Military Review

Nato something to do. North Atlantic Alliance entangled in internal contradictions

51
Nato something to do. North Atlantic Alliance entangled in internal contradictionsThe NATO summit at the level of heads of defense ministries, which opened on the eve in Brussels, is taking place in an atmosphere of systemic crisis. And the cause of heated debate this time is not Russia, but Germany. What members of the alliance did not share, tried to find out the newspaper VIEW.


“This cooperation is bigger today than ever. We have made significant progress in fighting terrorism and supporting the Afghan army, ”said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, speaking of cooperation with the Russian Federation. An amazing thing. Despite the fact that Russia's relations with the North Atlantic alliance in recent years can be described as cool at best, the summit was not debated around Russia at all. Much more claims from the alliance formed to Germany.

Money

Military budgets, perhaps, the main reason for the current strife in NATO. The problem is not new: since the beginning of the new century, the defense expenditures of the majority of European bloc members have declined by an average of 15%. There was a trend even before Europe suffered from the international financial crisis, and after the crisis it became clear that there was simply no extra money. They are not even in the stable economies of France and Germany, not to mention the countries that are very close to bankruptcy (starting with Greece, ending with Portugal).

Obviously, if someone is underpaid, the other begins to overpay. This “other” is the United States, whose share in total military spending has increased from 63% to 72%. Since there is no extra money in Washington either, the Barack Obama administration has set itself the goal of making the largest partners in Europe publicly declare that their expenses for the alliance will be increased. It is not the first year that the Secretary General of the Alliance Anders Fogh Rasmussen appeals to the conscience of Europeans. “If current trends in defense spending continue, it will limit the practical ability of European NATO countries to work together with their North American allies. But it would also risk losing the political support of our alliance in the United States, ”he warned the Europeans last year.

Analysts predicted a real quarrel between the US Congress and Brussels, expecting that American parliamentarians could artificially squeeze cash flow from Washington, but the Congress was distracted by health care reform and national budget disputes, so disassembly with Brussels was temporarily postponed. On the other hand, the desire to pay no longer arose among the Europeans, on the contrary, they even plan to save on the funds that will be released after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The Secretariat strongly opposes these plans. He may succeed in persuading Europe in this matter, but his hopes for increased funding are small, and the block is forced to moderate its appetites. Even with a delay, the new NATO headquarters in Brussels, worth a billion euros, will nevertheless be completed, but the number of the command structure of the unit will be reduced immediately by a third. "We will provide significant savings in the military budget, but the structure as a whole will become more dynamic, adaptive and effective," Rasmussen said he hopes.

Policy

The problem of increased US participation in the supply of the alliance is also aggravated due to political disagreements. Washington reasonably believes that the one who pays the money orders the music in practice turns out differently. For example, in the military operation in Mali, the States were less interested than France, for example, but it turned out that it was impossible to do without technical and infrastructural support from the United States. Even the ability of France to independently conduct air combat operations without the assistance of alliance partners raises questions.

On the other hand, many European countries were not eager to get involved in the Syrian conflict, which caused additional irritation from Washington. Largely due to Russia's diplomatic efforts, the war was averted, and Rasmussen recently admitted that "there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." But the sediment remained.

Another political disagreement is connected with the European missile defense system. In Brussels, they have already confirmed that by 2018, "this system will fully protect the population of Europe and the NATO countries," while Moscow is promised "active participation." “We are ready to answer all the questions Russia may have,” Rasmussen swore, adding that it was planned to develop two missile defense centers - the Russian and NATO, which “could exchange information, engage in joint exercises, analyze external threats.” The Russian side, seeing in the implementation of this program a threat to its own security, such compromises still do not fully satisfy, but it should be borne in mind that behind such a compromise are long disputes within the alliance. The United States, Turkey and a number of Eastern European countries have long offered to give up on Russian claims, focusing on technical issues, but Paris, Berlin and Rome have consistently introduced the Russian factor into the agenda, not wanting to enter a phase of acute diplomatic confrontation with Moscow.

At the same time, France makes it clear that in the single European missile defense system, she sees no less than an attempt on her sovereignty, and this issue has not been finally resolved. The vagaries of the French in NATO has long been the talk of the town. Wanting to maintain independence, with de Gaulle, Paris had already left the military structures of NATO, but returned with Sarkozy. And now Turkey, which has a completely different approach, for example, to cooperate with Israel - an important partner of NATO, as well as with Cyprus, whose interests the island-state partners in the European Union have to take into account, is muddying the water.

Reform

Back in May last year, at a summit in Chicago, the concept of reforms in the alliance was put forward, which were called both “breakthrough”, and “large-scale,” and even “historical". But now European analysts (primarily Germans) testify that things did not go beyond conversations. The reform is not just stalling, but shelved.

The reforms concerned the same thing - money, more precisely, cost optimization. It was decided to compensate for the lack of funds by improving the coordination within the alliance, as well as through the cooperation of NATO structures with the structures of the European Union. The states that are both there and there, it seems, would undertake to improve their military potential privately, after which it would co-optise NATO potential through close interaction between members, primarily in technical and innovation issues.

Primitive this venture can be described as follows. In peacetime, country X has two squadron aircraft carriers, and country Y has none. However, the military countries of Y have a comprehensive understanding of the potential of these aircraft carriers, know how to use them and, in the event of a military situation, know how to handle them. Thus, “if tomorrow is a war,” country X and country Y will each have one squadron aircraft carrier. The military-technical potential for the period of hostilities is simply shared.

However, the coordination of defense projects remained on paper, despite all the efforts of Germany, which was the main driver of the reform.

Blocks in block

Berlin’s offerings go even further. For better coordination within the alliance, the Germans propose to divide it into several groups with one of the key players as a conditional leader. If now 28 states are formally equal, then Berlin assumes that in each group a detachment leader should appear (something similar was already practiced by the bloc as part of military operations, for example, in Afghanistan). According to the Germans, within the framework of such “blocks inside the bloc” it will be much more convenient to achieve the desired one — the interaction of the armed forces, close military-technical cooperation (up to the creation of holdings through the military-industrial complex), military potential cooperation, in general, everything described above. .

The proposal was greeted with hostility by the French, who were experiencing, again, their sovereignty. At the same time, Germany was hinted that it was to someone, but not to put forward such proposals (especially since Berlin clearly wants to head one of these groups). The fact is that any military operation of the Bundeswehr must be approved by the country's parliament. Thus, there is always a risk that the decision will not be made promptly or not at all. Concerns about this point were expressed by both the United States and the United Kingdom, which generally supported the initiative of Berlin. A number of other countries, for example Spain and Slovakia, took the side of Paris, which is the leader of the “contra” group. This opposition from the French in the German media was called the "fundamental opposition."

Berlin was reminded in this regard by the UN Security Council’s vote on military intervention in the conflict in Libya, when the FRG abstained, and the frank reluctance of the Germans to get involved in the Syrian conflict. Angela Merkel, however, is difficult to condemn: the prospects for intervention in the Syrian civil war were discussed shortly before the elections to the Bundestag, and opinion polls unanimously stated that Germans more than anyone in Central and Western Europe oppose participation in the military operation to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, and no chemical weapon they are not persuasive.

By the way, the participation of the Bundestag in making military decisions complicates the situation also due to the fact that the future ruling coalition in the Federal Republic of Germany, apparently, will consist of conservative Merkel and their eternal opponents - Social Democrats from the SPD, who came to the finish line second . This means that the left will receive in the government a substantial number of seats, including, as is usually the case, the chair of the Foreign Ministry. At the same time, the socialists, unlike the conservatives, are far less compliant on issues of military intervention in the affairs of third countries. That is, a significant part of the ruling parliamentary coalition, on which the government relies, will consist of pacifists.

All this visibly spoils the mood of the Minister of Defense of Germany, Thomas de Mezier, who, due to coalition negotiations, was forced to miss the first day of the summit in Brussels, thereby hoisting the trump card into the hands of his French opponents. But Thomas de Maiziere, according to numerous rumors, planned not only to lobby for this reform, but also to fight for the post of NATO Secretary General. Rasmussen’s powers expire next year.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. a52333
    a52333 26 October 2013 08: 40
    32
    From and nice. It is necessary to gradually pull the Germans to themselves. There is mutual understanding, little by little to myself
    1. Letterksi
      Letterksi 26 October 2013 10: 27
      13
      Are there still Germans in Germany?
      1. a52333
        a52333 26 October 2013 11: 55
        +9
        +80 000 000
        The country has 6,75 million foreign citizens, most of whom are foreign workers. Of them:
        3.260 million - Turkish citizens (almost a third of the total and about 4% of the population);
        930 thousand - citizens of the republics of the former Yugoslavia;
        1.100 million - Russians;
        300 thousand - citizens of Ukraine [5].
      2. wow
        wow 26 October 2013 20: 47
        +2
        Like a couple of people left, Angela Markel, Helmut Kol again ...!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 26 October 2013 08: 43
    40
    The friendship of the Germans with the Russians is a nightmare of the Anglo-Saxons
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 26 October 2013 16: 29
      14
      Quote: ivshubarin
      The friendship of the Germans with the Russians is a nightmare of the Anglo-Saxons

      Like friendship with China
      1. poquello
        poquello 26 October 2013 18: 16
        +2
        Quote: Onyx
        Quote: ivshubarin
        The friendship of the Germans with the Russians is a nightmare of the Anglo-Saxons

        Like friendship with China

        Yeah, waiting for the continuation of the news about the irons
        "Petersburg electronics sellers in a hurry canceled contracts with Chinese suppliers after discovering a batch of" spies "- irons, teapots and phones capable of sending viruses and spam over Wi-Fi."
        http://www.vz.ru/news/2013/10/26/656816.html
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 27 October 2013 02: 09
          +2
          Quote: poquello
          Quote: Onyx
          Quote: ivshubarin
          The friendship of the Germans with the Russians is a nightmare of the Anglo-Saxons

          Like friendship with China

          Yeah, waiting for the continuation of the news about the irons
          "Petersburg electronics sellers in a hurry canceled contracts with Chinese suppliers after discovering a batch of" spies "- irons, teapots and phones capable of sending viruses and spam over Wi-Fi."
          http://www.vz.ru/news/2013/10/26/656816.html



          If you start selling foil caps, they would be in good demand laughing
          1. poquello
            poquello 27 October 2013 14: 11
            +1
            Quote: cdrt

            If you start selling foil caps, they would be in good demand laughing


            But not on April 1 today, I look forward to continuing, the rally is not a rally.
    2. Abracadabra
      Abracadabra 26 October 2013 16: 46
      -18 qualifying.
      Friendship with the Russians yes, but not with Putin.
      1. poquello
        poquello 26 October 2013 18: 23
        10
        Quote: Abra Kadabra
        Friendship with the Russians yes, but not with Putin.

        Putin's rating look, minuses to you and without me piss
        1. alone
          alone 26 October 2013 18: 43
          +2
          North Alliance entangled in internal contradictions



          ))) Well, a demon with them. laughing
      2. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 26 October 2013 20: 01
        +4
        Quote: Abra Kadabra
        Friendship with Russians yes, but not with Putin

        It is such a hunch that some Australian or Middle Eastern aborigine wrote these words.
        1. poquello
          poquello 26 October 2013 20: 43
          +6
          Quote: Hedgehog
          Quote: Abra Kadabra
          Friendship with Russians yes, but not with Putin

          It is such a hunch that some Australian or Middle Eastern aborigine wrote these words.

          Why an aborigine, senator McCain level opinion. What bourgeois propaganda does to people.
          1. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak 27 October 2013 10: 13
            +3
            Quote: poquello
            What bourgeois propaganda does to people

            There are suspicions that this is a little man who once lived in the USSR and tells everyone how they weren’t hired for 5 points, how they were shot and other abominations with them, and after that they shot everything in Hollywood movies and received Oscars. am
            1. poquello
              poquello 27 October 2013 13: 37
              +2
              Quote: Hedgehog
              Quote: poquello
              What bourgeois propaganda does to people

              There are suspicions that this is a little man who once lived in the USSR and tells everyone how they weren’t hired for 5 points, how they were shot and other abominations with them, and after that they shot everything in Hollywood movies and received Oscars. am

              Ooh, you don’t know what tales our prostitutes tell the bourgeois there - the more pity the story, the more bourgeois pay business.
              1. Ezhaak
                Ezhaak 27 October 2013 15: 38
                +2
                Quote: poquello
                Ooh, you don’t know what tales our prostitutes tell the bourgeois there

                And it is true! In the same company, they never traveled with the bourgeoisie. Therefore, I have never heard. It is enough that in the movies of Hollywood show. And in them, the consultants, most likely, the residents of Brighton work tirelessly. lol
      3. DmitriRazumov
        DmitriRazumov 27 October 2013 14: 48
        +1
        Quote: Abra Kadabra
        Friendship with the Russians yes, but not with Putin.

        Only thanks to the GDP personally, the most powerful private-state concern of Germany, Siemens is still alive. Putin’s direct patronage allows not-so-advanced Siemens technologies to extract billions of euros in profit from the Russian economy ...
        1. poquello
          poquello 27 October 2013 20: 56
          +1
          Quote: DmitriRazumov
          Quote: Abra Kadabra
          Friendship with the Russians yes, but not with Putin.

          Only thanks to the GDP personally, the most powerful private-state concern of Germany, Siemens is still alive. Putin’s direct patronage allows not-so-advanced Siemens technologies to extract billions of euros in profit from the Russian economy ...

          I don’t agree about the lack of advanced technology and protection of Putin, but I agree about billions of euros in Russia, because it is one of the most popular brands.
  3. Sashkessss
    Sashkessss 26 October 2013 08: 49
    +6
    Clowning in one word. Finally turned on their logs in the eyes, if I may say so. And why is Ukraine so torn there ...
    1. yurii p
      yurii p 26 October 2013 10: 13
      +7
      "And why is Ukraine so eager to go there .." ---- for lack of strength and will, to cling to the powers that be, as is done by different sixes, yapping when the owner's command "fas" follows, or the role of political pro ... satisfies this country.
    2. Basarev
      Basarev 26 October 2013 10: 20
      +5
      Ukrainian officials do not understand that they will simply make a cash cow from Ukraine in the European Union and NATO. And no Leopards
    3. Yazov
      Yazov 26 October 2013 16: 02
      +3
      Ukraine is torn there (in NATO) because of the Crimea. Give not hotz.
  4. os9165
    os9165 26 October 2013 08: 56
    +5
    Friendship with the Germans is good, but first you need to deal with your military alliance. At least with Ukraine and Belarus and Kazakhstan.
  5. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 26 October 2013 08: 57
    +4
    But Russia does not need allies, they are always thrown at a difficult moment and we are fighting for their selfish interests.
  6. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 26 October 2013 09: 00
    +6
    As Alexander the third said, our ally, the Army and Navy
    1. 31231
      31231 26 October 2013 09: 54
      +5
      The DPRK also has the allies of the Army and Navy, only life from this is not easier. The USSR, with its odiousness, had many allies. So any ally is expensive.
      1. ivshubarin
        ivshubarin 26 October 2013 10: 38
        +4
        DPRK under the wing of China
        1. ivshubarin
          ivshubarin 26 October 2013 11: 02
          +4
          08.08.08g the allies did not support us, but asked for some kind of guarantee
          1. 31231
            31231 26 October 2013 11: 43
            +5
            And that on 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX we needed allies ?! Like, how did NATO allies offend the Serbs ?! Do you suppose we were supposed to act? Sakashvil was a monster like Hitler ?! Rather, South Ossetia and Abkhazia needed a serious ally. As the saying goes, "size matters".
  7. fisherman
    fisherman 26 October 2013 09: 13
    +2
    Do you need to do something? Let him ask Shoigu, he knows for sure.
  8. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 26 October 2013 09: 25
    13
    The Germans are our potential allies .. (they beat each other's muzzles and very brutally ..) It's like guys mutuzat each other to bloody snot and then friends do not spill water .. We are almost a "kindred" people .. We have learned a lot from them .. Bismarck (a normal guy) advised to be friends with the Russians (honestly) .. Didn't believe twice checked .. wassat
    1. Jack122
      Jack122 26 October 2013 11: 46
      +7
      Bismarck was a Russophobe, and it was not about friendship, but about maintaining relations with Asian barbarians, who, in a different, unfriendly situation, would lather the Germans ass.
    2. Altona
      Altona 26 October 2013 16: 52
      +6
      It may not be allies in the full sense of the word, but it’s definitely interesting, we have a potentially huge market for cars and unfinished infrastructure ... This is on the surface, and in the future, scientific affairs, pharmaceuticals, and all that, high-tech ...
  9. Arkan
    Arkan 26 October 2013 09: 31
    +6
    The article is good, clearly showing the centers of power in the alliance. The Germans are pragmatists.
  10. pensioner
    pensioner 26 October 2013 09: 46
    +3
    I’m wondering: how do they give orders if several countries are involved in any operation at once? what It’s crazy to translate from English into all other languages ​​... Yes, you need to translate it correctly.
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN 26 October 2013 10: 21
      +6
      Russian obscenities ... (everyone immediately understands him ..) wassat
    2. Egoza
      Egoza 26 October 2013 21: 00
      +1
      Quote: retired
      But how do they give orders if several countries are involved in any operation at once?

      Well, they conduct English courses! Although with the current education .... we are better. laughing But for them too. Indeed, in case of failure, all the arrows will translate into translators! lol
      1. Draz
        Draz 28 October 2013 12: 53
        0
        The NATO headquarters are mainly Germans, which is in 1985, and in 2013.
        NATO doesn’t take part in Afghanistan at all, our command staff came to them, to the question of how often they receive reports, they didn’t come up with anything better than to bring in some kind of woman who would give me all the questions laughing
  11. 31231
    31231 26 October 2013 09: 54
    +7
    The article is written correctly. Nice to read.
  12. Bober
    Bober 26 October 2013 10: 33
    +3
    New NATO Headquarters in Brussels

    I would take it off. How many rooms, is there a bathroom? Although due to the fact that there is no money, the apartment is apparently of a poor layout.
    “We are ready to answer all the questions that may arise in Russia,” Rasmussen swore

    Fuck, I swear by my mom ..... Misty as always.
    For better coordination within the alliance, the Germans suggest dividing it into several groups with one of the key players as a conditional leader.

    And here is an interesting suggestion. Swan, Cancer and Pike. Their leaders, their interests and their vulnerabilities. Here a platform unfolds for possible action-talk from our side.
    1. kaktus
      kaktus 26 October 2013 15: 42
      +4
      I can offer NATO my Khrushchev. House after major repairs, near school, kindergarten .... fellow and neighbors will be interested smile
  13. Migari
    Migari 26 October 2013 11: 41
    +3
    The wider the bloc is becoming, the more disagreements become, the squabble has begun, and NATO finances are singing romances, Georgia and Ukraine must be accepted urgently, but they don’t have any money, but they have wine and fat.
    1. Altona
      Altona 26 October 2013 14: 27
      +8
      Wine and fat in the war is no less significant thing than a machine gun and ammunition ... But besides the Germans, NATO practically does not know about it ... laughing
  14. Serebryakov. 75
    Serebryakov. 75 26 October 2013 12: 03
    +5
    Systemic crisis? I agree. It is necessary to use the opportunity, V.V.P in practice proved the ability to brilliantly using multi-moves that can and should be achieved in defending their interests, in Syria, for example. France, Germany "is also an option" what
  15. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 26 October 2013 12: 10
    +2
    With the collapse of the USSR, NATO was no longer relevant, it was imprisoned for this confrontation. Therefore, in the Falklands, the Britons fought alone
  16. Janis SU
    Janis SU 26 October 2013 12: 45
    15
    Many in the NATO countries themselves are well aware that this is essentially an organization created to influence and control the Americans of the European continent. This puppet gang-watering can give us only one single benefit - the favor of our puppeteer. Let's say these are the rules of the game by which we must play. Most of NATO’s operations around the world are spreading the influence of the States, destroying and punishing them with disobedient, that is, uncontrolled, and also through the participation of their nationalist amusing armed formations, serving American economic interests around the globe. It is clear that our helmsmen overseas need us more to legitimize and justify their adventures, and not as a real force, but at least with a black sheep and wool. This gives us that they don’t devour us, don’t pour in funds for the internal opposition, do not overthrow our prominent figures, do not crush them into smaller pieces, do not wage a propaganda war against us, despite all the nonsense that we proclaim (especially against Russia or the USSR) in every possible way encourage, direct and point orders. Yes, this is total dependence and absolute subordination, but Latvia has the whole history of this. Unless with the exception of the times of the USSR, where much was done for the republic really for free and almost to the detriment of the metropolis itself - the RSFSR. But that is a completely different story ...
  17. Altona
    Altona 26 October 2013 13: 01
    +8
    Germany prefers economic expansion and does not see much sense in the military, because the fruits of participation in military campaigns go to a more powerful ally (USA) or partners who were previously present on the territory of the invasion as a metropolis under the colonial system (Great Britain, France) ... Germany the costs of foreign policy image and unnecessary expenses, which Germany would gladly send to other goals ...
  18. individual
    individual 26 October 2013 14: 12
    +3
    The Pentagon’s goals in Europe are eroded by the growing concern of the hegemony of Germany and France, as the author correctly said:"creating blocks in a block".
    In counteracting outside Europe in the Asia-Pacific region, where China is gaining strength, Washington is not able to rely on NATO, and Japan their ally itself is waiting for help and hopes for the United States.
    So, the geopolitical discord of the "States" is in the interests of Russia and it is a sin not to use it to offer Europe, and then the rest of the world, its vision of a solution to interstate security.
    There is an example to solve the Syrian problem and it needs to be developed.
  19. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 26 October 2013 15: 39
    +4
    The economic crisis hurts NATO structures. Under these conditions, each member of the alliance is feverishly looking for ways to optimize defense spending. And no shouts from across the ocean will force the block members to fork out big. So that the contradictions are escalating and this is not bad, for Russia. Your interests (missile defense issues) need to be protected.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 26 October 2013 21: 07
      +1
      Quote: Ivanovich47
      The economic crisis hurts NATO structures.

      It’s beating, it’s beating, but in Romania they’ve gathered a missile defense system.
  20. kmike
    kmike 26 October 2013 16: 00
    +3
    I think the mistake crept into the title: "Something NATO to do. The North Atlantic alliance got entangled in internal contradictions."
  21. negeroi
    negeroi 26 October 2013 17: 56
    +1
    How confused it is, it will be unraveled. They have enough fools and thieves. But like ours, they don’t have absolutely nothing, they’re just very few. they’re fighting in such a way that you don’t have to steal. And you rejoice at their contradictions. Yes, there are who and how many contradictions. Not more than that. So they’ll figure it out. And we are not calling anyone here .. they’re not calling. The block is far from decay. Is it worth it to rejoice at the journalistic chatter?
  22. 31231
    31231 26 October 2013 18: 13
    +4
    Quote: Abra Kadabra
    Friendship with the Russians yes, but not with Putin.


    With Gorbachev? wink
  23. poquello
    poquello 26 October 2013 18: 44
    +3
    What do you want from the alliance created to fight communism. Communism is long over, now they are friends against all who are not with them. Those who are not slowly catching up with them that it is time to unite and the final alignment is far from in NATO’s favor. So it comes to more sober countries in the bloc that the alleged wars are not their wars.
  24. Regernets
    Regernets 26 October 2013 20: 55
    +1
    Quote: Onyx
    Quote: ivshubarin
    The friendship of the Germans with the Russians is a nightmare of the Anglo-Saxons

    Like friendship with China

    How afraid they are! Then the Anglo-Saxons will definitely look for "good country houses" and go there for a long, long time =)))
  25. bikoleg
    bikoleg 27 October 2013 01: 08
    0
    Friendship with the n-Anglo-Saxons brings Russia only trouble, and every time we step on this "rake".
  26. Maximus-xnumx
    Maximus-xnumx 27 October 2013 09: 04
    0
    It is obvious that if someone underpays, the other starts to overpay. This “other” is the United States, whose share in total military spending has increased from 63% to 72%. Since there is no extra money in Washington either, the Barack Obama administration has set itself the goal of securing from the largest partners in Europe a public statement that their alliance costs will be increased.
    Money! This is the root of the problem. It can be solved in two ways. 1st option: Decide to whom and how much to pay and the problem is solved. 2nd option: NATO will appear without the United States. A kind of pan-European self-defense forces.
    1. loisop
      loisop 27 October 2013 11: 40
      +2
      Og. Then the Latvian parade will no longer look so pale. Against the background of the Alliance’s much thinner power, the percentage of Latvia’s military presence with its 1 tank will jump sharply! laughing
      Yes, and Estonia, too))
  27. Thirsty for wind
    Thirsty for wind 27 October 2013 17: 32
    0
    You can inflate your cheeks, luck.
    Only now I cannot understand who will apply for this "need".
    What is there to rob? Rags?
    The guard at the toilet.
  28. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 28 October 2013 09: 12
    +1
    Nato something to do. North Atlantic Alliance entangled in internal contradictions

    I'm sorry, what? Dissolve. As having lost the military-political need back in the 90s because it was created to withstand the social camp. And exhausted and impotent in the independent solution of geopolitical problems at the present time.