Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2023, 07:34 AM
Status: "“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakery Hill View Post
The European Union already has a formal defense and security policy, so NATO's replacement might already exist, although in its formative stages. Part of that is an "EU Battlegroup." So i guess it would be the opportunity for the US and Canada to reassess and "renegotiate" their security relationship with Europe.

Turkey is not currently a member of the EU.


European countries already have alliances and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) as well as the new European military mobility project, with others including Lancaster House Treaties between the UK and France, as the the Joint Expeditionary Force in relation to the UK and many Northern European nations.

In terms of the US the end of the Cold War saw over 90% of US forces return home, and other than deployments related to the current situation in Ukraine, most US forces related to the vast logistical and medical hubs at Ramstein and nearby K-Town, which help project US power globally or bases in the UK, Italy, Spain etc, that support US forces in numerous regions from the Mediterranean through to the Arctic.

There are of course other bases related to US projection of power not just in Europe but from North Africa through to the Middle East and parts of Asia, up to Scandinavia, the GIUK Gap and right up to the Arctic.

On top of this you have all the intelligence, radar, satellite, reconnaissance and numerous other activities that NATO allows the US to carry out.

Whilst having forces in Europe allows much more US influence, and this is important beyond Europe and in relation to China, as well as at a time when the world risks becoming split in relation to the emerging and expanding BRICS power and the West.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2023, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Toronto
15,102 posts, read 15,877,316 times
Reputation: 5202
I was referring to public sentiment as opposed to what is actually going on. There is a larger segment of the American populace in favour of a more restrained America as opposed to a more interventionist. 70 percent of Americans polled in 2016 wanted the next American President to focus more on domestic affairs than foreign. This is different than what the leadership is actually engaging in, although I still think Trump did win some points in the 2016 election with his pitch to be less interventionist and cast Clinton as more Hawkish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2023, 05:45 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 866,625 times
Reputation: 2573
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
I was referring to public sentiment as opposed to what is actually going on. There is a larger segment of the American populace in favour of a more restrained America as opposed to a more interventionist. 70 percent of Americans polled in 2016 wanted the next American President to focus more on domestic affairs than foreign. This is different than what the leadership is actually engaging in, although I still think Trump did win some points in the 2016 election with his pitch to be less interventionist and cast Clinton as more Hawkish.
Trump is very smart. He knows how to play to the silent majority, the ones as you said who get fed up with interventionist policies but are constantly ignored. I'm no fan of the guy, but I must say I'm amazed how under Trump we made progress with N. Korea and had more countries paying for their defense. The China situation, while tense under Trump was only tense in the economic sense. Since Biden has taken office, we are involved in another forever war (the Ukraine war), made the North Korean situation worse. The Iran situation is worse (though Trump bares most of that blame), and now tensions with China are worse. The number of defense bases is increasing with the Philippians deal. Biden has been the like the best president ever for the defense industry. Trump has been big name to go against the Ukraine war. If it goes south, he will win more than points, he will win the presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2023, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Toronto
15,102 posts, read 15,877,316 times
Reputation: 5202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice_Major View Post
Trump is very smart. He knows how to play to the silent majority, the ones as you said who get fed up with interventionist policies but are constantly ignored. I'm no fan of the guy, but I must say I'm amazed how under Trump we made progress with N. Korea and had more countries paying for their defense. The China situation, while tense under Trump was only tense in the economic sense. Since Biden has taken office, we are involved in another forever war (the Ukraine war), made the North Korean situation worse. The Iran situation is worse (though Trump bares most of that blame), and now tensions with China are worse. The number of defense bases is increasing with the Philippians deal. Biden has been the like the best president ever for the defense industry. Trump has been big name to go against the Ukraine war. If it goes south, he will win more than points, he will win the presidency.
He's an over the top figure and he is going further out of orbit lately with a pretty much full throttled embrace of... Q-anon - sheesh.. but during his Presidency I would say he made some progress as you noted with North Korea -which well maybe it was just Kim admiring an authoritarian vibe - but actually he did make some measurable progress in terms of M.E peace. I actually think that was his biggest Foreign Policy success. On the other hand he was not well regarded by traditional western allies.

Do you really think Putin would have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still President? I mean what the Russians are doing to Ukraine is absolutely tragic. It is hard to advocate that the west and particularly the U.S could just sit on the sidelines!? So on that note, what do you think would happen globally if the U.S truly embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2023, 04:35 AM
Status: "“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
I was referring to public sentiment as opposed to what is actually going on. There is a larger segment of the American populace in favour of a more restrained America as opposed to a more interventionist. 70 percent of Americans polled in 2016 wanted the next American President to focus more on domestic affairs than foreign. This is different than what the leadership is actually engaging in, although I still think Trump did win some points in the 2016 election with his pitch to be less interventionist and cast Clinton as more Hawkish.


I have no doubt that Americans do want politicians to concentrate on domestic issues.

The truth is it's the US War on Terror and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that led to trillions of US dollars being spent and wasted lives, and not NATO.

NATO accounts for around 5% of US defence expenditure, and for that amount US forces have access yo ports, airfields, military facilities, intelligence facilities, logistics, medical support etc right across Europe from the Mediterranean right up to the Arctic, and can project forces in to areas from North Africa, to the Middle East to parts of Asia.

Without NATO, the US itself would be a lot less powerful, and that's even without the fact that having forces in Europe allows the US a lot on influence in Europe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2023, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,633 posts, read 18,222,068 times
Reputation: 34509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post


I have no doubt that Americans do want politicians to concentrate on domestic issues.

The truth is it's the US War on Terror and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that led to trillions of US dollars being spent and wasted lives, and not NATO.

NATO accounts for around 5% of US defence expenditure, and for that amount US forces have access yo ports, airfields, military facilities, intelligence facilities, logistics, medical support etc right across Europe from the Mediterranean right up to the Arctic, and can project forces in to areas from North Africa, to the Middle East to parts of Asia.

Without NATO, the US itself would be a lot less powerful, and that's even without the fact that having forces in Europe allows the US a lot on influence in Europe.
How many of the US overseas bases in Europe are actually NATO or due to NATO, though? Yes, the US has expansive European base access. I question how much NATO is to thank for that or whether many of these bases would exist independent of NATO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2023, 06:50 AM
Status: "“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
How many of the US overseas bases in Europe are actually NATO or due to NATO, though? Yes, the US has expansive European base access. I question how much NATO is to thank for that or whether many of these bases would exist independent of NATO.
The only reason the US is permitted to have US bases in Europe is because of NATO.

Furthermore some countries in Europe don't allow the US, to have bases, the French withdrew from NATO's Central Command in 1966, and all US bases in France were closed as a result, whilst countries such as Denmark have a constitution that does not allow foreign bases.

Outside of Germany, Italy, the UK and Spain, there are very few permanent US bases, however the war in Ukraine has meant US and NATO deployments to the Eastern Flanks.

Around two thirds of all US permanent bases in Europe are in Germany, and the vast majority of these forces are based at Ramstein and nearby K-Town.

In terms of the rest of Europe, over 95% of US forces are based in Germany, Italy the UK and Spain.

If the US left NATO then these bases would mean the US no longer had the legal authority to operate such bases under the legislation passed as part of the NATO agreement, so whether the US could use bases or facilities would be on a country to country basis, and they would not have the ease of access they had under the NATO agreement.

Lets also not forget that many European countries don't just let the US military do as they please, and this was apparent during the 1986 US Bombing of Libya (Operation El Dorado Canyon), when US planes operating from bases in the UK were denied overflight rights by France, Spain and Italy as well as the use of European continental bases.

USAF operation had to be flown around France and Spain, over Portugal and through the Straits of Gibraltar, adding 1,300 miles (2,100 km) each way and requiring multiple aerial refuelings.

Last edited by Brave New World; 02-04-2023 at 06:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2023, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,633 posts, read 18,222,068 times
Reputation: 34509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
The only reason the US is permitted to have US bases in Europe is because of NATO.

Furthermore some countries in Europe don't allow the US, to have bases, the French withdrew from NATO's Central Command in 1966, and all US bases in France were closed as a result, whilst countries such as Denmark have a constitution that does not allow foreign bases.

Outside of Germany, Italy, the UK and Spain, there are very few permanent US bases, however the war in Ukraine has meant US and NATO deployments to the Eastern Flanks.

Around two thirds of all US permanent bases in Europe are in Germany, and the vast majority of these forces are based at Ramstein and nearby K-Town.

In terms of the rest of Europe, over 95% of US forces are based in Germany, Italy the UK and Spain.

If the US left NATO then these bases would mean the US no longer had the legal authority to operate such bases under the legislation passed as part of the NATO agreement, so whether the US could use bases or facilities would be on a country to country basis, and they would not have the ease of access they had under the NATO agreement.

Lets also not forget that many European countries don't just let the US military do as they please, and this was apparent during the 1986 US Bombing of Libya, when US planes operating from bases in the UK were not permitted to enter
That doesn't seem to be correct at all.

Take, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel in Kosovo, which is not a NATO member.

And then you have the cases of bases in countries that, while today are part of NATO, were there long before those countries became NATO members. This includes Spain (for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...n%20the%20base.).

Even to the extent that the overwhelming majority of US bases in Europe are within NATO member states, that doesn't answer the question of whether these bases would fail to exist outside of NATO. Put differently, such a statement fails to consider that the US is free to enter into agreements and arrangements with other nations outside of NATO, as it has done with countries both within and outside of NATO. I note that, outside of the NATO sphere, the U.S. has entered into bilateral agreements over the years with other countries--in Asia, Latin America, etc.--for bases. I'd wager that such would still happen within Europe absent NATO being a thing, even if the overall footprint was smaller.

Hell, the US and UK could leave NATO tomorrow (not happening, but for argument's sake). I highly doubt that the UK would force the US to decamp from its bases on your side of the pond, especially considering that much of the US-UK cooperation exists even outside of NATO and is part of other enduring alliances, to include intelligence gathering/collections/sharing partnerships such as the FVEY network.

On this end, I question whether Germany would require US troops to leave if not for NATO as they benefit in other ways from US presence even outside of a NATO construct.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure that NATO is some magic bullet that, without the alliance, the current order of things (e.g. to include US bases in Europe) would cease to exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2023, 08:49 AM
Status: "“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”" (set 1 day ago)
 
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
That doesn't seem to be correct at all.

Take, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel in Kosovo, which is not a NATO member.

And then you have the cases of bases in countries that, while today are part of NATO, were there long before those countries became NATO members. This includes Spain (for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_...n%20the%20base.).

Even to the extent that the overwhelming majority of US bases in Europe are within NATO member states, that doesn't answer the question of whether these bases would fail to exist outside of NATO. Put differently, such a statement fails to consider that the US is free to enter into agreements and arrangements with other nations outside of NATO, as it has done with countries both within and outside of NATO. I note that, outside of the NATO sphere, the U.S. has entered into bilateral agreements over the years with other countries--in Asia, Latin America, etc.--for bases. I'd wager that such would still happen within Europe absent NATO being a thing, even if the overall footprint was smaller.

Hell, the US and UK could leave NATO tomorrow (not happening, but for argument's sake). I highly doubt that the UK would force the US to decamp from its bases on your side of the pond, especially considering that much of the US-UK cooperation exists even outside of NATO and is part of other enduring alliances, to include intelligence gathering/collections/sharing partnerships such as the FVEY network.

On this end, I question whether Germany would require US troops to leave if not for NATO as they benefit in other ways from US presence even outside of a NATO construct.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure that NATO is some magic bullet that, without the alliance, the current order of things (e.g. to include US bases in Europe) would cease to exist.
The US could enter agreements, however once the NATO legislation is no longer in place, the US would not have the same relationship with European countries.

There would be no commitment for the US to protect Europe, and the US would most likely lose influence in a Europe, that now has to defend itself.

It's also more likely that such a scenario would just play in to the hands of those, who want Europe to develop it's own capabilities, including a nuclear defence, and to expand it's own military alliances and command, and to move away from US influence and US Foreign Policy, which is fairly much French policy.

The loss of the integrated NATO Command System, would have to be replaced by a European one in Brussels, whilst Europe would have to replace numerous NATO functions.

In the UK commands such as the Allied Rapid Response Command based at Imjin Barracks in Gloucester would be lost, as would the NATO Maritime Command at Northwood, as well as other joint NATO units and training cooperation.

In terms of Britain it should be noted that it maintains an important relationship with Europe outside of NATO, especially with the French, through the Lancaster House Treaties, and through other treaties such as the Joint Expeditionary Force, and has also in more recent years participated in the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and European military mobility project.

I would also suggest that many politicians, especially those on the left, would question US bases or the use of facilities that are not related to NATO and a pan European defence, and were not part of an integrated NATO command, but instead only served the US on a country by country basis.

In terms of Spain, you are merely permitted to use Spanish bases, and the bases in Spain are not US bases, and the same is true of the US use of the Naval Air Station Sigonella on Sicily, and I think that would be the arrangement the US would increasingly have with many European countries if it left the NATO Command Structure.

The Spanish or Italians can withdraw use of their bases any time they like, and countries could have a lot more power over the US in this respect without a joint NATO commitment.

As for Kosovo and some East European countries they might be more welcoming in terms of US bases, however that is more to with events in recent decades, and the US does have bases across the world, however that does not mean that Europe would want to replicate the current situation with a country that is no longer part of the NATO Command Structure, which would be ultimately replaced by a joint European one is such circumstances.

Last edited by Brave New World; 02-04-2023 at 09:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2023, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,633 posts, read 18,222,068 times
Reputation: 34509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
The US could enter agreements, however once the NATO legislation is no longer in place, the US would not have the same relationship with European countries.

There would be no commitment for the US to protect Europe, and the US would most likely lose influence in a Europe, that now has to defend itself.

It's also more likely that such a scenario would just play in to the hands of those, who want Europe to develop it's own capabilities, including a nuclear defence, and to expand it's own military alliances and command, and to move away from US influence and US Foreign Policy, which is fairly much French policy.

The loss of the integrated NATO Command System, would have to be replaced by a European one in Brussels, whilst Europe would have to replace numerous NATO functions.

In the UK commands such as the Allied Rapid Response Command based at Imjin Barracks in Gloucester would be lost, as would the NATO Maritime Command at Northwood, as well as other joint NATO units and training cooperation.

In terms of Britain it should be noted that it maintains an important relationship with Europe outside of NATO, especially with the French, through the Lancaster House Treaties, and through other treaties such as the Joint Expeditionary Force, and has also in more recent years participated in the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and European military mobility project.

I would also suggest that many politicians, especially those on the left, would question US bases or the use of facilities that are not related to NATO and a pan European defence, and were not part of an integrated NATO command, but instead only served the US on a country by country basis.

In terms of Spain, you are merely permitted to use Spanish bases, and the bases in Spain are not US bases, and the same is true of the US use of the Naval Air Station Sigonella on Sicily, and I think that would be the arrangement the US would increasingly have with many European countries if it left the NATO Command Structure.

The Spanish or Italians can withdraw use of their bases any time they like, and countries could have a lot more power over the US in this respect without a joint NATO commitment.

As for Kosovo and some East European countries they might be more welcoming in terms of US bases, however that is more to with events in recent decades, and the US does have bases across the world, however that does not mean that Europe would want to replicate the current situation with a country that is no longer part of the NATO Command Structure, which would be ultimately replaced by a joint European one is such circumstances.
Of course, not having the same agreements or relationships doesn't inherently mean better or worse. A non-NATO relationship can be better than a NATO relationship. Or it could be worse. Or it could be no different.

Regardless of whether bases are US bases or not, the point is that the US has access to them and can operate out of there. True, the host nation can always put restrictions, but having base accesses there is important.

Of course, from a regional influence perspective, while Russia is rearing its ugly head (not that it stopped) in Ukraine, the most pressing battles for the US ahead lie in the Pacific and deal with China. On that front, our relationships with nations in that region, to include Japan, are likely more consequential than those in Europe. NATO may be expanding, but Russia's influence is also waning, whereas China's continues to increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top