AUKUS

[Skybird]

^ NATO with or NATO without the US and UK...?

The issue is money, and numbers of platforms.
Also, differences in national mentalities. Just compare the public's attitude towards the military in the US, and in Germany. Black and White. Applaus there, ignoring the army, if not even looking down on it here.

German fighters mostly are grounded, due to technical reasons. Those that could fly, do not all fly , because of squadrons being unable to crew them all: not enough pilots. And the pilots that do fly, due to financial restrictions cannot log as many training hours in mid-air as they should, must and need. Thats how it was at least untol three or four years ago.

Attitude: I see as huge lack of warrior mentality and fighting spirit in many European armies, and especially the Germans. This sounds too unreal? No, it has serious consequences. The failing of the Dutch at Srebrenica is an example, I say. Intellectually many excuses have been given why it was "not possible" to stop the Serbs. Another mindset would have fought nevertheless, despite the odds, knpwing that the politcla fallout of a Serbian attack on a NATO contingent could have had devastating consequences for the Serbs - if only the political will would have materialised. Political lacking will also is an issue.

I list three books that together illustrate and paint a picture of what I am after (all titles are Links to click on):
Martin van Creveld: Pussycats. Why the rest keeps beating the West and what can be done about it. 2016
Martin van Creveld: The Culture of War. 2008
John Keegan: A History of Warfare. 1993


And for those being interested in the matter from different approach way: Musashi' Book of Five Rings (Go Rin no Sho).

Its even worse. Not only can we not fight anymore - we do not even see why we should want to be able to fight and defend ourselves.

[mapuc]

I don't know. Remember only that there are politicians here in Denmark and in Sweden who think an EU army would be better and stronger than NATO and USA or just the European part of NATO.

Been thinking when I read this-Could this be the end of NATO ?

Edit
It was due to Trumps saying about NATO who made these politicians to dig up this idea again.
End edit

Markus

[Skybird]

The vaining of Americna interest for NATO and Europe already started visibly under Obama. Many Europoliticians just preferred to pretend that they did not see it. And maybe they didn't, how should I know. I think it was clearly visible.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by UglyMowgli

Watch the latest ABC Insider with Simon Birmingham .


Short term lease of US SSN to train crew

Not any idea about the cost of the new "deal" nor the number of ships or the timeline.





and one more link:
Australia stands up to China – by delaying submarine project for a decade


https://asiapacificdefencereporter.c...-for-a-decade/

Be careful with editorials posing as news.

I can speculate with the best of them, so why not have Australia borrow Akulas and Sierras from Russia? Its already been done by India, Russia is everyone's pal and they need the money.

Or, why not cut out all of the middlemen and have China build the subs? This takes care of the "stronger partnership" angle and brings more stability to the Indo-pacific region. I'm sure China could build a great shipyard in Oz that hires the locals.

[Reece]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

why not cut out all of the middlemen and have China build the subs? This takes care of the "stronger partnership" angle and brings more stability to the Indo-pacific region. I'm sure China could build a great shipyard in Oz that hires the locals.

You slay me!!!
Now wait a minute, that's not a bad idea!!

[Exocet25fr]

https://newsline.news/australian-sub...ove-for-paris/

(we don't need vaseline...)

Froggies don't like roosbeefs, we prefer Snails....

In French Forums majority of people wants to leave nato, and Macron speaks about that, and he thinks about an European Alliance too, but our national powder is like a weathercock and Pinocchio.....Personnaly I will vote for "MARINE" Le Pen

[Skybird]

I had not expected that a German mainstrema national newspapers would slam the French and - quote - "drama queen" Macron so mercilessly over the mess they brought themselves into.

https://translate.google.com/transla.../27627196.html

The choice of roles of a drama queen must alarm Germany. What is the goal - and what are the lessons for the next federal government? Macron demands more European autonomy in contrast to NATO and more support from Berlin for it. But: is that also in the German interest? And how reliable is Paris when the going gets tough?
France was largely responsible for the defeat itself . The provider DCNS has far exceeded the budget for the submarines and did not deliver the agreed project sections on time. Australia wanted to get out a long time ago. In April it had not signed the follow-up agreement.

The defeat is self-inflicted, the anger played

The French have been betting for too long that Australia has no alternative. The Americans and British have so far been unwilling to share their secrets of nuclear submarine propulsion with anyone. This hurdle has been overcome. An alliance of democracies against China's imperial claims in the Indo-Pacific is a priority for Joe Biden and Boris Johnson.
Macron's anger is partly authentic, partly acted. With a view to the election in the spring, it is tricky when jobs in the arms industry are no longer available. The industry plays a bigger role in France than in Germany.
Paris recently lost arms contracts several times for political reasons: helicopter deals with Russia because of the sanctions following the annexation of Crimea and with Poland because the national-populist PiS preferred to negotiate with the USA after its election victory rather than honor the agreements of its predecessors.

Paris fears a coalition left of center in Berlin

The Australian order for diesel submarines came at just the right time. France didn't get it back then because it builds better diesel engines than the duped German competition. But because of the option to switch to nuclear power. Now the USA and Great Britain are winning because they are better there.

With the tough choice of words, Macron is building up pressure to force compensation, for example by involving French shipyards in the new project.

But he also wants concessions from Germany. It is about the global competitiveness of Europe in complex armaments projects. He is annoyed by German going it alone, from the rejection of armed drones to the export guidelines for joint armaments.
Paris also fears that Germany, under a left-of-center coalition, will show even less willingness to strengthen Europe militarily.

[Skybird]

https://translate.google.com/transla.../27623422.html

In contrast to Great Britain, France lacks the option of global power militarily. The European Union is far from being taken seriously in a security partnership beyond its own continent. One can certainly be of the opinion that this is not a goal worth striving for. But then you shouldn't complain when global politics is shaped from a Western perspective without the EU .

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

NATO without the US and without the UK?



Well, at least the Swiss army will be CO2 neutral by 2050, we should bring them in to take the anglosaxons' part. And German pregnant recruits can drive around in the PUMA without needing to fear inhaling aerosols putting their fetus at risk.
I mean we cannot even defend our borders against unarmed mass migration getting pushed in by criminals, Belarus and Turkey. But we think we must choose the Far East Pacific, Afghanistan and Mali as our playfields...?

Seeing is believing. until then, I wait. And I don't hold my breath.

Post of the Year material

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Post of the Year material

When it come to being dumbest, yes

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

When it come to being dumbest, yes

???? Why should Skybirds comment be the dumbest ????

Without USA, NATO in Europe would not have much of a chance if Russia decide to invade Europe.

Markus

[Catfish]

Europe is no unified "state", it is 27 sovereign countries.
If some of those act in Africa, or the middle East, or near China the uproar is big, "how can/should/dare they?!"
On the other hand the same people demand that Europe grows together and takes its future into its own hands.
At the same time denying Europe an own army able to achieve interests.
But saying 24/7 that Europe should have one.
Complaining against everything with the wind changes is not productive.
How about making up your mind? There is no goal or target that can be achieved if Europe goes on like before in this deteriorating transatlantic relationship.

Sykybird can make fun all he wants about lacking the will and tenacity, there are enough people who will do this job, just not possible in the ridiculous environment in which "allies" do not ask other "allies" acting alone without any information beforehand; and then some oh so special ally pretend you can have your cake and eat it. I am still astonished that the UK does not realize how it has been snubbed by the US but hey, special reationship. Keep on dreaming.

re Aukus, papers called a contract about a submarine deal have been signed between Australia and France.
"contract, signed in 2016 with French company DCNS (now known as Naval Group) to build 12 Barracuda submarines for Australia"
What does anyone think what happened in those five years? Does anyone think France gets the money and time back, are those boats in production? What happens to them?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Without USA, NATO in Europe would not have much of a chance if Russia decide to invade Europe.
Markus

Russia cannot afford a war, not now or in the next 20 years.
But theoretically what do you think would have happened in the Trump years IF Russia had taken action against Europe? Let's say just some smaller parts, and waiting again for the next opportunity?
Since Russia and China ARE threats it is indeed high time to do something also in Europe, just NATO will not do.

On the other hand, as posted before, why should Australia not buy or lease russian submarines like India does? Wouldn't THAT be something

[mapuc]

Since the beginning of the 90's Europe has disarmed a lot. In Denmark and in Sweden many airfields have been shut down, harbour been closed, decrease in number of soldiers.

While Russia has, from what I remember, been rearmed it's military since end of the 90's.

Russia is a lot stronger today than it was in the middle of the 90's.

Back to discussing buying subs from USA and not France.

I would if I was from France felt I had been spit on.
But I'm not, so my feelings in this is neutral.

Markus

[Catfish]

So let's make it simple:
If nuclear deterrence does not work because Russia or China can have reasonable doubts if America and the UK would retaliate with a nuclear strike, what is this construction worth for anyway, for Europe?