NATO will shrink




NATO plans to reduce four command bases in Europe, which will leave nearly 5 thousands out of work, North Atlantic Alliance leaders said. At the meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, they discussed how to make the alliance more combat-able in a situation where defense spending is declining and military challenges are increasing.

NATO's presence in Europe will decrease. The number of command structures should be reduced from 11 to 7, and support agencies - from 14 to only three. At the same time, 4900 jobs will be reduced. Land, sea and aviation bases should be reduced from six to three.

According to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, the goal of the changes is that the alliance is "slimmer and more efficient" during budget cuts.

As British Secretary of Defense Liam Fox noted, “you need to cut off some bureaucratic fat from NATO to convince taxpayers that they get good quality for their money.”

The command headquarters will also be reduced, out of three only two will remain - in the Dutch city of Brunsumi and in the Italian Naples, from where the operation is being conducted in Libya.

Afghanistan remains priority

Military cuts will also affect war zones. Present at meetings in Brussels, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried to reassure alliance partners that the planned reduction in the American presence in Afghanistan would not affect the balance of power in this troubled country.

“Even in spite of the fact that the United States will begin withdrawing troops next week, I assured fellow ministers that there will be no exit race on our part. And we expect a similar approach from our allies, ”said Gates.

There are fears that if the withdrawal of their 100-thousandth contingent will begin the United States, the other NATO countries will quickly follow their example. Therefore, Anders Fogh Rasmussen reiterated that NATO will not leave Afghanistan until there is confidence in the completion of the mission.

“We reaffirmed our commitment to Afghanistan. This remains our top operational priority. And together with our partners, we are making significant progress, ”the North Atlantic Alliance leader said.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. datur 11 June 2011 09: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There are fears that if the United States starts withdrawing its 100th contingent, other NATO countries will quickly follow suit. Therefore, Anders Fogh Rasmussen once again emphasized that NATO will not leave Afghanistan until there is confidence in the completion of the mission .------ damn the warriors. Already prepared to ski ski up and at the same time save face. This is in NATO, and in Pindoski!
  2. APASUS
    APASUS 11 June 2011 11: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Mission accomplished - dump heroes !!!!!!
  3. Escander
    Escander 11 June 2011 21: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    --- "NATO will not leave Afghanistan until there is confidence in the completion of the mission."

    In this case, they need a permanent residence permit and the great-grandchildren will complete the mission, if not run wild.
    1. huginn 12 June 2011 21: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Who will stop them from announcing the complete victory of democracy in Afghanistan even tomorrow?
  4. mitrich
    mitrich 12 June 2011 15: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In principle, this news is directly related to the article, funny for military experts, "By 2015, will NATO be able to block a retaliatory nuclear strike by the Russian Federation?"
    Anyone who soberly assesses the situation and potential threats to Russia will say that Europe does not see a military adversary in our country, just as Russia does not see it in Europe. All these "horror stories" about US bases along our borders in Europe are for impressionable ladies and psychopaths. How many troops will be stationed there? It is declared: 5 500. And how much is needed for an attack? Hitler, for example, deployed 190 divisions along the border, not counting the allies. And all of this Euro-missile defense is ridiculous ... The trajectories of our missiles did not even suggest their flight through Europe. There is some kind of game, the meaning of which I personally do not understand yet.
    With Afghanistan, generally funny. When the Americans leave, as announced in 2014, what kind of NATO will remain there? Europe is already slowly escaping from there. At one time in the USSR, the idea (in certain circles) was actively circulated that for control over Afghanistan one more army should be introduced and deployed along the border with Pakistan. But these ones generally protect themselves, practically do not carry out operations, just to dump as soon as possible without losses.
    The news indicates one thing: in Europe they know how to count money, and taxpayers do not intend to spend money on empty threats. Look how Europe rebelled because of the ban on the import of cucumbers into Russia, and yet its market is only 3%. Their cucumbers are more interested than rockets. What a war there is.
  5. datur 12 June 2011 18: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    mitrich, but you're right - cucumber wars are somehow closer to them.
  6. mitrich
    mitrich 12 June 2011 18: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Datur
    I will say more. Then someone wrote that our submarines would destroy some “hunters” immediately upon leaving the bases, and the planes would be driven down on approach. Read and neighing the whole society. A person does not represent either geography or the capabilities of strategic nuclear forces. Submarines are on alert all the time, and no "hunters" can track them in the oceans, and about aircraft in general, they’re fun. Apparently, the one who wrote this thinks that the war, as in the 41st, raised the barrel and bullets up the planes. No, not like that. The "carcass" flew over 2000-3000 km. and launched a rocket. And no air defense can cope with it.
    I’ll write more. Have you ever wondered what kind of air defense the United States itself has? Answer: they don’t have any air defense, some show off. They themselves have no protection, which is why they make this myth about missile defense.
    1. PSih2097 13 June 2011 00: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, you can grow as much as you like, only you know that every exit of our SSBN is monitored and then it is led by “hunters” (multipurpose nuclear submarines - such as Los Angeles, Virginia, Sea Wolf) or do you think they just play hide and seek? And how many of them are left 7 squids, 3 dolphins and one shark with one shaft for the mace?
      Further, our strategists, where do they patrol? And that they are not accompanied by NATO aviation? Find a point on their route to launch missiles.
  7. regulator
    regulator 12 June 2011 23: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    mitrich
    ".. The trajectories of our missiles did not even suggest their flight through Europe. There is some kind of game, the meaning of which I personally do not understand yet."
    The point is, perhaps, in an attempt to integrate into the European defense and military-economic structures, which will provide a defense order and profit. And for decent money you can argue.
  8. figwam 13 June 2011 00: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    People from old memory think that we have hundreds of boats and they are all in the oceans.
    There are several of them so far, or maybe only 5. For routine maintenance and repair 1-2, the remaining 3-4 can go to sea, but will be accompanied for the entire period of sailing before entering the base. They will not be allowed to use their weapons
    Yeah, fools are sitting there and waiting for our TUSHKA to enter the zone of use of its weapons. Our TUs will be covered with cruise missiles, and what will fly will be shot down in the air by fighters.
    As always, people underestimate the enemy, although in all we yield to him.
  9. mitrich
    mitrich 13 June 2011 05: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    PSih2097 FIGS.
    ok guys, let's try to play primer. You, of course, know that the nuclear triad of Russia includes a land, sea and air component.
    Submarines are divided into diesel-electric and nuclear. Both those and those can be carriers of atomic weapons. I, with your permission, will not rummage around in the Wiki now to find out how many submarines we have left, but I think that there are about 30 actually operating units, of which 5-6 are nuclear. We did not have hundreds in the days of the USSR.
    Further, how do you imagine the boat leaving the base on combat duty? In the form of television reports and press releases? No, everything is very quiet and secretive. I realized what you mean by the word "hunters," PSih2097, I'm not so stupid, but how do you imagine this tracking? Our boat goes on a military campaign, and on the way out of the bay it is already being guarded by Los Angeles? Then this is a violation of the border, which can simply be followed by the sinking of an enemy submarine, no one will say a word. Look at the map where Severomorsk, Zapadnaya Litsa or Vilyuchinsk is located on the Pacific Fleet, how many kilometers from the border. In fact, it is like this: a boat came out of the base, dived into the “mother’s mink”, under the ice, for example, and look for it-fistula, no “hunter” will find it. It’s impossible to track all the boats, it’s a bluff. I already wrote once that in the 1980s the Americans lost sight of a whole division of nuclear submarines, which secretly went on a military campaign. Schucher then stood in the Pentagon simply incredible!
    As for airplanes, their task is to launch rockets without entering the enemy’s air defense destruction zone. We are not talking about saving the aircraft and crew after launch. In this sense, it doesn’t matter from which aircraft the missile was launched - from Tu-16 or Tu-160, only one hell.
    Every day and night, hour after hour, in the waters of the ocean, in the air and on the earth, cars fly, fly, crawl, thanks to which you and I sleep peacefully. Just because the Pentagon and Brussels are not fools, the war has still not happened. They understand that a retaliatory strike will be simply terrible in its consequences. I would be glad if at least I convinced you of something.
  10. Oleg
    Oleg 13 June 2011 18: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    mitrich, I’ll fix it a bit: TU-16 is now operated only in China.
    Good aircraft, but ours with KSR-5 and K10 missiles were safely disposed of before 1997;
    Working Tu-160 (with a resource and a trained crew) you have enough fingers on one hand.
    PL - fly to Google Earth over Severodvinsk and the picture of past greatness is interesting and visible.
    NATO must be reduced. As a suggestion, delegate the Minister of Defense to them for accelerated optimization. Then the dream will be stronger with you and me.
  11. mitrich
    mitrich 13 June 2011 19: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    OLEG,
    I'm just an optimist in life. There were worse times, do not you think? I brought the Tu-16 for a red phrase, bearing in mind that for an air missile carrier one hell - it is subsonic or supersonic. After all, the Bears still fly. Although the fact that we have so few 160s is a sad fact (I thought there were more of them).
  12. APASUS 13 June 2011 19: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Is it like - bees versus honey ???
  13. ESCANDER
    ESCANDER 13 June 2011 20: 33 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Oleg

    How many fingers do you have on one hand?
    In fact, the 22nd division has 13 Tu-160 bombers (Blackjack) and 23 Tu-95MS bombers (Bear H). And that 36 (!?).

    PSih2097

    And on which routes, dear, NATO aviation did you think that accompanies our strategists?
    I will say - according to standard and pre-agreed. And there are others (non-standard) in reserve. Is this a revelation for you?
  14. ESCANDER
    ESCANDER 13 June 2011 21: 38 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    To the US air defense missile defense elements (from the video of Russian Robinson helicopter pilots on approach to the US airfield via the English Channel, Discovery Channel 2009).
    - (pilots) Provide a corridor to Russian helicopters.
    - (dispatcher) Corridor to Russian helicopters?
    - (pilots) Yes, the corridor to Russian helicopters.
    - (dispatcher) Corridor to RUSSIAN helicopters ??
    - (pilots) Yes, the corridor to RUSSIAN helicopters !!
    They sat down ...
  15. figwam 13 June 2011 22: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If the enemy has superiority in the sky (and it will be because we have a sufficient number of aircraft) then their F -... will not be missed by any technical specifications.
    I repeat, the long-range aviation base in Engels can be thrown by the Tomogavkas from the Black Sea, they have an ally Georgia there and this will enter the first massive strike of 10000 thousand missiles per day, after which our air defense will be beheaded.
    Quote: ESCANDER
    In fact, the 22nd division has 13 Tu-160 bombers (Blackjack) and 23 Tu-95MS bombers (Bear H). And that 36 (!?).

    Yes, but only a part of these aircraft can be considered serviceable, especially the TU-95, including the need to have trained crews for flights in adverse weather conditions. However, not every aircraft can carry nuclear weapons.
    Quote: ESCANDER
    And on which routes, dear, NATO aviation did you think that accompanies our strategists?
    I will say - according to standard and pre-agreed. And there are others (non-standard) in reserve. Is this a revelation for you?

    The entire flight route of our TU is visible at a glance. our "partners" have a large radar that can see the sky of the entire European part of our country + Avax. Is this a revelation for you?
    Quote: mitrich
    Further, how do you imagine the boat leaving the base on combat duty? In the form of television reports and press releases? No, everything is very quiet and secretive. I realized what you mean by the word "hunters," PSih2097, I'm not so stupid, but how do you imagine this tracking?

    For this, “killer” boats were created and their whole task is to destroy boats with cores. Rockets. They have such a game of “cat and mouse.” To do this, they track the noise of our boats in peacetime, while the number of their submarines exceeds ours, remember the case of Kursk, was it just such a boat that sank our nuclear submarines or do you believe in the official version? And the NATO countries will help, but if something takes off from us, the missile defense system is being built for this.
    Until the last day, NATO will assure us of peaceful cooperation, and then, well, then they will write history and no one will dunk them into the liquid ...
    Quote: mitrich
    I'm just an optimist in life

    But I am a realist, so I have fears that we are not ready for such a conflict yet, then SINEVA flies and there are no boats for it, then Bulova does not fly and the construction of boats is stopped.
    Most of all I want victory over the enemy, once and for all, but for this I need to assemble an army!
    1. ESCANDER
      ESCANDER 14 June 2011 10: 08 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      - “The entire flight route of our TU is visible at a glance. our "partners" have a large radar that can see the sky of the entire European part of our country + Avax. Is this a revelation for you? "

      The backup routes of strategists are not in the European zone (are they fools?).
      And the Avaxes themselves are great targets. They also lead. Another thing is the space group.
      1. ESCANDER
        ESCANDER 14 June 2011 11: 42 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        “Only a fraction of these aircraft can be considered operational.”
        Well do not the death of the slomat? And amers everything and everything is working properly?
        There is the 326th heavy bomber division (Khabarovsk Territory), these are + 40 Tu-95MS units. The 37th Air Army, in addition, includes four heavy bomber divisions with Tu-22M3 bombers (Backfire C).
        There are 76 strategists in service and 90 in storage.

        - "Moreover, not every aircraft can carry nuclear weapons."
        ALL strategists carry X-55 cruise missiles - nuclear (as a variant of non-nuclear - X-555 extended range).