Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
dochawk2 wrote:Self-explanatory. November 22, 2020 United States has removed itself from the open skies treaty which began in 1992.
UpNAWAy wrote:BTW this treaty allows Russia to spy on everyone, Europeans to spy on each other and no one really gets to spy on Russia. Typical Euro weak diplomacy.
Flaps wrote:This treaty had long outlived its usefulness anyway. The Europeans can always seek a new treaty of their own with Russia should they feel the need. A treaty is only a treaty so long as both sides are observing it.
The real world repercussions are limited but the message is clear. "I have something to hide and I do not trust you, so consider yourself an enemy and expect to be treated as such."
Is this how you treat allies? Or is it not much more a signal that the US would rather disband said alliance and focus on new friends?
Aptivaboy wrote:The NATO agreements state that a certain amount of each member country's GDP must be spend on defense, however,.
zanl188 wrote:Open Skies has always been problematic since neither Russia or the US actually needs the imagery collected by these aircraft.
Has technical capability of allied countries changed enough that Open Skies is no longer required?
a) nonsense, the 2% of GDP are a non-binding *future* goal for 2024, not a "must* and not now
b) its "defense", not "military" spending, what countries consider defense spending is up to them, not to NATO nor the US president
Aptivaboy wrote:Actually, its NATO itself that internally self-determines who is and who isn't meeting that 2%. NATO itself released a report on or about October 20th, 2020, outlining the GDP contributions of each member nation. Apologies, but it seems to be NATO that itself determines this, and it was NATO itself that stated that countries like Germany weren't adhering to the 2%. The US Government and others can use whatever metric it likes, but when NATO itself calls out its own members... Well, there you have it.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:What a stupid decision.This does nothing but antagonize the other parties.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:The US leadership is free to withdraw from such treaties.
Noray wrote:Let's see...the US bought the Harrier, Minimi, LAV, Norwegian NSM, offers coproduction on most fighters, the new FREMM/FFGx. Most new weapons systems are too costly to be paid for by only 1-2 countries. That's the reason that most EU countries with shipbuilding capacity are trying to get foreign orders--BAe, Navantia, Fincantieri, NG, etc.It also shows that the US is an outlier with almost 4%, twice the target, and defence expenditures 2,5 times higher than all of the 28 other countries combined! And I think that's part of the problem. The US defence behemoth wants to be fed and asks for contributions from abroad. With the US dominating the military hardware sector, other countries hardly have a chance to develop efficient defence industries. It would be easier to reach a more balanced situation if the US were more open for procurement of military hardware from abroad. But of course that's easier said than done, because everyone wants their own tax money to be spent at home.
Noray wrote:Aptivaboy wrote:Actually, its NATO itself that internally self-determines who is and who isn't meeting that 2%. NATO itself released a report on or about October 20th, 2020, outlining the GDP contributions of each member nation. Apologies, but it seems to be NATO that itself determines this, and it was NATO itself that stated that countries like Germany weren't adhering to the 2%. The US Government and others can use whatever metric it likes, but when NATO itself calls out its own members... Well, there you have it.
Here's the latest NATO report. It shows that many nations have come a lot closer to the 2% target in 2020 than they were in 2014, and some have even surpassed it since then. (Germany: 1.19% in 2014, 1.57% in 2020).
Aptivaboy wrote:a) nonsense, the 2% of GDP are a non-binding *future* goal for 2024, not a "must* and not now
If not now, then when? The 2% agreement/goal/benchmark whatever you choose to call it was agreed upon in 2006. .
Here's the latest NATO report. It shows that many nations have come a lot closer to the 2% target in 2020 than they were in 2014, and some have even surpassed it since then. (Germany: 1.19% in 2014, 1.57% in 2020).
It also shows that the US is an outlier with almost 4%, twice the target, and defence expenditures 2,5 times higher than all of the 28 other countries combined!
Senate must approve treaties but lameduck presidents can withdraw? Interesting.
Aptivaboy wrote:provided by the US taxpayer.
Aptivaboy wrote:Senate must approve treaties but lameduck presidents can withdraw? Interesting.
No, not really. The Obama Administration agreed to certain treaties and accords,..., without actually obtaining Senate approval. Therefore, the USA wasn't really a '"true" signatory.
mxaxai wrote:Aptivaboy wrote:Senate must approve treaties but lameduck presidents can withdraw? Interesting.
No, not really. The Obama Administration agreed to certain treaties and accords,..., without actually obtaining Senate approval. Therefore, the USA wasn't really a '"true" signatory.
Except that the Open Skies Treaty, which we are discussing here, was approved by the senate in 1993 after president George H. W. Bush signed it in 1989, and they haven't revoked their support ever since.
tommy1808 wrote:It isn't just Russia. The world is a very small place today. If we only worried about our next door neighbors, the US wouldn't have to have a military. You totally ignored China.Aptivaboy wrote:provided by the US taxpayer.
utter BS. We outspend any conceivable enemy (=Russia) several times over and outgun, outman, outtank, ourfighter, outartillery, outhelicopter, outeverything but nuclear weapons them by factors between three and four.
The US Taxpayer gets a free of charge forward deployment area and battlefield, and even gets parts of it paid by the European taxpayer.
NATO has always been a win-win proposition, with the red army being just a shadow of its former self Russia poses no military thread to anyone beyond the level or Georgia or Ukraine and probably couldn´t even take on Turkey alone....
best regards
Thomas
texl1649 wrote:Rear mounted camera images from an OC-135 probably haven't provided any real intelligence data since at least the early 80's (they use actual film, too, not even digital and VGA monitors). Today, it's laughable these cameras at 30K+ feet would provide any value on a pre-approved flight path.
mxaxai wrote:texl1649 wrote:Rear mounted camera images from an OC-135 probably haven't provided any real intelligence data since at least the early 80's (they use actual film, too, not even digital and VGA monitors). Today, it's laughable these cameras at 30K+ feet would provide any value on a pre-approved flight path.
The original motivation was to provide a legal way to monitor the adherence to other military treaties. You can hide labs underground but you cannot hide tanks, aircraft, missile silos or employee housing, at least not in any significant numbers.
Why does this matter? Because it's literally impossible for third party treaty members to verify the often contradictory claims of other treaty members. Remember the situation in Iran? Israel and the US claimed that Iran enriched more than permitted but they never shared any details. If they had had a way for legal espionage, the US could've simply broadcast their observations to the world and shown them the truth.
Ultimately, it's not a question of technological capability. It's a political sign of mutual trust and support.
johns624 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:It isn't just Russia. The world is a very small place today. If we only worried about our next door neighbors, the US wouldn't have to have a military. You totally ignored China.Aptivaboy wrote:provided by the US taxpayer.
utter BS. We outspend any conceivable enemy (=Russia) several times over and outgun, outman, outtank, ourfighter, outartillery, outhelicopter, outeverything but nuclear weapons them by factors between three and four.
The US Taxpayer gets a free of charge forward deployment area and battlefield, and even gets parts of it paid by the European taxpayer.
NATO has always been a win-win proposition, with the red army being just a shadow of its former self Russia poses no military thread to anyone beyond the level or Georgia or Ukraine and probably couldn´t even take on Turkey alone....
best regards
Thomas
texl1649 wrote:https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu-Irans-decision-to-enrich-uranium-at-Fordow-endangers-the-world-606969
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/05/01/ ... n-on-iran/
The documents don’t necessarily prove that Iran has violated obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (i.e. the Iran nuclear deal) negotiated by the Obama administration.
texl1649 wrote:It's not a question of mutual trust and support at this point, as to the aircraft/military treaty in question, it's a question of why waste money on a useless outdated fleet/mission/treaty?
tommy1808 wrote:You missed both my points. First, I was referring to China as a possible adversary. Second, if you outspend China, you're getting far less bang for the buck than they are.johns624 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:It isn't just Russia. The world is a very small place today. If we only worried about our next door neighbors, the US wouldn't have to have a military. You totally ignored China.
utter BS. We outspend any conceivable enemy (=Russia) several times over and outgun, outman, outtank, ourfighter, outartillery, outhelicopter, outeverything but nuclear weapons them by factors between three and four.
The US Taxpayer gets a free of charge forward deployment area and battlefield, and even gets parts of it paid by the European taxpayer.
NATO has always been a win-win proposition, with the red army being just a shadow of its former self Russia poses no military thread to anyone beyond the level or Georgia or Ukraine and probably couldn´t even take on Turkey alone....
best regards
Thomas
We outspend China too.
Best regards
Thomas
johns624 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:You missed both my points. First, I was referring to China as a possible adversary. Second, if you outspend China, you're getting far less bang for the buck than they are.johns624 wrote:It isn't just Russia. The world is a very small place today. If we only worried about our next door neighbors, the US wouldn't have to have a military. You totally ignored China.
We outspend China too.
Best regards
Thomas
tommy1808 wrote:Then why was NATO formed in the first place? Also, there are other kinds of warfare than land invasions. You don't think that China extending her territorial boundaries and threatening her smaller neighbors has anything at all to do with Germany and the trade it does with those countries?johns624 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:You missed both my points. First, I was referring to China as a possible adversary. Second, if you outspend China, you're getting far less bang for the buck than they are.
We outspend China too.
Best regards
Thomas
How far into Russia do you think China would get before they glass each other over? The idea of nuclear powers seriously threatening the existence of another is ridiculous beyond believe. If anyone gets that suicidal no amount of military spending will do anything about it.
Best regards
Thomas
Aptivaboy wrote:Senate must approve treaties but lameduck presidents can withdraw? Interesting.
No, not really. The Obama Administration agreed to certain treaties and accords, like the Paris Climate Treaty, without actually obtaining Senate approval. Therefore, the USA wasn't really a '"true" signatory. The Obama Administration liked to claim that the USA was, when in reality it wasn't in the true legal sense. The Trump Administration could legally withdraw from any number of agreements that the USA hadn't actually truly entered into constitutionally. Had the Obama Administration actually involved Republicans into negotiations, then it could have secured actual and binding treaty agreements through the Senate. I say this as a non-Trump voter, and as a teacher of Constitutional Law just to head of any partisanship. It was a major failure of the Obama years not to include a layer of bipartisanship as Reagan and even George Bush II did. Most of President Obama's "successes" were in the form of executive orders easily reversed by a succeeding administration, and not based upon actual binding American law.
I actually went to the same college as Obama and actually don't think he was the heretic that many think he was. I actually like many things about the man. However, his lack of bipartisanship doomed many of his policy decisions and goals. That was a conscious choice on his part, in a great many cases.
ssteve wrote:So really we *weren't* party of the treaty in the first place... just playing along to be nice.
johns624 wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Then why was NATO formed in the first place?johns624 wrote:You missed both my points. First, I was referring to China as a possible adversary. Second, if you outspend China, you're getting far less bang for the buck than they are.
How far into Russia do you think China would get before they glass each other over? The idea of nuclear powers seriously threatening the existence of another is ridiculous beyond believe. If anyone gets that suicidal no amount of military spending will do anything about it.
Best regards
Thomas
tommy1808 wrote:See, now you're changing things. You said that one nuclear power wouldn't attack another because it would lead to MAD. Now you say that isn't true. I also like how you completely ignored the last part where I asked about China. You quoted the first part only.
The Red Army was still real and created a wonderful win-win situation: Western Europe could be somewhat confident that putting up resistance would make sense, and the US could be near certain it would not have to defend itself on its own soil against an enemy with tech parity and a three~four times larger workforce a few years after the USSR gobbled up the Rest of Europe.
best regards
Thomas
Russia leaves Open Skies treaty after US' withdrawal
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty last year "significantly upended the balance of interests of signatory states,” adding that Moscow’s proposals to keep the treaty alive after the U.S. exit have been cold-shouldered by Washington’s allies.
Russia Highlights Unresolved Open Skies Issues
Ryabkov specifically pointed to Article IX of the treaty, which stipulates that all information gathered during overflights be made available to any of the states-parties and be used exclusively for achieving the objectives of the treaty. Treaty provisions that restrict the data only to states-parties, Ryabkov argued, should be prioritized.
He said Russia has proposed that U.S. allies express their commitment to uphold the treaty’s provisions through the exchanging of diplomatic notes, but has been “disappointed” in the reaction of other treaty members to this proposal.
mxaxai wrote:Russia pulled out too today:Russia leaves Open Skies treaty after US' withdrawal
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty last year "significantly upended the balance of interests of signatory states,” adding that Moscow’s proposals to keep the treaty alive after the U.S. exit have been cold-shouldered by Washington’s allies.
https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe ... withdrawal
That effectively kills the treaty (since the remaining members have to need to monitor each other).
A primary Russian concern was apparently that the other treaty members might share information with the USA, even after the US left the treaty.Russia Highlights Unresolved Open Skies Issues
Ryabkov specifically pointed to Article IX of the treaty, which stipulates that all information gathered during overflights be made available to any of the states-parties and be used exclusively for achieving the objectives of the treaty. Treaty provisions that restrict the data only to states-parties, Ryabkov argued, should be prioritized.
He said Russia has proposed that U.S. allies express their commitment to uphold the treaty’s provisions through the exchanging of diplomatic notes, but has been “disappointed” in the reaction of other treaty members to this proposal.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-11 ... ies-issues
Aptivaboy wrote:Here's the latest NATO report. It shows that many nations have come a lot closer to the 2% target in 2020 than they were in 2014, and some have even surpassed it since then. (Germany: 1.19% in 2014, 1.57% in 2020).
But, not quite there yet, hmmm?It also shows that the US is an outlier with almost 4%, twice the target, and defence expenditures 2,5 times higher than all of the 28 other countries combined!
The USA has world wide commitments so the comparison is specious, at best. If Europe would like to assume those worldwide commitments, then we'd have something to discuss. Until then, Europe can continue to bask in the safety and security at least partly provided by the US taxpayer, and blithely claim that its paying its way. When Europe has to assume primary responsibilities for containing China, handling the Taliban, and dealing with Russian intransigence, then we can talk. For now, Europe has the benefit of sleeping safely. Until then...
mxaxai wrote:So clearly the US had information beyond what Israel published that made them cancel the deal. Or they acted on inconclusive evidence.
Kiwirob wrote:We're benevolent compared to what China and/or Russia will be in 20 years, if they continue to throw their weight around. If Russia is as benign as so many in the EU claim, I guess there's no real reason for Open Skies, anyways.Aptivaboy wrote:Here's the latest NATO report. It shows that many nations have come a lot closer to the 2% target in 2020 than they were in 2014, and some have even surpassed it since then. (Germany: 1.19% in 2014, 1.57% in 2020).
But, not quite there yet, hmmm?It also shows that the US is an outlier with almost 4%, twice the target, and defence expenditures 2,5 times higher than all of the 28 other countries combined!
The USA has world wide commitments so the comparison is specious, at best. If Europe would like to assume those worldwide commitments, then we'd have something to discuss. Until then, Europe can continue to bask in the safety and security at least partly provided by the US taxpayer, and blithely claim that its paying its way. When Europe has to assume primary responsibilities for containing China, handling the Taliban, and dealing with Russian intransigence, then we can talk. For now, Europe has the benefit of sleeping safely. Until then...
The US isn’t some benevolent being, you only commit if it’s beneficial to you, most of what you’re involved in isn’t beneficial to anyone else, so why should Europe, U.K., Australia or anyone else get involved when there is no benefit to being involved?
johns624 wrote:Kiwirob wrote:We're benevolent compared to what China and/or Russia will be in 20 years, if they continue to throw their weight around. If Russia is as benign as so many in the EU claim, I guess there's no real reason for Open Skies, anyways.Aptivaboy wrote:
But, not quite there yet, hmmm?
The USA has world wide commitments so the comparison is specious, at best. If Europe would like to assume those worldwide commitments, then we'd have something to discuss. Until then, Europe can continue to bask in the safety and security at least partly provided by the US taxpayer, and blithely claim that its paying its way. When Europe has to assume primary responsibilities for containing China, handling the Taliban, and dealing with Russian intransigence, then we can talk. For now, Europe has the benefit of sleeping safely. Until then...
The US isn’t some benevolent being, you only commit if it’s beneficial to you, most of what you’re involved in isn’t beneficial to anyone else, so why should Europe, U.K., Australia or anyone else get involved when there is no benefit to being involved?