Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Let's get to the NATO summit which wrapped up in Chicago as you well know yesterday amid a lot of protests talking to protest that.
-- but did the NATO summit really achieve anything what is NATO's future does it happen.
Really an idea for where it is going post Cold War is that a Cold War alliance the really has nowhere to go -- -- joining us in the studio is our good friend Christian -- -- -- department's senior advisor and pretty.
-- with DC international advisory -- Christian Jonathan great to be here at the big question first oval before we get to what actually happened yes -- Is NATO -- relevant organization even in this small moral thing.
It's increasingly less relevant I think -- you know last year was supposed to be its finest hour it was Libya war wishes.
Really led by London and Paris the US came in only reluctantly.
And people said this work the war was successful after all but when you dig deeper you see that almost everything required.
The preponderance US assistance whether it was.
Intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance or the actual bombs that were dropped in the -- -- the expeditionary.
Airpower so what you this continues to be a in a a group alliance that is very US focused and very very US dependent in terms of money organization everything's so.
What do we do about that is does it is it good for Ross the United States.
Probably not in the long run you know obviously Central Europe which continue to be very strong allies very pro US allies there.
Very keen that NATO remain.
You know resilience and then -- -- but that's probably not gonna happen if you look at defense budgets they're actually going the wrong direction.
Not just in total dollars in Europe doesn't spend a lot in total dollars but also as a percentage of GDP.
Western Europe really isn't spending much and we create a moral hazard because we're letting them off the hook for not spending enough on defense -- -- Europe a lot safer than it used to be that Russia still next door.
I'm gonna cost you know about a million bucks per the military personnel that we keep abroad places like Stuttgart.
They're not getting paid very much but all of the tale of their cost is very expensive and if you put those people.
Where frankly it matters more -- Middle East tour increasingly in Asia taxpayers would get more bang for their buck.
Now -- there one of the major operations at NATO is currently involved of course is Afghanistan.
And some of those native nations talking about pulling their troops -- rather more quickly.
President Obama would like he -- -- -- NATO's role and the eventual exit from Afghanistan.
At his news conference yesterday in Chicago -- the president.
You can call it the president doesn't wanna told me today.
But anyway he -- -- about ideas that what do you do what that that that was a big part of what they wanted to talk about this -- these past couple days in Chicago.
Do you think they made any progress.
Actually -- a negative progress in the sense the new French prime minister she's -- a French president Holland has actually committed to withdraw French troops a year earlier than scheduled.
Those are coming out and that's not going to be changed it wasn't changed by the NATO summit.
In fact the French president -- president Obama's remarks to the other heads of government he was meeting with the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.
Never a good sign when you get stood up because someone wants to meet with the UN Secretary General instead of the -- the United States.
The big effort in the summit was trying to get people at least to commit to provide money for Afghanistan's army after the tornado fourteen is -- fourteen pullout.
But that really wasn't successful either the US and Afghanistan have decided they need about four billion dollars.
All but 500 million of that per year has to come from someone other than Kabul -- -- Kabul can really afford self seeking for these comparatively wealthy nations to chip in long term -- Afghanistan doesn't you know fall back in the hands of the Taliban or other.
But not a lot of progress on that and and really thinking on Capitol Hill -- that the US is gonna be stuck with the footing that bill as well right at it and there was sort of.
Calculated gamble taken by the president.
In invite seeing the president of Pakistan.
Two talks hoping that baby.
Perhaps by having him that in Chicago with Hamid Karzai as well they might get a broker this deal essentially to reopen supply Iraq's two other NATO troops in -- And it's -- didn't work why don't.
It didn't work well Pakistan is trying you know -- supply routes were shut down there is tension already that they were shut down after an incident last fall where NATO forces killed Pakistani forces.
The NATO says quite unbelievably actually the Pakistan fired first Pakistan denies that.
It's -- Pakistan is is thinking about reopening those the alternative of course is shipping us all through Central Asia either through Russia or through -- trans Caspian route.
Which is more expensive than just doing it through Pakistan.
Pakistan is indicated a willingness wants a lot of money per container and -- -- withdraw begin the withdrawal of US forces you're talking about.
Tens of thousands of containers that need to be moved out either through -- Central Asia we're already paying Pakistan three billion plus a year in aid so it's pretty.
Borderline insulting that they want more on top of that anyway there was -- thinking that a deal would be reached.
Inactive for that reason presidents are -- was brought to Chicago but nothing of the sort happened so it's an unfortunate.
Failure to have break through the right.
One of our viewers writing in here Christian with a question -- you have -- NATO deal with all -- the troubles on its members bold is did you did -- -- Turkey -- With the problems in Georgia and Syria -- beating Greece which you who knows whether that is that it is more economic right now around the military.
But was there any talk about these kind of threats of the natives and -- Not that I know of and then almost certainly not at the head of government level with -- and President Obama and president aired -- one in the Turkey example.
So those could be handled that lower level working group things but often it's that's that's not the type of thing NATO is really concerned itself in the past -- -- sort of coordinating on broader.
National offense and considerations against the fence and then been bigger army and still.
No suggestion whatsoever that NATO is gonna take any kind of military action with regards to Syria.
Now now it's very unlikely you know Russia and China of course got wise to the notion that you can have a humanitarian only military intervention is viewed as a path to a full scale.
Or at least an aviation war there of course not part of NATO but NATO members are worried about this.
And Sarkozy the French president who is really one of the key leaders on -- -- operation he's no longer in office the other leader.
British prime minister Cameron still in office but to having a bit of you know political.
Sort of -- decline in popularity as well.
And build US being somewhat adamant including both parties on Capitol Hill that we not get involved in another.
You know military adventure if you will all right Christian -- -- -- state -- senior advisor principal with DC international advisory thank you very much indeed for being here because it's rather see it.
I just over.
Filter by section