Since he started work as NATO secretary-general almost two years ago, Mark Rutte has spent much of his time trying to keep the United States anchored to the world’s biggest military alliance.
Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There’s a gap in AWACS and similar as well, but it’s closing.
In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.
The problem is that it doesn’t make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don’t have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you’re going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?
Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There’s a gap in AWACS and similar as well, but it’s closing.
In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.
There are gaps, but those gaps can be fixed. There’s a reason Saab are getting so many orders for GlobalEye.
The problem is that it doesn’t make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don’t have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you’re going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?