Military Review

Military alliances - an urgent need or a relic of the past

21
Military alliances - an urgent need or a relic of the past

The simple truth "in unity is strength", for sure, was comprehended by the leaders of the first human detachments, who had to lead their fellow tribesmen to battle with their neighbors for better hunting grounds or more comfortable caves. Since then, what kind of associations based on the desire to defeat the enemy did not know those who spent most of their wars in wars stories population of planet Earth. There were a great many of them - from the Anti-Assyrian coalition, military alliances of antiquity and the Middle Ages to the Entente, the Anti-Comintern Pact, and, of course, the Anti-Hitler coalition, memorable to us from school.


Perhaps the most powerful formations of this kind were the North Atlantic Treaty Organization founded in 1949 and the Warsaw Pact Organization, which appeared in 1955, in response to it from the countries of the socialist camp. A real collision of these two blocks in battle, perhaps, would not have left anything alive on our planet, since their confrontation took place already in the era of nuclear weapons, which was available in more than sufficient quantity on both sides.

In 1991, with the death of the USSR, the OVD also ceased to exist. Nevertheless, NATO, despite the seemingly complete, final and irrevocable disappearance of that particular armed force, to protect against which it was created, has not disappeared anywhere. On the contrary, it began to grow. The states occupying the leading positions in it very quickly realized that in addition to the "Soviet threat" in this world, you can usefully fight a lot more with what. For example, with "international terrorism" or simply with objectionable political regimes. However, it was precisely the anti-Russian bias that remained evident.

Today, there are not many international organizations in the world that, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, can be classified as military-political alliances. This, of course, is the North Atlantic Alliance and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which has been its counterweight since 1992. The last thing that would be a sin to conceal is how far from the "Warsaw Pact" that frightened the West. In addition to Russia, the CSTO includes Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. There are many questions about its activities.

There is also ANZUS, a rather strange company made up of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Moreover, the Americans and the New Zealanders are in a long-standing and serious quarrel, so that relations with all the participants, in fact, are supported only by the Australian side. There is also the Defense Community of Five Powers, uniting Great Britain and its four former colonies - all the same Australia with New Zealand, as well as Malaysia and Singapore. The collective security of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) must be ensured by the Northern European Defense League. All the rest is agreements reached "in a narrow circle" between individual countries.

The problem with modern alliances of this kind is that they are political rather than military associations. Today, no one wants to conduct real combat operations in the interests of the allies with the risk of incurring colossal material and human losses. And this is fraught with too much trouble - the "world community" will immediately begin to condemn, "express deep concern", and even introduce various sanctions. And who needs it?

The notorious Article 5 of the NATO Charter, with which the West is so fond of scaring Russia, is in fact nothing more than an extremely general declaration, which, in fact, does not oblige anyone to anything. It is about committing, when attacking one of the members of the Alliance by its allies, actions "which they deem necessary" ... They may even limit themselves to expressing deep condolences - and this will not be a violation of the charter. In practice, this article has never been applied and is unlikely to be applied at least once. Many NATO member states have too different interests today, even directly opposite and mutually exclusive.

So, for example, the "meeting" of the Foreign Ministers of the Alliance countries, which took place just the other day in the online conference mode, boiled down to a very stormy clarification of relations and settlement of mutual accounts between them. The tone was set by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who attended the event, who attacked Turkey with accusations of “defiant behavior” and “provocative actions” that “undermine the unity” of the organization. Ankara remembered everything - from the purchase of the S-400 and offshore drilling in the Mediterranean to the recent events in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias took over from the "senior comrade" and began to demand that the Turkish side, which, in his opinion, "the main troublemaker" in Eurasia and beyond, observe "international law". His Turkish colleague Mevlut Cavusoglu did not hesitate with an answer and gave it, also not at all embarrassed in expressions. He accused Athens of "excessive demands" and "unfounded ambitions", flatly refusing to accept the claims made against his country. In the end, the conference turned into a squabble over the envy of the kitchen of a communal apartment of the past. That's all "unity" ...

Today, great tension persists in Turkey's relations not only with its eternal geopolitical adversary, Greece, but also with other leading NATO members, the United States and France. In the current realities, it is rather problematic to assume that the soldiers of these countries would stand shoulder to shoulder on the battlefield. Yes, they are united by a number of common goals and priorities, but it is somehow not very appropriate to call this company a military alliance. Rather, the North Atlantic Alliance has turned into a gathering of purely ad hoc partners, a kind of "club of interests" where the United States is trying to run everything. An example is, if only, that the Baltic military are sent to Afghanistan and Mali ... It is difficult to say who among ordinary citizens in the same Lithuania and Latvia considers the presence of their soldiers in these countries even as consistent with national interests. A much more obvious explanation is all-round confrontation between Russia and China for the sake of overseas interests.

In such a situation, military alliances today are definitely not an urgent need, but a relic of the past. Adding weight to this thesis is also added by the fact that many "allies" today are forced to keep the borders locked even from each other, and, as you know, the point here is not in the military component.
Author:
Photos used:
photo from NATO official website
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. New Year day
    New Year day 4 December 2020 11: 28
    +6
    Military alliances are necessary, but only when the issue comes down to funding, enthusiasm falls. There is a conflict between desires and the ability to pay for these desires. So it was with the Warsaw Pact, and so now with NATO.
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 4 December 2020 11: 52
      +4
      You have correctly noticed that any military alliance has a financial component. But I would also add a real desire (opportunity) to enter the war on the side of an ally in reality, and not in words and paper.
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 4 December 2020 14: 37
        -1
        Military alliances are an urgent necessity or a relic of the past.

        As long as capitalism exists and the consumer society has not disappeared anywhere, military-political alliances were created by the aggressor, they are created and will be created with the aim of forming buffer PROXY zones for themselves, beloved, from the allied countries in case of their aggressive war against the victim country.
        Responding to them DEFENSIVE UNIONS are also necessary within reason. Buffer zones for STRATEGIC national security TACTICALLY in military science has not yet been canceled.
    2. Civil
      Civil 4 December 2020 12: 31
      0
      1. Having nuclear weapons, you can resist all alone.
      2. Now only economic wars matter.
      3. It is the economic Cold War - 2 that Russia is going with the West.
      4. Turkey is not an example, it arms and supports Ukraine, the Barmaley in Idlib, the anti-Khavtar coalition in Libya, attacked and defeated Russia's ally, Armenia.

      Question. Who wins the economic war with the West?
  2. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 4 December 2020 11: 52
    +1
    A real treaty on mutual military assistance between major players is a signal of the approach of a big war. And it's good that there are no such people yet.
  3. Reviews
    Reviews 4 December 2020 11: 53
    0
    Just think ... Ushakov somehow led the united Russian-Turkish squadron, and then there were partners in the alliance. Well, they will go out, like in the communal apartment from the example, so they will make up again, like the same communal apartment.
  4. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 4 December 2020 11: 58
    +1
    The author would also recall the Anglo-Portuguese union of 1373.

    Of course, NATO is such and such, and a gathering, etc., but the military-political alliances, no matter how, in the author's opinion, they are relics of the past, it is too early to bury.
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 4 December 2020 14: 18
      0
      Quote: A. Privalov
      Of course, NATO is such and such, and a gathering, etc., but the military-political alliances, no matter how, in the author's opinion, they are relics of the past, it is too early to bury.

      I absolutely agree with you! Especially when such military-political alliances under the leadership of the Pentagon / Washington are openly aggressive in nature, like NATO against Russia. The Pentagon's defensive mission for Europe from Russia to NATO does not even smell.
  5. Avior
    Avior 4 December 2020 12: 25
    +4
    Of course, no one has any desire to fight for others.
    especially if with big losses.
    But if we talk about some unions, then they are based on confidence - they will attack a neighbor today, me tomorrow.
    that is, they are not based on an empty agreement, a piece of paper (although there are some), but on some real relationship between an attack on a member of the union and a real interest in helping him, even if it creates problems for you.
  6. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 4 December 2020 12: 27
    +5
    For arms-producing countries, military alliances are very beneficial. For the standards are there and all that. Therefore, the United States in the export of weapons will always be ahead of everyone, as long as there is NATO.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 4 December 2020 13: 23
      0
      Quote: Stirbjorn
      For arms-producing countries, military alliances are very beneficial. For the standards are there and all that. Therefore, the United States in the export of weapons will always be ahead of everyone, as long as there is NATO.

      The USA is ahead of the rest of the world because they print bucks and print as much as they want. In the defense industry and in space, they have so many failed projects and billions of dollars thrown into the wind that any other country on the planet would have gone bankrupt long ago !!! But in the USA it is not the laws of the market that are in effect - but the laws of the puppeteers of the market owners !!!
      1. DAQ
        DAQ 5 December 2020 23: 13
        0
        The USA is ahead of the rest of the world because they print bucks and print as much as they want. In the defense industry and in space, they have so many failed projects and billions of dollars thrown into the wind that any other country on the planet would have gone bankrupt long ago !!! But in the USA it is not the laws of the market that are in effect - but the laws of the puppeteers of the market owners !!


        I will reveal to you a terrible secret.
        Everybody prints money. Central banks are doing this. This is called monetary and monetary policy.
        -The ECB has printed over EUR 2.2 trillion since the beginning of the year. http://www.profinance.ru/news/2020/11/24/c04c-morgan-stanley-tsentrobanki-g4-napechatayut-5-trln-v-blizhajshie-dva-goda.html
        - The Fed has printed over $ 3 trillion since the beginning of the year.
        - The Bank of England has printed 300 billion pounds since the beginning of the year. By the end of the year, the figure will rise to 450 billion.
        - The Central Bank of China has printed more than 30 trillion yuan since the beginning of the year, ($ 4.2 trillion) more than it was printed in the United States. And the yuan did not crack, the muzzle did not crack either. https://www.finanz.ru/novosti/valyuty/kitay-napechataet-30-trillionov-yuaney-iz-za-ugrozy-pervoy-recessii-za-50-let-1029325649
        - The Central Bank of Russia this year has printed about 4.5 trillion rubles. That's almost $ 60 billion. https://www.finanz.ru/novosti/valyuty/rossiya-zapuskaet-stanok-cb-gotov-napechatat-trillion-dlya-byudzheta-1029666297

        They also printed money in Zimbabwe, but this did not help them, the economy was not efficient. In short, you need to type as much as you need to maintain the stability of macroeconomic indicators. If you print a lot, you will get high inflation and devaluation. If you print a little, you will get deflation, stagnation and crisis.

        All Central Banks can print money. Large and stable economies print in trillions without consequences. Others print in smaller volumes.
        Nobody forbids anyone to print.
  7. parusnik
    parusnik 4 December 2020 12: 46
    +2
    "In every crime lies its economic component" (c) and military alliances. We often reproach Bulgaria for not being good at NATO. in the event of a conflict with Turkey, a NATO member .. It is necessary to join, hide behind the same alliance in which Turkey. Or Turkey, creates whatever it wants under the NATO flag, in which case, hoping that "its own" will intercede. With Greece, that's not as it does not work out, they stand up for it more, and there is no reason for Greece to leave NATO, there will be no one to put pressure on Turkey. Plus, the economic component, who is in charge of the union, is adjusted to its military standards, and this is money.
  8. cniza
    cniza 4 December 2020 13: 02
    +1
    In such a situation, military alliances today are definitely not an urgent need, but a relic of the past.


    Some who have settled very well in warm places with good salaries, and there is something to cut, so that they will hold on to this union to the end ...
  9. Sergey39
    Sergey39 4 December 2020 13: 22
    0
    In our time, a military alliance is a form of protectorate.
  10. Doccor18
    Doccor18 4 December 2020 13: 43
    +2
    In such a situation, military alliances today are definitely not an urgent need, but a relic of the past.

    I disagree. A good ally has not interfered with anyone, and in difficult times his help is invaluable. The United States, today, little would shine in Southeast Asia, but there is a whole galaxy of allies: Korea, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia. Therefore, the PRC already has to strain and oppose itself to all these countries, as well as establish ties with the Philippines, Myanmar, Pakistan.
    To create a military alliance is a whole art, which is not given to many.
  11. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 4 December 2020 14: 00
    +1
    Usually, alliances are formed in two conditions - the first is the presence of a pronounced threat incommensurate with the resources of individual parts of the future union (for example, the Triple Alliance, Axis, USSR), the second is the legislative consolidation between several guarantors and buffer-semi-buffer states of a conditionally "equal" agreement on an extended security - which only deepens and formalizes what already exists de facto. As an example - our CSTO, Western agreements with Poland before BB2, modern examples of NATO expansion "to the east."
    Certain cultural "type of alliances" - like the above-described British or Scandinavian - is a more chimerical thing, because cultural closeness between states does not mean at all that the competition between them is stopped or that their foreign policy preferences are identical. Such alliances look quite organic from the outside - but they are extremely unstable and in fact amorphous - we see that the already existing Scandinavian community during WW2 has spread out in its preferences-relationships within the conflict "who goes to the forest, who gets wood", having occupied Norway, "like neutral" Sweden and small fascist Finland. Or, for example, we had a highly praised "Slavic brotherhood" between Ukraine, Blr and Russia, which turned out to be much more fragile and ephemeral than many are still ready to accept. Or take as an example the same Britain - which can hardly be considered a guarantor of something after the belly button was torn at the beginning of BB2, when all these guarantees fell down one after another, and the roof turned out to be leaking. Since then, Britain has not become stronger or more independent - the Falklands War showed that the ability to "project force" was already at its limit, what can we say about now - the crisis, the exit from the EU ..

    NATO is now inflated because in its case the first and second factors coincided - at the time of the formation and strengthening of the alliance there was a pronounced external threat, after the collapse of the USSR, NATO inherited the buffer, which the USSR fostered in every way within the CSTO. This buffer just changed the owner, that's all.
    I doubt the need for alliances in the 21st century. It is very difficult to build an equal union, in an unequal one will be appropriate. unequal relationships, imperfect compromises, etc. That is, vulnerabilities and waste. Large states such as the Russian Federation should rely more on their own forces and territory than on the loyalty of vassals, which is worth nothing in these times.
  12. Unknown
    Unknown 4 December 2020 14: 12
    +1
    So, for example, the "meeting" of the Foreign Ministers of the Alliance countries, which took place just the other day in the online conference mode, boiled down to a very stormy showdown and settlement of mutual accounts between them ........ Not everything is as rosy as the author sees it. In alliances, it is always the strongest country, militarily and economically, it plays the role of the first violin, but the rest as they are able and necessary. For example, the territory of the country makes it possible to be the first to deploy closer to a potential enemy and strike the first powerful surprise strike, securing an advantage. As it was in the recent historical past. When it comes to the war in Russia, the mutual grievances of all countries without exception, for some reason, are quickly forgotten. I don't know why, but this is a historical fact! So it was, and unfortunately it will be. They act as a united front. During the Second World War, Romania, despite claims to Hungary, came forward and went with her in the same ranks to the USSR. There are many historical examples, I will not cite all of them. The author's rosy dreams of Turkey's independent policy in NATO will immediately dissipate as soon as it comes to Russia. They will perform in a united formation. The topic of unions is still relevant.
  13. businessv
    businessv 4 December 2020 20: 43
    0
    In such a situation, military alliances today are definitely not an urgent need, but a relic of the past.
    Alexander, thanks for the article! I think you forgot to mention the amount of funds and people who use these funds together. Of course, it's hard not to agree with the rest!
  14. faterdom
    faterdom 4 December 2020 22: 16
    0
    All these "alliances for centuries", and even for decades - nonsense.
    Even indestructible, eternal, or there, God forbid, brotherly.
    But temporary, situational, when life forces (allies of the Second World War), or when this skill of a certain specific politician is amazingly effective.
    As a master, perhaps unsurpassed, I personally consider Julius Caesar. With the help of a masterful diplomacy, the ability to combine efforts with the leaders he needed, he conquered very vast territories with a small army, inhabited by very warlike and strong tribes. A very far-sighted and was a prudent person. True, Brutus managed to surprise him at last.
  15. Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 7 December 2020 18: 22
    0
    I wonder if someone attacks a NATO member state, they will also figure out whether to fight back?
    For example, will Lithuania or Latvia be attacked?