Is NATO a paper tiger?

[Doc Safari]

I have long held the belief that NATO's main deterrent was in the form of a bluff: as long as the enemy believes the alliance can stop an Eastern Bloc invasion, then Soviet/Russian aggression is in check. But could NATO really perform?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-1...us-paper-tiger

The German parliamentary ombudsman charged with overseeing the Bundeswehr says "There are too many things missing". In 2008 the French Army was described as "falling apart". The British Army "can't find enough soldiers". The Italian army is ageing. Poland, one of the cheerleaders for the "Russian threat" meme, finds its army riven over accusations of politicisation. On paper, these five armies claim to have thirteen divisions and thirteen independent brigades. Call it, optimistically, a dozen divisions in all. The US Army (which has its own recruiting difficulties) adds another eleven or so to the list (although much of it is overseas entangled in the metastasising "war on terror"). Let's pretend all the other NATO countries can bring another five divisions to the fight.

So, altogether, bringing everything home from the wars NATO is fighting around the world, under the most optimistic assumptions, assuming that everything is there and working (fewer than half of France's tanks were operational, German painted broomsticks, British recruiting shortfalls), crossing your fingers and hoping, NATO could possibly cobble together two and a half dozen divisions: or one-fifth of the number Germany thought it would need. But, in truth, that number is fantasy: undermanned, under equipped, seldom exercised, no logistics tail, no munitions production backup, no time for a long logistics build up. NATO's armies aren't capable of a major war against a first class enemy. And no better is the principal member: "only five of the US Army’s 15 armoured brigade combat teams are maintained at full readiness levels". A paper tiger.

No wonder NATO prefers to bomb defenceless targets from 15,000 feet. But there too, the record is unimpressive. Consider NATO's last "successful" performance against Libya in 2011. No air defence, no opposition, complete freedom of movement and choice of action; and it took 226 days! Kosovo, a similar air action against a weak opponent, took 79 days. Meanwhile the years roll by in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not, in short, a very efficient military alliance even when it is turned on against more-or-less helpless victims.

What is amusing is that NATO is starting to worry about what it has awoken: "aerial denial zones", British army wiped out in an afternoon, NATO loses quickly in the Baltics, unstoppable carrier-killer missile, "eye-watering" EW capabilities, "black hole" submarines, generational lead in tanks, "devastating" air defence system, "totally outmatched". Russian actions, both diplomatic and military, in Syria gave NATO a taste: the Russian military is far more capable than they imagined. And far better wielded. The phantom conjured up to justify arms sales and NATO expansion now frightens its creators. A particularly striking example comes from General Breedlove, former NATO Supreme Commander who did much to poke Russia: he now fears that a war "would leave Europe helpless, cut off from reinforcements, and at the mercy of the Russian Federation." Not as negligible as they thought.

In other words – and I never tire of quoting him on this – "We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way". NATO has been kiting cheques for years. And rather than soberly examine its bank account, it writes another, listening to the applause in the echo chamber of its mind.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." We can only hope that NATO's coming destruction does not destroy us too.

My take: It appears on the surface it's been over for a long time, and now the enemy is starting to realize it. I think it's time to either overhaul the alliance or leave each country to its own defense. The US, I believe, will be okay. Western Europe not so much.

[HackerF15E]

Based on my experience training and serving with NATO's air component: not very likely.

[Vandal]

Short answer, NATO without the US is nothing. Even then, we are spread so thin right now they might as well be on their own. If the Ruskies came over the border it would be a sh!tshow.

[NYH1]

I think NATO from an organizational stand point is capable of fighting the good fight. I think the question is, does it have the willingness to fight anything but an all invasion by someone.

NYH1.

[BrigandTwoFour]

IMO, there are som individually capable nations as part of the organization, but I don’t Theo k the organization as a whole is very strong. Too much reliance on US nuclear and conventional power has led to reduced spending on military capability. So, while a country can field a select group of well trained and equipped personnel to help in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq, a full total war would be very different.

[sundance435]

The Russian "menace" has always been overstated to a degree. I think the gap between NATO and Russia is closing, though. Fact is, the Russians have some better equipment on paper, but it's never been used in the real world and they can't equip frontline units with enough of it to make a huge difference.

The German military is a joke, France's is stretched to the breaking point just by deploying 5,000 and we have to provide refueling and transport for them, and the UK is in store for some drastic budget cuts on top of the gutting that's already taken place. The Italian military has been completely hollowed out. The only country currently upgrading their military in a meaningful way is Poland, and the Baltics, to the extent they can. The countries that would bear the brunt of the early fighting are in no position to do it.

A few observations:

- The newest Russian tanks (T-12) MAY be better - again, it's only on paper. The newest generation Leopards and M1A2s would still be more than a match for the newest Russian tanks, of which they can't even procure that many. Our tanks still outclass the late T-80s and T-90s (essentially an updated T-72), which is what most of their armor consists of. Our IFVs are superior to anything they can muster.
- Airspace - there's no real contest in terms of aircraft, but the S400, on paper, looks like a credible air denial option. Again, it's only on paper. The Russians are great at propagandizing their equipment - they claim the S400 can detect and kill the F-22, but I have my doubts. Air denial through use of SAMs is the real concern, not air-to-air combat.
- Navy - no contest, "carrier-killer" missiles and all. It's the most neglected branch of the Russian military and I doubt they could muster more than a flotilla at any one time.
- EW is one area that everyone recognizes we have fallen behind in. Many experts believe the Russians have some potentially scary EW capabilities. That's compounded by the fact that our forces are woefully underequipped for EW and counter-EW. Most of our equipment doesn't even have the most basic protection against EW. Since we haven't fought a war where EW played any meaningful role, it's anyone's guess as to what kind of force multiplier that could provide to the Russians.

As far as matching up brigade for brigade, the Russians have a distinct advantage in terms of numbers. If they tried to grab the Baltics tomorrow, they'd be in Tallinn by Wednesday. That said, I still think a full-scale conventional war is unlikely - an unconventional war like the one in Ukraine isn't out of the question, though.

[elephant]

I think it started out as a great idea, to be a deterrent and hopes to prevent another world war by putting many nations on the same side. There were many benefits to joining NATO, the greatest incentive was the small arms package and economic aid.
The military aspect of NATO is great, the political aspect has gotten worse over the years. Case in point, Desert Storm was a NATO operation and just about every NATO member participated in some degree, same with the GWOT. Trump compared NATO to two Giant Great White Sharks in a vast ocean and all the members of NATO were like those little fish that latch on to those great white sharks. The Great Whites were the US and UK and the little fish were countries that didn't pay into NATO. Nobody will ever mess with the little fish as long as they are latched on to the Great Whites. Politically though, I think NATO wants to be much more than NATO, they want to pick and choose leaders for countries, distribute common wealth and be more of a global government.

[SomeOtherGuy]

As of today, yes, it's not much of a deterrent. I think it was decent through c. 1989, and then all of western Europe went "peace dividend" and abandoned their militaries.

The Russian threat has often been exaggerated and probably still is today, but they seem to be making constant progress in un-sexy but militarily important technology such as missiles of all kinds, particularly SAMs and cruise missiles. I'm not sure the US can count on air dominance today, and without air dominance I'm not sure the rest of US military doctrine works well.

There are many examples where the US seems to have a good weapon system, but it's so expensive we can't field a useful number of them: F-22, B-2, F-35, the Seawolf-class submarine (29 planned, 3 built!), the USS Zumwalt destroyer and its class (DDG-1000), the gun projectiles for DDG-1000, etc. Then you have things like the Littoral Combat Ship that appear to be a failure from the beginning. These are all symptoms of a broken, aimless procurement system with no belief in a real threat. From a civilian's perspective the procurement system is 80% corporate welfare and 20% make-work for general officers.

[caporider]

LOL - I did a speech on this exact topic in high school....


In 1982.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Based on my experience training and serving with NATO's air component: not very likely.

So the air component is GTG?

Fulda Gap battle plan is dead. Take the Ukraine and extrapolate it out in that direction and that is what we face. Destabilization of countries and then the Russians come in to protect ethnic Russians.

Where exactly, is the the front line now?

If Poland doesn't have a 2 minute drill program for a Nuke, they are not paying attention.

Frankly, with out the large conscript armies of old, how exactly do you invade Western Europe? Or more precisely, how to you 'hold' it- since I don't even know what 'holding' would look like. Baltics you put in puppet regimes, that's doable. Poland? How in the hell do you 'hold' Poland if you are the Russians?

NATO won its war. It's time for something else. That Trump was ahead on this by calling on the EU to actually start spending money on defense seems lost on most people.