Nato faces 'dim future', warns Pentagon chief

[Bernkastel]

From the Guardian.

The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, has launched a blistering attack on European defence complacency, saying Nato has become a "two-tiered" alliance of those willing to wage war and those only interested in "talking" and peacekeeping.

In his bluntest warning in nearly five years as the Pentagon head under two US presidents, Gates announced that Washington's fading commitment to European security could spell the death of the 60-year-old alliance. In a valedictory speech in Brussels three weeks before retiring, Gates bristled with exasperation and contempt for European defence spending cuts, inefficiencies and botched planning, and read the riot act to an elite European audience.

Nato faced a "dim, if not dismal" future, consigned to "collective military irrelevance", Gates said, warning for the first time that the organisation was living on borrowed time and that a new young generation of US leaders could abandon the key pillar of transatlantic security, established in 1949. "If current trends in the decline of European defence capabilities are not halted and reversed, future US political leaders – those for whom the cold war was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost," he said.

He attacked Europe's conduct of the bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, told the Europeans to forget any notions of pulling their troops out of Afghanistan in a piecemeal manner, and said the big new factor raising questions about Nato's survival was the "political and economic environment in the United States".

"The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country," Gates said of the Anglo-French led campaign in Libya. Yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the US, once more, to make up the difference." The US share of Nato military spending had soared to 75%, much more than during the cold war heyday when Washington maintained hundreds of thousands of US troops across Europe, he said.

He warned that the US taxpayer would not stand for it much longer – the US Congress and "the American body politic writ large" would rebel against spending "increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defence budgets". Nato had degenerated into an alliance "between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of Nato membership but don't want to share the risks and the costs", Gates said.

Noting that he was 20 years older than President Barack Obama, he said Washington's security guarantees to Europe, embodied in the Nato alliance, were fading. His peers' "emotional and historical attachment" to Nato was "ageing out", he said, adding: "You have a lot of new members of Congress who are roughly old enough to be my children or grandchildren. Generational change, economic hardship and European refusal to take responsibility for their own security were all feeding Nato's decline and possible end, he warned.

"The drift of the past 20 years can't continue," Gates said. "In the past, I've worried openly about Nato turning into a two-tiered alliance, between members who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the "hard" combat missions ...

"This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable." In March, all 28 Nato members had voted for the Libya mission, he noted. "Less than half have participated, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," he said. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't. The military capabilities simply aren't there." In a withering attack on the European defence establishment, he blasted allies for slashing defence budgets, but admitted there was little chance of reversing the trend.

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence," he said.

[Bakustra]

Why does NATO still exist, again? What purpose does it have in the modern world? Frankly, if the current trend damages the military-industrial complex, bring on the downfall of NATO! If it could manage to take out the Fourth Branch with it, that would be even better.

[Thanas]

The point of the USA can be pretty much summed up with "We are incensed that Europe leaves us to carry so much of the load, especially when it comes to invading and occupying foreign countries". The position of most of Europe meanwhile is "When did we sign up for an interventionist alliance" and "leave us alone, we do not like guns".

[D.Turtle]

He warned that the US taxpayer would not stand for it much longer – the US Congress and "the American body politic writ large" would rebel against spending "increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defence budgets". Nato had degenerated into an alliance "between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of Nato membership but don't want to share the risks and the costs", Gates said.

What total bullshit. If the US only had to fill the void left by European countries spending less, they could still have a much smaller military budget than they have.

Its the voluntary war in Iraq - and its negative effects on security everywhere else, especially Afghanistan - that caused the military costs of the US to soar.

[Artemas]

Maybe some of Europe is not in favour of "interventionist alliances" given Iraq and Afghanistan, but remember NATO's interventionism started earlier than that, and was actually at the behest of European countries, ie the Balkans.

Furthermore, the recent Libya thing was started by European countries, only with the US providing a stop-gap until other NATO countries could set up. Germany was unique in their reluctance.

[Block]

The point of the USA can be pretty much summed up with "We are incensed that Europe leaves us to carry so much of the load, especially when it comes to invading and occupying foreign countries". The position of most of Europe meanwhile is "When did we sign up for an interventionist alliance" and "leave us alone, we do not like guns".

This is such bullshit. The position of the US is that we don't really gain much of anything from NATO and since we don't consider the Russians to be much of a threat to anyone anymore, why should we participate? In case you didn't read the article, Libyian intervention was a unanimous vote, and was spearheaded by European countries, but the US still had to bear the load of operations for a significant portion of the early fighting, and operations pretty much stalled when we pulled out. Yet over a third of the members, who voted yes to intervention, did nothing. We also shouldered the load in the Balkans, also at the behest of European allies. Western Europe has lived for a long time under the umbrella of NATO, knowing that the US would live up to its end of the bargain if you needed it, and we seem to get a whole lot of scorn heaped on us in return. So I don't think Gates' statement is in any way unfair or unjustified. The mistake that was and is Iraq has nothing to do with this.

[Narkis]

Then dissolve NATO and be done with it. I assure you, Europe will manage just fine without it.

[Block]

Then dissolve NATO and be done with it. I assure you, Europe will manage just fine without it.

I think that is what will happen in the next 10-15 years, and we'll see what comes as a result.

[Thanas]

This is such bullshit. The position of the US is that we don't really gain much of anything from NATO and since we don't consider the Russians to be much of a threat to anyone anymore, why should we participate?

You do not gain much because NATO does not provide the nice reservoir for auxillary troops which the US would very much like to have. The US has tried to retool Nato several times, it has been a failure.

In case you didn't read the article, Libyian intervention was a unanimous vote, and was spearheaded by European countries,

Only because the most powerful European country abstained.

but the US still had to bear the load of operations for a significant portion of the early fighting, and operations pretty much stalled when we pulled out. Yet over a third of the members, who voted yes to intervention, did nothing. We also shouldered the load in the Balkans, also at the behest of European allies.

BS. The majority of the costs and nearly the entire reconstruction/occupation effort was done by European nations.

[Mr Bean]

Then dissolve NATO and be done with it. I assure you, Europe will manage just fine without it.

I think that is what will happen in the next 10-15 years, and we'll see what comes as a result.

Nothing much except a hopefully decrease in American foreign interventionism after all unless this happens....
That's what we wanted you to think!
It can't help but have positive results all around.

[someone_else]

I mean, and now they discover that the US is the only major military power in the NATO?

REALLY?

NATO was made as an anti-Soviet thing, and of course it was more something to align the contries to the US than anything else.

Besides, what would be the threats to Europe anyway? NATO has only acted for stuff that had at most something to do with economic interests. And humanitarian operations like say balkans.

[Artemas]

Well, Eastern Europe still has a vested interest in NATO. Furthermore, as military cut-backs occur in previously interventionist states such as the UK and France, they might very well look to re-engage and bolster NATO. Operation Barras, MONUC, OP Deny Flight, Libya, etc clearly show a need for military force in a combat role, and as Europe, one of the bases for such actions, declines in military terms, multilateral organizations will likely be seen as a convenient method of resource pooling. Especially as European resistance to US-led actions increases. Whether or not the UN fills this void (possible given Ivory Coast), or NATO does (more likely in the short term) is still undecided. NATO has been flailing for a new role ever since the fall of the USSR, though vestiges of this threat exist, and are very real to Eastern Europe. It may be that they can eek out a niche as a military arm for UN or other humanitarian missions, though as it is these military missions have been almost entirely reliant on the military capability of individual states. The rapid response force that NATO is supposed to have might be revitalized and actually put to use. Otherwise, it seems likely that Europe as a whole will increasingly replace their military commitments with human security commitments.

[Mr Bean]

Artemas I'm curious, what are the last vestiges of the threat of the USSR to paraphrase what you said. Not Zombie Lenin surely? So what do you fear in that regard now that the USSR and the threatT-72's storming Fulda Gap has been dead for two decades?

[Artemas]

Eastern Europe still fears Russia, and while imminent invasion is extremely unlikely, those states are also uncomfortable being within a resurgent Russia's Near Abroad. They have a vested interest in the maintenance of NATO, to say otherwise is ignorant.

[Block]

BS. The majority of the costs and nearly the entire reconstruction/occupation effort was done by European nations.

Most of the fighting and military costs were born by the US.

As for the most powerful European nation, economically sure, but that's not that important in cases like this, is it?

[Simon_Jester]

I am not qualified to judge which of the European nations have the most powerful militaries for a given purpose, and when it comes to the future of NATO, as opposed to the future of the EU, military power is definitely a big factor.

What would make the German military "most powerful" within the European NATO members? What missions would it be well suited for? How are its stockpiles of munitions; would it be able to fight an extended war in support of other NATO allies effectively?

[Coop D'etat]

I mean, and now they discover that the US is the only major military power in the NATO?

REALLY?

NATO was made as an anti-Soviet thing, and of course it was more something to align the contries to the US than anything else.

Besides, what would be the threats to Europe anyway? NATO has only acted for stuff that had at most something to do with economic interests. And humanitarian operations like say balkans.

Define major military power. In terms of ability to project force France and Britain would both be at least top 5 in the world. Only the United States would be able to do better and if being as capable as the United States is the standard them everyone else should go home right now. In power projection ability the entire world together doesn't match the United States with their 11 carrier groups, large expeditionary army and massive air force.

The days of any major power being able to easily cross a sea to kick someones ass while maintaining a largely peacetime economy are over. Only the Americans can do that now.

[MarshalPurnell]

I think it's reasonable to say that NATO does not serve an existential purpose anymore, the way it did during the Cold War. Europe can do without American armies and an American nuclear umbrella. That is not say that there will not be sacrifices.

Russia will have a much stronger hand in its near-abroad, seriously damaging the interests of countries like Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania. Germany is likely to become more and more economically dependent on Russian gas supplies, so one might see a decoupling of Eastern Europe from the orbit of Western Europe as the Germans fail to support the former Warsaw Pact nations against Russian pressure. Europe will have less influence on the United States and be less able to get the Americans to address issues of concern to them, and it frankly won't be able at all to play any serious role outside of its own continent. France possesses the military power, diplomatic position, and national will to play a role in Africa and to meddle around elsewhere (to drum up orders for their industries as much as anything) but the rest of Europe is demilitarizing and does not have a collective will to act like a Superpower or even a Great Power. As the balance of power shifts to the Pacific and Asia, Europe will have even less ability to exert a significant influence on the direction of the world.

America loses, too, but there are offsetting factors and the potential for other opportunities. Having Europe militarily dependent on the United States to exercise armed force means the US has outsized influence on the diplomacy of Europe. NATO assures the United States a leadership role in the Western World, and the tacit acceptance of that role by Europe buttresses its perceived power elsewhere. It helps provide a means to check the power of Russia, a potential if definitely fading rival for superpower status, and provides the US with well-stocked, long-established bases to project power into the Middle East and Africa with. Disbanding NATO would be a serious blow to American prestige, strengthen Russia considerably, and would result in a period of strategic dislocation. That said, the US can easily find replacement bases in the Middle East itself, insuring the economically vital stability of oil supplies; a task necessary to Europe as well but which Europe free-rides on the back of American diplomacy and military might. Europe does not even come close to paying a fair share of the alliance's military budget (and never has, not even at the height of the Soviet threat) and has proven to be of limited use providing auxiliary formations for American aims, even in their own backyard of the Balkans. A strategic refocus could also see the shift of American attention and assets to the Pacific and Asia, where they are needed to reassure critical allies in the face of rising Chinese power.

And since Asia is where the destiny of the 21st century will be decided, and no power can seriously subsume Europe, it might even be an entirely desirable outcome on the balance.

[Thanas]

Most of the fighting and military costs were born by the US.

Source? Because the US surely did not pay for the several-year long occupation etc.

As for the most powerful European nation, economically sure, but that's not that important in cases like this, is it?

Of course it is. You can see it by how desperately the USA is currently trying to have Germany share in the costs for the Libyan intervention etc.

What would make the German military "most powerful" within the European NATO members?

The military? Certainly not, I think we are probably second or third in Europe, depending on how high you rate the heer (My guess would be third though). I was talking more with regards to overall influence and economic power.

What missions would it be well suited for?

Currently? Very few, I would guess. Sea Skimmer probably can elaborate more, but right now the military is stuck in transition to a more interventionalist force but also faces budget cuts etc. Meanwhile, our Navy seems to be especially good at crashing our own ships or failing to do quality checks, so that the propellors on our new corvettes, frigates and destroyers (officially we have no destroyers, but our largest frigates are probably more destroyers than frigates) do not fall off (yes, that happened). All in all though I would rate the Navy as the most capable of our forces right now if you do not count the few thousand men we can support abroad.

How are its stockpiles of munitions; would it be able to fight an extended war in support of other NATO allies effectively?

As to the first, no idea as the Bundeswehr does not release much of that information and to the second, that would depend on the war. The Russian tank hordes arriving at the doorstep would probably still be the "best" scenario, but that is about it.

Russia will have a much stronger hand in its near-abroad, seriously damaging the interests of countries like Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania. Germany is likely to become more and more economically dependent on Russian gas supplies, so one might see a decoupling of Eastern Europe from the orbit of Western Europe as the Germans fail to support the former Warsaw Pact nations against Russian pressure.

Hahaha. But no. Everytime the Russians have tried to seriously move against them, we helped the Eastern Europeans.

but the rest of Europe is demilitarizing and does not have a collective will to act like a Superpower or even a Great Power.

What are, in your opinion, the ways to act for a Great Power?

Europe does not even come close to paying a fair share of the alliance's military budget (and never has, not even at the height of the Soviet threat)

I would be interested in sources for that.

and has proven to be of limited use providing auxiliary formations for American aims, even in their own backyard of the Balkans.

I dispute that, seeing as to how the Americans had little to do with the following occupation once the bombing had stopped. Besides sheltering Mladic, that is.

[Artemas]

Besides sheltering Mladic, that is.

I beg your pardon?

[Thanas]

Spiegel.

In her book "Peace and Punishment," Florence Hartmann, Del Ponte's former spokeswoman, described the frustration of the prosecutors in The Hague in 2006 when they discovered why their cooperation with the CIA had proved so fruitless for years: The CIA agents stationed in Serbia since 2002 routinely sent information about Mladic's hideaways to their headquarters in the US. There the reports were sanitized and only those that supported the claim that Mladic wasn't in Serbia were passed on to the War Crimes Tribunal. Because Hartmann had used confidential documents from the Tribunal in writing her book and revealed classified information, she was fined €7,000 ($10,250) last month.

The American ambivalence over Mladic remains something of a mystery. William Stuebner, the former deputy mission chief of the OSCE in Bosnia-Herzegovina who also acted as the middle-man between the UN tribunal and NATO-led forces in Bosnia, says Mladic lived in the American sector of Bosnia for at least 18 months after charges had been filed against him. When the Americans finally decided to search Mladic's underground command center in the Bosnian town of Han Pijesak, they not only announced their arrival in advance but also agreed not to enter certain parts of the complex.

[Artemas]

Britain and France were just as much parties as the US.

Also, here you go:

http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/20 ... unishment/

He says some strange things, also some interesting ones.

[Thanas]

That is a good read, though he is of course wrong about the Bosnian Serbs being controlled from Belgrade - Mladics own writings show the very close relationship.

[Artemas]

just to add an interview with hartmann

Start: But what are the deeper reasons why the two were not arrested?

Hartmann: I will briefly state what I have explained in my book at greater length: the reasons for the non-arrest of Karadzic and Mladic are to be found in the decisions of 1995. At that time, the great powers decided to sacrifice Srebrenica and Zepa for the sake of peace, and in so doing they created the conditions which led to a massacre that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice have both termed genocide. It is clear to everyone, here and in the world at large, that it is terrible and unacceptable that the great powers should be doing all they can to hide this.

Holbrooke himself said on Bosnian television in November 2005 that ten years before he had been instructed by his government to sacrifice Srebrenice and the other eastern enclaves for peace. He subsequently denied his own statement, even though it exists on tape. It is also a fact that the earlier peace plan, which the French and German foreign ministers Alain Juppé and Klaus Kinkel had proposed at the end of 1994, had envisaged Srebrenica, Zepa and Gorazde being retained as part of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But Milosevic would not have this. And in the spring of 1995, while negotiating the terms of the new plan that would be unveiled in Dayton, he planned to attack Srebrenica and Zepa with his army and its subsidiary in Bosnia , under the command of the Army of Yugoslavia and General Mladic. The great powers did not prevent this, claiming that Mladic’s men - in fact the united Serbian and Bosnian Serb police and military forces - had no intention of taking the enclaves. After the fall of Srebrenica, the great powers took no adequate measures to protect the population of Srebrenica, although everyone knew that these people were in grave danger. At that time Mladic was being investigated by The Hague for crimes committed during the previous three years. He stated on several occasions that he would revenge himself on the enclave, because he had failed to take it in 1993. In other words, the crimes were foreseen. After all, General Phillipe Morillon and other international witnesses confirmed this in their testimonies given to the court in The Hague. The same is true of General Wesley Clark, who stated that Milosevic knew in advance that there would be a massacre. Soon after the event, the great powers took measures to prevent a similar massacre in Zepa. In November 1995, when everyone knew of the terrible fate that had befallen the men of Srebrenica, Srebrenica and Zepa were handed over to Milosevic, although the great powers knew of his involvement in the killings. This is why France, Great Britain and the United States were unwilling to have the tribunal establish a link between Milosevic and the massacre in Srebrenica.

http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com ... ocide.html

she accuses the west of purposefully sacrificing srebrinica and zepa for a faster end to the war, and their sloth in capturing karadzic and mladic is sort-of part of a coverup to hide this

[Thanas]

I don't know if I would go that far, but at least her factual record on the CIA reports etc. seem to be correct.