US versus NATO

[Jarnhamar]

What are the internal security risks in the U.K., Germany, and France?  How do they differ than the U.S.?  How are they more or less than the U.S.

Basically what I said to PPCLI Guy. 

The situation in the US is political with US citizens.  In the other 3 countries I'm thinking the sheer amount of refugees inundating the countries along with aggressive protests seems to me like a bigger security risk if we're talking about the security of the borders.

 

[Infanteer]

Stabbing epidemic in London, child sex gangs in the UK. Various terrorist attacks. Lots of unrest and violent protests across all 3.
Ms13 is apparently branching out quite a few places too.

Is a stabbing epidemic a internal security threat, or a criminal problem?  It is synonymous with the gun violence epidemic in the U.S., so if you're going to label London stabbings as an internal security threat, then so are U.S. shootings.

How is a child sex gang an internal security threat?  Those exist in the U.S. as well.

Lots of unrest and violent protests across all 3?  What was Charlottesville?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is a stabbing epidemic a internal security threat, or a criminal problem?  It is synonymous with the gun violence epidemic in the U.S., so if you're going to label London stabbings as an internal security threat, then so are U.S. shootings.

How is a child sex gang an internal security threat?  Those exist in the U.S. as well.

Lots of unrest and violent protests across all 3?  What was Charlottesville?

PPCLI Guy asked "Are they also being over-run by murders, rapists and MS13?" so I responded yes and gave what I thought were good examples.

Stabbings in London. Child sex stuff in the UK. I left out the high sexual assault rates across a lot of Europe including countries like Germany where the police are getting caught hiding sexual assault cases. Not to mention more terrorist attacks in those countries drawing more resources.

As for Charlottesville I'd argue that's more of a case of people vs people and less about people vs the government.

 

[Infanteer]

Am I wrong to think that internal security problems in Germany UK and France pose a bigger threat to the spirit of NATO than in the US?

Basically what I said to PPCLI Guy. 

The situation in the US is political with US citizens.  In the other 3 countries I'm thinking the sheer amount of refugees inundating the countries along with aggressive protests seems to me like a bigger security risk if we're talking about the security of the borders.

If the situation in the US is political with US citizens, then why does the current administration put so much political capital into Central American migrants?

As for refugees, are they really an internal security threat?  Where is the data to back this up?  How can the "sheer number" of refugees be a problem for France who took just a 25,000 more than the U.S., or the U.K., who actually took less than the U.S.?

To your first question, Europe's political issues surrounding migrants and refugees seem to track in domestic issues and outward into E.U. concerns.  I've never heard of the refugee/migrant issue as a threat to the "spirit of NATO" - it actually appears that European countries are working together on dealing with it through both the E.U. and NATO.

When the largest ally in the organization goes to social media to complain about the alliance being "obsolete" and "worse than NAFTA," and than proceeds to embarass the next two biggest allies in public before taking off for a one-on-one meeting with the primary security concern in Eastern Europe, I'd argue that yes, the current U.S. administration poses a "bigger threat to the spirit of NATO" than the the ill-defined "internal security problems" (whatever those actually may be).  The President's view that alliances are bad for the U.S. is well known.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If the situation in the US is political with US citizens, then why does the current administration put so much political capital into Central American migrants?

No idea.

As for refugees, are they really an internal security threat?  Where is the data to back this up?

Speculation. 
What kind of damage could you do if you got thousands of refugees primed and riled up? Weaponized so to speak.
What do you suppose would have happened if it was a prophet Mohamed blimp instead of a Trump blimp flown over London. Do you think the London police could have handled that? I don't.

Basically what I'm suggesting is that there are a lot of refugees in Europe (and those 3 aforementioned countries)  and if they become collectively pissed off enough their numbers could pose a serious security concern. Russia would then theoretically be in a better position to invade with those countries looking inwards. 

But, you mentioned trade is a two way street (agreed) and it doesn't behoove Russia to attack someone they're making so much money from.

SO, if Russia is so un-inclined to invade Europe (which I think they're not inclined to do) then how important IS NATO? And should the US be spending so much money on NATO and Europe's defense if 2018 Russia isn't the threat that 1960 Russia was?


I think the US (1949 to now) used NATO not only to draw a line in the sand against the Russians but to get their hands involved in a hell of a lot of workings of foreign countries. I think just maybe Trump realized this* and doesn't see Russia as poised to take over Europe and wants to reinvest US efforts and material elsewhere. And maybe be just a little less involved in everyone's business.


*I remember near when Trump was first elected he drew some ire for saying "You think our country's so innocent?" when talking about Russia. I found it a very astute point to make.

 

[Infanteer]

Speculation. 
What kind of damage could you do if you got thousands of refugees primed and riled up? Weaponized so to speak.
What do you suppose would have happened if it was a prophet Mohamed blimp instead of a Trump blimp flown over London. Do you think the London police could have handled that? I don't.

You conflate "migrants," "refugees," and "Muslims" in the same though experiment.  Which is it?

As for speculation, replace "Muslim refugees" with "African Americans."  Look at Ferguson for a real, as opposed to speculative, case study.  Add the fact that Russian actors target African Americans online to stoke racial tensions and you really have to wonder who would be more vulnerable to social disorder.

What I'm getting at goes to your original question/point - I don't believe the U.K., France, or Germany have any reason to be more or less fearful or concerned than the U.S. about ethnic tensions in their countries.

SO, if Russia is so un-inclined to invade Europe (which I think they're not inclined to do) then how important IS NATO? And should the US be spending so much money on NATO and Europe's defense if 2018 Russia isn't the threat that 1960 Russia was?

The concern isn't with an invasion of France, or Germany, or Poland.  The concern is for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, who've already experienced other forms of hostility from Russian actors.  The fear in Europe is that if NATO was apatheic, or riven by division, then it'd do nothing if "little green men" cross into the Baltic states.

Are sanctions as effective if not backstopped by a U.S.-led NATO?  Nobody has to really discuss nuclear deterrence when NATO's conventional deterrence is as strong as it is (relative to Russia).  But what if that calculus changes?  Are Russian calculations on NATO deterrent efforts in the Baltics different if the US is not involved in NATO?

I think, if you answer those questions, some intrinsic value to NATO may become apparent.

 

[tomahawk6]

Since this is hypothetical I will posit that the zombie threat is not to be overlooked. ;D

 

[Remius]

Since this is hypothetical I will posit that the zombie threat is not to be overlooked. ;D

Need those shovel truncheons from WWZ.  The book not the garbage movie...

 

[GR66]

I think Infanteer makes some excellent points.

I'm in total agreement with those that contend that the threat to NATO is not Russian invasion and occupation of the Western European heartland.  I don't believe that Russia has either the military capability or the political desire to do that.  The numbers don't support it (population, relative overall forces, geographical area, etc.) and the existence of a nuclear deterrent make the fears of 1949 very different than the fears of 2018. 

That being said, there certainly are military threats on the periphery of Europe and of NATO itself.  While Russia may not be a military threat to NATO as a whole, it certainly has the ability to generate local superiority of forces in order to obtain limited military objectives.  Eastern Ukraine, the Baltic States, Georgia, the Balkans, Hungary, Syria, Iran, the "Stans", etc. are all potential targets for limited political/hybrid/military action.  A weakened NATO with an isolationist United States not present to provide a strong military backbone is a gift for Russia in this sense.

We may complain that the massive US post-war military has lead to American military adventurism and meddling in the affairs of other states, but also remember that it is that same massive US military that acts as a bulwark against the expansionist plans of illiberal powers such as Russia and China. 

Many on here have argued that we (the West) already have enough military power to stop a Russian invasion of Europe and that 2% of GDP is a completely arbitrary number for defence spending targets and I totally agree.  However, I'd ask those people to tell me if NATO has the right type of forces available to respond to a sudden Russian annexation of the Donbass, or intervention on behalf of Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Estonia or Latvia, etc.

2% of GDP may be a completely arbitrary number as a measure of defence spending, but what other measure would you use instead?  2% doesn't speak to overall effectiveness, but with that level of funding you'd hope at least that a nation would be able to provide some type of effective military contribution. 

We may not need to literally defend Europe at this point (at least in the sense that it was seen when NATO was founded in 1949), but there are certainly still threats to the liberalism on which Western society relies which do require the ability to muster strong military responses to the threats that we face.  I strongly disagree with Donald Trump on most thing, but in this one particular area I think he is right...the rest of NATO has been shirking its responsibilities and needs to carry more of the military burden.

:2c:

 

[tomahawk6]

Would the US actually use nukes to save Europe ? One reason for US troops in Poland to act as a trip wire. Our real deterrant were neutron weapons which went away.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You conflate "migrants," "refugees," and "Muslims" in the same though experiment.  Which is it?

Lets rip a page out of the EU's book and call them Asian or people of North African descent.

As for speculation, replace "Muslim refugees" with "African Americans."  Look at Ferguson for a real, as opposed to speculative, case study.  Add the fact that Russian actors target African Americans online to stoke racial tensions and you really have to wonder who would be more vulnerable to social disorder.[/qupte]

So Russians are getting African Americans riled up on Tumblr? I believe it, smart move. If we're being honest, African American males count for the majority of murder statistics (murdered and murdering) in the US as well as majority of incarcerated persons. It seems logical they would be a target of Russia if they wanted to sow discord. I can easily seem them doing the same with Asians and North African refugees et el in the US or especially Europe. Again, can you imagine the fall out of a prophet Mohamed blimp in London? Ouch.

What I'm getting at goes to your original question/point - I don't believe the U.K., France, or Germany have any reason to be more or less fearful or concerned than the U.S. about ethnic tensions in their countries.

Okay. I still think the sheer number of refugees in those countries pose a security risk. I don't believe the US has concentrations of refugee camps like places like Calais does. And the problem isn't solely refugees but also nationals who are fed up, legitimately or not, with refugees. Both IMO can be weaponized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS8PqMUMOrg
British truck drivers want army protection after migrant attacks.

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAuOmOT1Ak

The concern isn't with an invasion of France, or Germany, or Poland.  The concern is for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, who've already experienced other forms of hostility from Russian actors.  The fear in Europe is that if NATO was apatheic, or riven by division, then it'd do nothing if "little green men" cross into the Baltic states.

Yea, Russia is fucking with us for sure along that front. GPS spoofing, cell phone text hijacking. Are we actually concerned that Russia is going to roll across into Latvia or are they just being dicks?

Are sanctions as effective if not backstopped by a U.S.-led NATO?  Nobody has to really discuss nuclear deterrence when NATO's conventional deterrence is as strong as it is (relative to Russia).  But what if that calculus changes?  Are Russian calculations on NATO deterrent efforts in the Baltics different if the US is not involved in NATO?

The US sold uranium to Rosatom, the same company that provides energy to Germany. I feel like if they were that much of a threat the US wouldn't have been selling them uranium.

I think, if you answer those questions, some intrinsic value to NATO may become apparent.

I'm as much a koolaid drinker as the next grunt but when it seemed more and more like Turkey, a NATO country, was buying and dealing with oil with ISIS I lost a bit of faith. Not to mention the US secretary of state admitted to knowing the weapons the US was selling Saudi Arabia was finding it's way into ISIS hands. NATO seems more of a business than line of defense.

 

[Infanteer]

Yea, Russia is ******* with us for sure along that front. GPS spoofing, cell phone text hijacking. Are we actually concerned that Russia is going to roll across into Latvia or are they just being dicks?

Replace "Latvia" in your question with "Eastern Ukraine" and ask yourself the question in 2014.

Estonia sure isn't taking chances.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Are they also being over-run by murders, rapists and MS13?

Maybe not MS-13...........yet.

 

[Infanteer]

:boring:

Are we seriously putting a street gang from a country of 6 million people with less members than the Crips or Bloods at the top of the security threat pyramid?

 

[Journeyman]

When the largest ally in the organization goes to social media to complain about the alliance being "obsolete" and "worse than NAFTA," and than proceeds to embarass the next two biggest allies in public before taking off for a one-on-one meeting with the primary security concern in Eastern Europe, I'd argue that yes, the current U.S. administration poses a "bigger threat to the spirit of NATO" than the ill-defined "internal security problems" (whatever those actually may be).  The President's view that alliances are bad for the U.S. is well known.

I just wanted to repeat this so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle;  again, can't wait to see what gets tweeted out of Helsinki regarding NATO and/or Baltic security concerns.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Replace "Latvia" in your question with "Eastern Ukraine" and ask yourself the question in 2014.

Estonia sure isn't taking chances.

I was doing some reading and thinking about it and I see your point. Previously I thought they justified what they're doing with Ukraine because it had closer ties with Russia and if I'm not mistaken some R&D sites but it seems like Estonia and Latvia could very well face the same situation.

So chances of Germany and France being invaded aren't high but those smaller countries seems like a definite possibility,  or even a chunk of them grabbed since there's "Russians living there" .

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was doing some reading and thinking about it and I see your point. Previously I thought they justified what they're doing with Ukraine because it had closer ties with Russia and if I'm not mistaken some R&D sites but it seems like Estonia and Latvia could very well face the same situation.

So chances of Germany and France being invaded aren't high but those smaller countries seems like a definite possibility,  or even a chunk of them grabbed since there's "Russians living there" .

Nazi Germany used similar excuses to unite all 'ethnic Germans' under one Reich: the Third...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Germanic_Reich

This pan-Germanic Empire was expected to assimilate practically all of Germanic Europe into an enormously expanded Reich. Territorially speaking, this encompassed the already-enlarged German Reich itself (consisting of pre-1938 Germany proper, Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy, Memel, Lower Styria, Upper Carniola, Southern Carinthia and German-occupied Poland), the Netherlands, the Flemish part of Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, at least the German-speaking parts of Switzerland and Liechtenstein.[5]

 

[dapaterson]

Those who do not learn the past are doomed to repeat it.

Those who do learn the past are doomed to watch others repeat it.

 

[Altair]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-interview-cbs-news-european-union-is-a-foe-ahead-of-putin-meeting-in-helsinki-jeff-glor/

In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to identify his "biggest foe globally right now."

"Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. Russia is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn't mean they are bad. It doesn't mean anything. It means that they are competitive," Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland.

Nice to see america has its adversaries in the proper order.

Foes,  canada, Mexico,  and the EU

Lesser foes, china. NK

Friends,  russia.

 

[Infanteer]

Nothing really wrong with what the President said there.  The E.U. is an economic competitor, along with China.