Skip to content

The Bear is Back

This is a guest blog post by Pat Patterson:

While much of the West is hyperventilating over whether they even need NATO the Russians have announced a series of military procurements and strategic plans that will force European governments to confront not only a larger Russian land force but also its promise to construct a deep water navy of at least six carrier battle groups. Simon Tisdall has written an article recommending a "coherent" European defense system in reaction to the realities of this new well-funded Russian strategic plan. Tisdall argues that Europe will be the main loser, rarely mentioning the US at all, if they do not take steps now to confront a problem that might be overwhelming in a decade. Much of his article is based on a much longer report (pdf) by Nick Witney of the European Council on Foreign Relations. But beware the Witney article, or rather report, is over 78 pages and sometimes lapses into defense jargon.

What is unusual is that Witney and Tisdall maintain that the EU and I would assume NATO does not need to increase spending but rather not waste what it does spend. That seems like a good idea but oftentimes armies get what the contractors can build rather than what the military asks for. The onus is placed squarely on the European nations to solve this problem and gain some independence from a reliance on the US to foot the bill. Tisdall does conclude that so far American criticism of the European defense posture has been ".benign" but that might well be due to American disappointment over some nation's skirting of its perceived treaty obligations in Afghanistan and thus a desire not to further roil European sensibilities. However both Tisdall and Witney hint that while the US is still saying pretty please in public its private conversations could become much more forceful and unpalatable.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

Pat Patterson on :

There is a slight mistake in the News Daily link where the writer claims that "...all modern carriers are nuclear powered." When in fact most are either gas turbine or diesel and except for the US most of the world's navies that are planning future aircraft carriers are using gas turbine, a few are diesels and none others to be nuclear. I am assuming that this mistake and a few others are due to a bad translation rather than ignorance.

Marie-Claude on :

the last link doesn't work Well, I think that Russia plays the wise card : the next conflicts will be for the protection of shipping goods. I have been watching a TV report on Gorbatchev last night. In conclusion he was saying that the Russians have no plan to threat or to invade Europe, that Europe and Russia should become a same pole, that there should be and will be 3 main poles : East Asia, (large) Europe and America I tend to agree with him. So, Nato as it was ment, has no future

Pat Patterson on :

Thanks, odd it worked before>

SC on :

And Georgia? I think we've a pretty good idea what Russia's stance is. What will be the stance of countries in Europe or the stance of the EU?

Pat Patterson on :

Prostrate!

SC on :

Well, that's marginally better than bent over, I suppose.

Kevin Sampson on :

Don't miss the comments to Tisdall's article at the Guardian site.

SC on :

Boy howdy! Now that's entertainment! :)

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

Form options