be lost)?

The logic does change somewhat with strategic depth in-theater.

The purpose then of a nuclear arsenal is to block the opposition's use of nuclear weapons. There is no natural endpoint to conventional battle.

It does increase regional responsibility: "Don't get steam-rolled in depth", because the idea is no longer "wait for US re-enforcements or US nukes to change things".

2% is not enough. 3% is probably ok.

So there are costs.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 04:43:04
I don't think the UK is part of the equation. Nice to have on the sidelines perhaps, but nothing to count on.
Seb
Member
Sat Nov 09 05:03:51
jergul:

That, really, was my point - a theoretical nuclear deterrence is lovely, but in reality the threat is conventional and unconventional.

RE UK, I think you are wrong to entirely rule this out - if brexit goes through there are a range of options, but I suspect from a narrow UK perspective would be to view any geopolitical upheaval that disrupts the EU as an opportunity. Equally, Brexit looks about a coin toss at the moment (Boris's chances of winning a majority are a bit over 50% based on betting odds).



jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 05:11:10
A majority with DUP?

I think the main threat facing Europe now is a Russian idea that Europe and Nato are mere extentions of US military power.

There is a lot of security to be found in a multipolar world view. There would be a lot more barriers to conflict if that amounted to two smaller geopolitical entities grinding each other to dust in a way that only benefited the global behomoths.

Eastern Europe is interesting mainly as a buffer zone. True power parity in practical terms would turn the entire European block into a buffer (as indeed Russia would be Europe's buffer).
Seb
Member
Sat Nov 09 07:21:09
Jergul:

DUP reject his deal, so he needs a full Tory majority.

Russia views the EU as a big threat in itself: as an alternative model to Russia's government and a constraint to the fused economic interests.

Breaking the EU up, or at least disrupting its institutions, is its goal. Military domination of EU territory isn't an objective, but military force may still be useful in achieving strategic objectives to further the overall goal of disrupting or breaking up the EU.

jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 07:41:29
Seb
I disagree completely with your statements, except for whatever aspect of US-European integration that may be construed as disruption of European institutions.

A fragmented Europe is a Europe that is under American dominance.

Russian strategic interests are unalienably tied to developing and nuturing a multi-polar world.

jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 07:49:13
Seb
A tory+dup majority will almost certainly give a hard brexit.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Nov 09 09:13:45
>>The roll out time for weapon systems is so long that all major conflicts are fight with what you have, so the military industrial base is irrelevant.<<

This wasn’t true in either of the world wars. Reasonable in a ”major conflict” you remove alot of red tape and quality requirements and shift production to deploy new weapons so you can win.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 09:57:08
Nimi
Its not completely true, but close to true. Wars are fought mostly with what you have. It has to do with weapon system complexity, not red tape and quality control.

It was completely not true during the world wars (though German pendants towards complexity did hamstring its production rates).


Rugian
Member
Sat Nov 09 11:02:46
"On this limited perspective, he is just putting words on what we already knew: The US will not go to nuclear war with Russia to defend European interests."

And this is where the complete break with reality occurs. There is no scenario in 2019 that would result in the necessity of using nuclear weapons against Russia.

If Macron says otherwise, then he's either as delusional as some of the posters in this very thread, or he's just being a EU charlatan.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Nov 09 11:57:20
Many new weapons were developed and deployed during the world wars, improved as well. Complexity = quality worries AKA red tape. Entire industries where shifted to support the war effort. Apetite for risk grows as required by increasingly dire circumstances.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Nov 09 12:05:15
Germany ww1, designed and developed a tank within 1 year. Too late sure, but that is a fairly rapid development cycle.

Russia during ww2 is another example that you don’t fight with what you have. Russia did not win with what they had, they had to build it up that momentum.
CrownRoyal
Member
Sat Nov 09 12:37:00
“ There is no scenario in 2019 that would result in the necessity of using nuclear weapons against Russia. ”

This precise year made me nervous, why only in 2019? What happens in January and later?
Rugian
Member
Sat Nov 09 12:38:56
"What happens in January"

ʕ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°ʔ
Paramount
Member
Sat Nov 09 12:52:37
” Russia during ww2 is another example that you don’t fight with what you have. Russia did not win with what they had, they had to build it up that momentum.”


But you are always fighting with what you have. You can’t fight with something that you don’t have, simply because you don’t have it :P

In Russias case. In the beginning some their soldiers barely had rifles or ammo. But they fought with what they had. As the war progressed they got more stuff, but... they were still fighting with what they had.
jergul
large member
Sat Nov 09 13:36:38
Ruggy
It will take years if not decades to pivot. My 3% of gdp was an indication of that.

Nimi
Yes, I was agreeing that what I said is considered true now was definitely not true during wwi or wwii.

We better hope that perspective is true. China is the only country with an industrial base that could be geared towards wwii style production number of high grade military systems.

The rest of us will end up fighting with cold war fat as we dust off and try to start old tanks in storage. Russians have crap in 5th echelon reserve stores that could have fought in wwii (the t-34/85s you see on parades comes from those reserves).
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Nov 09 16:54:42
>>Yes, I was agreeing that what I said is considered true now was definitely not true during wwi or wwii.<<

Ok, but now is peace time and not "a major conflict" which is important to all of this. If a major conflict were to break out then necessity would make it true again.

I also think Europe and the USA could pitch up factories in 2019 rather quickly, not unlike how the Russians evacuated their industry to the Urals and Siberia.
Seb
Member
Sat Nov 09 17:06:41
jergul:

If the tories plus DUP have a majority, then it would be a narrow majority.

The govt knows damned well how catastrophic a no deal would be.

1. Firstly, I'm not sure the DUP would want no deal at this point as it increases the possibility that they get reunification.

2. Secondly, A Tory + DUP govt would probably not survive an actual no deal scenario for very long, even if all the Tory MP's could be lined up to vote for it.

The whole point of Brexit from Boris's point of view was to get Boris to be PM - I'm skeptical he would go for no deal in these circumstances.
Seb
Member
Sat Nov 09 17:08:09
If the tories were in that position, I think they would probably re-run the last three months.

Try to form a minority govt with DUP support, bring back Boris's deal, and dare the opposition to vote it down or amend it to death. It's a great escape route for Boris.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 10 03:12:00
Nimi
I was in no way suggesting Russia had a production advantage.

We do know how long it takes to restart production after assembly line closure since things are generally produced in batches.

But there is not way getting around weapon system complexity. For example, right now 650 hellfire missiles are being produced a month in a batch production the US government has ordered. That could probably be increased to 1000 a month by adding a third shift and we assume no supply chain bottlenecks.

An Apache helicopter can use 16 of them on a single mission.

There are millions and millions of parts in a modern aircraft. Supplied by hundreds and hundreds subcontractors.

Seb
A no deal is default unless much closer alignment to the EU is the alternative. The EU is done with Conservative party negotiations.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Nov 10 05:28:36
Russia didn’t when the war started, but certainly when it ended. You don’t win a war with what you have, but with what you potentially can have divided by how long it takes you to mobilize that potential. Which is where your point is valid. If it takes me longer to do that than for the enemy to win, *fart noise*. I don’t believe this to be true for the western world.

I believe that once you cut quality requirements, worker rights, environmental regulation, building code regulation (red tape) i.e the necessity required by a major conflict, you can raise that output quite fast by an order magnitude (low estimate hellfire). Existing factories can be repurposed (as they were during the ww), many times you can expand existing weapon production facilities as they are.

As for supply chains, they are further complicated because of regulation and profitability requirements, beyond the complexity of the final product. The cheapest way isn’t necessarily the quickest. The quickest way can be capital intensive and environmentally detrimental. Ironic that you used the word ”fat” and me drawing on the LEAN production principles. I guess my point is, we can trim that fat quite quickly if the circumstances required it.

Let’s hopen we never have to learn the true answer.
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 10 05:57:20
Nimi
Its not exactly my theory. The idea that high intensity combat attrition far outpaces any possible replacement rate has been around since at least the 1980s.

We better hope I am right. China is otherwise the world's superpower (its industrial output is 3 times that of the USA and is larger than the US and EU combined).

The only thing giving the US an advantage is cold war fat.
Seb
Member
Sun Nov 10 07:28:00
Jergul:

Did I say there would be more negotiation with the EU.

Pretty clear that neither party will allow no deal. For all Macrons grumpiness, what he's actually doing is accumulating capital "we are forcing France to accept further delays, so we must give them something else in another area".

Macron knows full well that no deal would consume far more EU time and effort.

So, Boris only wanted no deal so he could convince voters not to back BXP, which no longer holds after an election. He just wants freedom to do Canada style relationship and a trade deal with the US. No deal likely prevents both, and causes an unbelievable clusterfuck. Unless UK no deal plan switches to a hard border, no FTA possible with anyone due to impossibility of rules of origins checks. Unless we implement a border in NI ports, which is the same as ... Borises deal.

DUP want no division between UK and RoI. Which is incompatible with Boris on a fundamental level.


Seb
Member
Sun Nov 10 07:40:26
It is difficult to see current high end forces being replaced during a conflict if it plays out as presently envisaged.

Mobilisation times for industry are just too low Vs battle tempo.

But you might see that change if we move to a mix of hybrid conflict, and high/low force structures. It's not too difficult to imagine in a few decades a mix of cheap, mass produced drone and other autonomous platforms instead of batch produced incredibly complex stuff that's been the norm for forces since the 80s
jergul
large member
Sun Nov 10 09:00:28
Seb
The idea of the US doing all kinds of conventional war stuff (conscription, rationing, command style economy) on behalf of Europe seems even less likely than using nukes. You do not need political stamina to use nukes.

The template of US as an arsenal of democracy is a bit flawed. Its relevant industrial base is relatively small (significantly smaller than the EUs).
Seb
Member
Sun Nov 10 09:10:06
jergul:

I wasn't talking about the US
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share