Military Review

NATO genesis: from a monolithic block to situational coalitions

NATO genesis: from a monolithic block to situational coalitionsThe end of the past and the beginning of the 21st century became a noticeable frontier in the process of transforming the strategic principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which determine its positioning within the international community in the context of globalization. At the same time, relations within the alliance also changed. The combination of these two most important processes leads to changes in the key variables of the transformation of the alliance: its scale and orientation.

During the Cold War, the rigidity of the bipolar system was ensured by the existence of two stable coalitions of a universal nature, which predetermined the relative stability of the strategic installations of the block and its geopolitical code. However, since the beginning of the 90 of the last century, the dynamics of transformation of the alliance received a series of additional impulses, the most significant of which were associated with the expansion of the block and the creation of a network of partnerships, NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, the Iraq war 2003 of the year, and the participation of the alliance in the peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan .

In the framework of this article, I would like to dwell on the processes that cause the growing tendency of the alliance to move from a stable and universal structure, as it was for many decades of its existence, to an organization with a systemically increasing level of fragmentation both inside the unit and in the external sphere of its activity.


Today, in the context of globalization, a previously monolithic alliance is turning into a field for the formation of flexible, situational ad hoc coalitions that are formed for a specific task and each time are temporary, situational. Coalitions are formed both in the course of political discussions in the governing bodies of the bloc, and in the framework of ongoing operations “in the field”. In contrast to the times of the Cold War, each country - a member of the coalition gets additional flexibility in choosing like-minded people in the formation of alternative solutions.

The regulatory framework for creating situational coalitions is only outlined in general in the doctrinal documents of the alliance, and many essential decisions are developed in the process of consultation.

The first signs of NATO's internal fragmentation appeared already at the end of the 90s of the last century. For example, the bombing of Yugoslavia was formally carried out in accordance with a consensus decision adopted by all NATO countries. However, the consensus concerned only the political decision of the alliance on the operation. Questions of the use of military force (the choice of targets and the sequence of their defeat, the forces and means used, the expediency and possible characteristics of a land operation, etc.) were the subject of fierce disputes both during the preparation and during the air offensive operation. In fact, even then, a situational coalition was operating in Yugoslavia. Under the most powerful pressure of the initiative group of countries led by the United States, some NATO member states were forced to withdraw political objections to the operation, while stipulating their non-participation in the bombings. This was, for example, the position of Greece. Along with this, even then, there were those who wished to direct their combat aircraft to the Balkans among the most zealous partner countries from among the countries participating in the former Warsaw Pact (ATS) Organization. In Brussels, they politely refused to assist: they say that serious work is still needed to ensure interoperability.

A powerful impetus to the revision of outdated concepts was given by the war in Iraq in 2003, when many countries of the alliance refused unconditional support to the coalition willing to participate in the adventure. However, the formula of the situational coalition received quite prominent outlines precisely at that time, and today it suits many allies. As a result, NATO is developing a fundamentally new mechanism for coordinating the positions of interested member states of the bloc, as well as many partners and their military-political coordination based on the strategy adopted by the participants and joint efforts in a specific initiative (military, military-technical, scientific project).

The internal fragmentation of the alliance is crucially initiated by the political vectors of NATO development that have emerged today. An analysis of US strategies, dangers, risks, challenges and threats faced by the allies, and the positions of individual member states of the bloc makes it possible to identify at least three political vectors that influence the alliance’s strategy in the medium term and fuel the tendency to create situational coalitions. These are vectors of US political interests, which are most often unconditionally supported by the United Kingdom (Anglo-Saxon group of countries), continental European states (Roman-German group of countries), and also countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.

Anglo-Saxon vector of development. The direction and content of the leading vector of the strategy of the alliance is determined by the interests of the United States. The essence of these interests is to improve the global potential of NATO as a conductor of the interests of the West, and above all of Washington, in the Euro-Atlantic region, in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and in the Asia-Pacific region, in the Arctic .

However, NATO’s readiness and ability to take on the task of turning the alliance into a center of network security cooperation is being questioned by some influential allies.

So far, there is no consensus about the ability of the alliance as a model for ensuring collective security to lead the fight against global threats. The operation in Afghanistan has shown deep differences in the approaches of the coalition member states to the use of force and the participation of national contingents in combat with the enemy. The “erosion” of the foundations of the financial discipline of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is intensifying. Given the budget deficit and the growth of government debt, the United States is not ready to continue to bear the main financial burden in NATO. The American Congress and the political establishment as a whole demonstrate less and less patience when it comes to spending money for the benefit of nations that are obviously not ready to expend their own resources or to make the necessary changes in order to be serious and reliable partners in solving common problems.

In search of a way out of this situation, NATO is betting on deepening partnerships, which are one of the central elements of the alliance’s modern strategy and allow using the potential of non-NATO countries in the interests of the West. It's about human resources, about weapons and about military equipment, about infrastructure, about minerals, about the territory of partner countries.

European (Roman-German) vector of development of the alliance. The position of continually oriented countries of Western Europe, primarily France, Germany, Italy and some others, is having an increasing influence on the internal fragmentation of the alliance. This group of states see the ultimate goal of transforming NATO into a transformation from the current, mainly military, organization into some kind of universal political-military tool to counter threats of a new type (climate change, ecology, drug smuggling, international terrorism, cyber threats and energy security). Many Western Europeans want the development of the bloc not to conflict with the interests of Russia.

Vector of Eastern European and Baltic countries. The states of this group speak of NATO as protection against Russia and insist on extended guarantees of their own security, linking them with the buildup of the military presence of the bloc in the national territories.

Thus, NATO’s strategy is determined by the resultant of the three development vectors for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In this context, the practical steps of the Allies in the implementation of strategic installations will constantly encounter the remaining fundamental differences in the perception of the goals and objectives of the alliance across the ocean and in the Old World.

With all the diversity of the views of NATO member states on the role and place of the alliance in the world, there is no doubt that the allies aspire to secure his place among the leaders of globalization as a military-political alliance, designed to provide power support to the processes of creating and developing a new global world order in the interests of the West.


Globalization as a whole marks a period of qualitative transformations, gradually changing the essence and meaning of the political structure of international relations, causing the appearance of elements of a new world pattern. On the development of NATO, such processes have two effects. On the one hand, interdependence between the member states of the alliance is increasing, partnerships are deepening, relations with other international organizations are being institutionalized, and the global dimension of the bloc is growing.

On the other hand, the tendencies towards regionalization of the interests of the alliance, which are grouped around several strategically important regions, are intensifying. The formation of situational coalitions for action in such areas allows the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to exert a “pinpoint” purposeful influence on the dynamics and content of the processes in them, using for this purpose a wide arsenal of means and methods of hard and soft power. The dispersion of the bloc’s efforts in the external sphere, which accompanies this tendency, is crucially connected with the avalanche-like increase of the strategic alliance coverage of the most important regions of the globe.

At the beginning of the 90 of the last century, the leaders of the alliance quite actively exploited the theme of the coming transformation of the bloc at that time in Western liberal circles: for example, from the military-political into a political-military and almost political organization. In fact, the transformation has been reduced to the expansion of the alliance to the east and the subsequent globalization of the functions of the organization of the North Atlantic Treaty. As a result, NATO has evolved from a Euro-Atlantic to a global organization by acquiring new military-political functions in the Middle and Near East, in Central and Southeast Asia, in the Caucasus and in the Arctic.

Thus, the expansion geography of NATO assumes a marked focal character with coverage of strategic areas of the planet. The similar nature of the development of the alliance creates conditions for the formation of several situational coalitions, the relevance of which is due to the characteristics of the situation and the interests of individual countries of the alliance in a particular area of ​​the world.

As a result of internal and external fragmentation, the alliance ceases to be a classic military alliance. It should be noted that the classic “sharpness” of NATO’s military policy is quite clearly preserved only in one direction - the east. Here we can not talk about the situational coalition. NATO, in full compliance with established stereotypes, continues to view its eastern neighbor - the Russian Federation as a potential threat and in accordance with this policy builds an expansion policy, concentrates on collective defense tasks and selects appropriate military exercises, deploys strategic missile defense facilities, does not make mutually acceptable solutions on adaptation of the CFE Treaty. Today there are no grounds for illusions related to a possible revision of the strategy of the alliance in the "eastern" direction.

As for the other zones of the strategic interests of the alliance, many members of the bloc are very cool about appeals to build up their contribution to the solution of military tasks, which under US pressure are imposed on the alliance, for example, in Asian regions or in the Middle East. The presence of contradictions between the allies in matters of military-force contribution to solving joint tasks is quite vividly demonstrated by recurring disputes within the framework of the operation of the International Security Assistance Force, for example, with differences in national legislation on the use of military contingents in areas with increased danger to the lives of military personnel. Impact of the financial and economic crisis.


In modern conditions, the interests of ensuring the national security of Russia require close attention to several situational coalitions operating on the NATO platform.

A situational coalition of NATO member states is formed that is interested in cooperation in the Arctic, which may include the USA, Canada, Great Britain, some other countries of the alliance’s northern flank and partners. Inconsistency of interests and claims among coalition members creates the basis for serious internal contradictions. It is important to emphasize that the actions of such a coalition will be carried out in a region where there are risks to Russia's military security. Among them are the lack of modern experience of military activity in the northern regions, the lack of weapons and military equipment adapted for use in difficult climatic conditions, the permeability of land, sea and air borders, the lack of a rapid response force to external aggression. In this context, the actions of the Russian Federation to restore control over vast polar territories are absolutely justified.

Situational coalitions created with the participation of NATO or individual alliance states in the Middle East look different. Here, the United States sometimes allows itself to move into the background, providing an opportunity for action to the allies, whose resources, however, do not always correspond to their ambitions.

Russia has a positive experience of independent actions to resolve crisis situations in this troubled area. Along with this, in the sphere of crisis settlement there are many examples of successful cooperation with the European Union, although the potential that exists on both sides is not yet sufficiently used. Here we need to work to create a systematic basis for a joint crisis response by entering into an appropriate framework agreement providing for flexible interaction mechanisms.

NATO is stepping up its activity in the Asia-Pacific region, where the center of gravity of American military policy is shifting as part of confronting China’s growing military power. So far, the North Atlantic alliance has indicated its presence in the APR by forming partnerships with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. Steps are being taken to develop military cooperation with the PRC. The change in the balance of power between the Pacific powers in the struggle for leadership makes it possible to predict further expansion of NATO’s participation in the affairs of the region, in particular, through the formation of a situational coalition with the participation of a number of interested alliance and partner states.

Russian policy in the Asia-Pacific region in the conditions of such a development of the situation, apparently, should be based on balancing, creating models of interaction with the West, China and other states of the region that would most closely correspond to Russian interests in other areas, primarily providing international support for modernization. Siberia and the Far East. The current situation in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole favors Russian interests: there are no blocs or countries hostile to Russia, our country is not drawn into acute local conflicts, and political and economic cooperation is developing successfully.

The situation in Central Asia in the context of the upcoming withdrawal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan deserves special mention. It is here that objective conditions are created for the formation under the auspices of the UN and / or the OSCE of a situational coalition comprising Russia, NATO and the CSTO to counter a wide range of threats. However, the alliance does not seem inclined to take a corporate approach and seeks to leave the troubled region as soon as possible, giving others to solve the accumulated difficult problems, primarily those associated with the production and smuggling of drugs.


In general, against the background of the evolving trend towards the creation of situational coalitions, the NATO leadership is striving to preserve the alliance for an important unifying function associated with the ability to manage large-scale basic resources of the organization: territorial, financial, technological, political-organizational, diplomatic, informational.

Washington and Brussels do not expect active military participation, for example, of the Baltic countries in operations. Enough to enlist their support in formulating a political solution and agreeing to provide access to national resources. This approach is not mentioned in the Washington Treaty, which is not surprising, since during the Cold War years the obligations to ensure mutual defense were not differentiated in any way.

It can be assumed that in the process of further transformation of the alliance in the interests of successfully counteracting dangers, risks, challenges and threats, the decision-making algorithm used by NATO will be subject to revision. Moreover, not only the military itself, but also the political foundations of the activities of the bloc will inevitably be affected. Considering the analysis of the discussions that are taking place in the political and military structures of NATO, the following changes are among the changes that may be recorded in the doctrinal documents of the bloc in the foreseeable future.

1. Transition from the principle of decision-making on the basis of consensus to the principle of majority of votes established in NATO bodies and the elimination of the right to impose a veto on these decisions by the member countries of the Alliance. This is especially important for military authorities, otherwise the alliance will lose the ability to keep pace with events in the course of a dynamically developing crisis situation, as it was, for example, in the Caucasus in August 2008 of the year. The principle of consensus can be maintained only for the NATO Permanent Council.

2. The refusal of restrictions imposed by national laws of NATO member countries on participation in the operations of this organization, such as those that interfere with the conduct of the Afghan campaign;

3. Exclusion from the decision-making process on NATO operations of those members of the alliance who are not participating in these campaigns;

4. The use of force without the authorization of the UN Security Council in those cases when “immediate measures are required to protect a large number of people”.

The ultimate goal of the set of proposed changes is to create legal and regulatory frameworks and to maximally facilitate the formation of situational coalitions on the NATO platform, capable of operating on a global scale based on the basic resources of the block.

There is still a lot of work to be done to develop a single strategic understanding of the development of the alliance within the organization. Therefore, it’s too early to talk about the complete internal unity in NATO about a clear strategy, common goals and values ​​shared by all participants. There is no unity in the performance by all participants of legal, financial and other obligations. The combination of these circumstances can reduce the strategic stability of the Alliance in various situations. The lack of unity and determination due to the disagreement of the interests of the allies in the assessment of hazards, risks, challenges and threats is a permanent factor affecting both the development of doctrinal documents and practical decision-making in various situations.

Washington and Brussels are clearly aimed at forming a natocentric model of the world with the transformation of the alliance into a key organ of global military-political regulation. One cannot deny the existence of objective conditions for the realization of these very ambitious plans of the West. The international community has not yet succeeded in creating an alternative, parallel or at least a similar mechanism practically operating in the area of ​​ensuring international security as a counterweight to NATO.

Under these conditions, despite the well-known stagnation of relations between Russia and NATO, isolating our country from the alliance may lead to an increase in the threat of reducing the ability of the Russian Federation to influence the military-political regulation of international relations in many key regions of the planet. Many channels will be blocked to attract the potential of partners and international structures to modernize and ensure the sustainable development of the Russian state. From this point of view, systematic and persistent work is needed to find effective ways to neutralize alliance initiatives that are dangerous for Russia in regions of strategic importance for ensuring the national interests of our country, and to reach mutually acceptable solutions. Specific joint initiatives under the auspices of the Russia-NATO Council should replace the “diplomacy of smiles” and assurances of unfailing friendship in the absence of any visible practical results.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grandson of Veteran
    Grandson of Veteran 26 November 2013 15: 21
    "Specific joint initiatives under the auspices of the NATO-Russia Council should replace the 'diplomacy of smiles' and assurances of unwavering friendship in the absence of any tangible practical results."
    So they do not agree to specific initiatives! For the same Euro PRO-RF, they suggested using the Gabala radar station for joint monitoring — they did not agree. And how many more adequate proposals did NATO reject with ridiculous excuses? They only do what they say, we are friends. At the same time, they are stubbornly expanding NATO eastward. Only one way out is to create a NATO counterbalance block, only then will they go to specific initiatives!
  2. Stiletto
    Stiletto 26 November 2013 15: 29
    A concrete initiative is the reconstruction of the BZHRK, the deployment of Iskanders on the western borders, and the withdrawal from all enslaving treaties that contradict the national interests of Russia. This is quite concrete for myself. And the rest is blah blah diplomacy.
    1. varov14
      varov14 26 November 2013 20: 42
      And you also need to carry out the usual subversive activities, they are leading. Moreover, especially against the United States, it is possible on a national as well as social basis. The most interesting thing is that the population quite legally owns weapons, not to take full advantage of it. They shake us, and we will be those who fall apart faster.
      1. GastaClaus69
        GastaClaus69 26 November 2013 20: 54
        Quote: varov14
        both on national

        As for the national is unlikely. They are so tolerant there that even for calling the night black they can blame racism smile
        1. DimychDV
          DimychDV 27 November 2013 09: 12
          Go from the opposite. Who's ??? Is it me that you are Russian? Am I, in the seventh generation, a Chuvash Mordvin? In Turma netolerasta American !!! I suck, ss ** ko!
          Since such dorarasts, let the whole composition of the nations of Russia teach. sad
  3. APES
    APES 26 November 2013 15: 29
    from a monolithic block to situational coalitions

    The question is: against whom are we friends today?
    1. Kulneff2009
      Kulneff2009 26 November 2013 19: 07
      Yes, all against the same sworn friends!
    2. SSR
      SSR 27 November 2013 07: 21
      Quote: APES
      from a monolithic block to situational coalitions

      The question is: against whom are we friends today?

      The article has a phrase - the Anglo-Saxons, if corrected; controlled by the Zionists, the Anglo-Saxons.
  4. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 26 November 2013 15: 54
    Quote: "... despite the well-known stagnation of relations between Russia and NATO, the isolation of our country from the alliance may lead to a growing threat of reducing the ability of the Russian Federation to influence the military-political regulation of international relations in many key regions of the planet."
    NATO will always stubbornly defend its interests. And to rake for compromises from the alliance is childish naivety. Created to counter the USSR, the North Atlantic bloc continues to fulfill this main function. Periodically they make sorties to earthly regions: to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. You can’t believe them! Yugoslavia alone is worth it.
  5. andrei332809
    andrei332809 26 November 2013 16: 15
    while the Yankes are strong, they will have a lot of mongrels. however, these same mongrels are often clueless, they are also not very sure of the invincibility of Nata request
    1. DimychDV
      DimychDV 27 November 2013 09: 21
      With China, goals must be agreed upon. So as not to aim at the same cities and bases. Well, and SCO-PRO to build the same Makar. NOT FIG China is militarily afraid - our business monopolists need to fasten the wick of appetites. Under the ESPO, they have already borrowed at least $ 24 billion from China. They will simply crush us with debt, why should they have a partisan taiga at their side? It’s easier to collect tribute from Russian officials, for this even the state does not need to move - send a couple of guys with dragon tattoos from the top of the head to the navel.
      China has the main strategic opponents - the USA and Japan with South Korea, and the Arabs as potentially problematic neighbors. Yes, India in the future, although the political ones are more Nepal.
      And Eastern Europe should transmit weather maps from satellites, indicating how the wind rose will spread the fallout from the American bases they have there, should it happen to date ... Or do we no longer have Intercosmos with them? ..
      Nothing. Czechs won’t be bothered. Ours did the right thing in the 68th, the Second World War also began with the Czech Republic. The Czech brothers went to work in mourning shirts for the whole war with mournful faces - but armored personnel carriers and airplanes riveted such that they survived until May 9, 45 ... And then, you see, we remembered the survivability of the Russian battalions and the SUITABILITY of the Russian tanks ... The Poles, as always, with a checker in front of Napoleon strive to jump to our borders - these are the cards just like a cold compress. Well, let all the Romanians, as well as the beaten Hungarians, dream about the world, and not about revenge ...
  6. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 26 November 2013 16: 27
    Concrete joint initiatives under the auspices of the Russia-NATO Council should replace “diplomacy of smiles” and assurances of continued friendship in the absence of any noticeable practical results.
    This is a utopia, popularly called stupidity.
    And so NATO continues to be a monolithic bloc with a pronounced and powerful core. Regional commands focused on every theater of the planet have always been. Relations are not new either - the country is a member of the political part of the NATO bloc, but not military, such as France and Greece were at one time.
    Now, NATO is pulling Finland and Sweden into a bloc with all its might, conducting joint exercises with a very frank anti-Russian scenario. Those are eagerly being waged and, for example, Finland, is being fully equipped with NATO weapons and equipment (before that they had everything Soviet), and Sweden had all its equipment and weapons always according to NATO standards and, more recently, the Swedes began to rearm with NATO equipment.
    1. Yuri Y.
      Yuri Y. 26 November 2013 16: 37
      Quote: Peaceful military
      This is a utopia, popularly called stupidity.

      Especially if you remember that the bloc was created to counter the penetration of Russia into Europe, then this is especially clear. And NATO’s policy towards Russia has not changed. But you also need to try to influence.
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 26 November 2013 17: 37
        Quote: Yuri I.
        Quote: Peaceful military
        This is a utopia, popularly called stupidity.

        Especially if you remember that the bloc was created to counter the penetration of Russia into Europe, then this is especially clear. And NATO’s policy towards Russia has not changed. But you also need to try to influence.

        Of course you need to try, but do not broadcast nonsense.
  7. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 26 November 2013 16: 31
    Tell me a country or a coalition of countries that would threaten Europe or America. There are no such. Then why does this alliance exist? It is correct that everyone would understand who is the master on Earth. Rights NATO seeks to show that it cooperates with other countries. But this is real hypocrisy. If there are attempts to limit the willfulness of the alliance, there will be no trace of "cooperation".
  8. Spnsr
    Spnsr 26 November 2013 17: 11
    since the usa has always used shuttle diplomacy, to whom it is beneficial and what is beneficial, they always traded precisely the prospects necessary for a particular party, it was especially bright when the Soviet Union was in order not to get into it, it was used methods that were veiled under the conflict of the third parties, the campaign those who wrote this article just do not catch up a bit about what is written
  9. andrei332809
    andrei332809 26 November 2013 17: 32
    Well, isn't that a wolf in sheep's clothing? Already even convincing words they can’t pick up;
    "In connection with the pressure from Russia to sign an association with the EU, NATO is ready to provide Ukraine with deepening cooperation in the field of security," said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Bigmir reports.

    According to him, the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU is primarily in the interests of Ukraine, as this helps to deepen its relations with both the European Union and NATO. “To admit, I was somewhat surprised by the decision made in Kiev, but I respect the choice of Ukraine and the way in which it wants to build relations with the European Union and NATO,” Rasmussen noted.

    He specified that neither the European Union nor NATO interferes in the internal affairs of individual states and that they are committed to the principles of independent choice by states to join a particular association. “The open door policy we have proclaimed means that countries that wish to become members of the European Union or NATO must meet our criteria,” the Secretary General said.

    If Russia within the next year increases pressure on Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, who want to sign an agreement with the European Union, and if the decision of the Ukrainian leadership to suspend the signing of this agreement was caused by Russian pressure, then the latter violates the international agreements it has signed.

    “I do not have detailed information about the dialogue between Kiev and Moscow and this is not so important. We hope that Russia too will be committed to the principle that each state has the right to make an independent choice. We can offer such states to deepen cooperation, including in terms of security, ”Rasmussen said.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 26 November 2013 19: 36
      Quote: andrei332809
      We can offer such states to deepen cooperation, including in terms of security, ”Rasmussen said.

      "Just call us,
      we will protect you right there
      While swallowing you,
      but we will not surrender to Russia " am
      1. andrei332809
        andrei332809 26 November 2013 19: 50
        Quote: Egoza
        While swallowing you,

        havalnik not tear? they have long needed to prescribe a bucket enema with patiphone needles, so that digestion normalizes
  10. Stinger
    Stinger 26 November 2013 17: 45
    Habit is second nature. If there is no one to defend against, but wants to keep the alliance, then the natural way out is to use it to put pressure on other countries. But not all NATO members like it. Since few people believe that Russia alone threatens with destruction all European countries, and for one and the states (of course, except for the "offended" singers like the Balts and Georgia), you have to change your orientation. It is no longer possible to justify the necessity of existence with fabrications about the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran and international terrorists (who would explain what it is). Let's hope that not all members of the alliance are happy with the states using NATO as a tool to achieve their goals.
  11. Black
    Black 26 November 2013 18: 12
    The Anglo-Saxon world is, in fact, waging a thousand-year war with Russia, for territories, for resources ... Shats with their mother-England make the same "friends" - sometimes in a bloc, sometimes situationally, but we essentially don't have them and won't be can.
  12. VADEL
    VADEL 26 November 2013 19: 56
    And the essence of that fable is that the hare put horseradish on the lion when there was a crowd behind it.
  13. Vasek
    Vasek 26 November 2013 21: 58
    An overdue article - The Alliance has truly changed. From organization, as opposed to the USSR (and the Warsaw Pact later), it turned into a mechanism for frankly breaking through the US economic interests.
    The vector inside NATO, noted by the author, is a phenomenon that was initially absent. Although in fact the "Romano-Germanic" vector is co-directed (for it is subordinate) with the vector of the "Anglo-Saxon group of countries" and all of them together - lo and behold a surprise! - coincide with the interests of Israel. I would like to read a separate article on Israel's role in the governance of NATO (not officially a member).
    But there is disagreement within the Alliance (especially Canada’s refusal to fight in Iraq laughing ) cheers up.
    I liked the main, in my opinion, conclusion:
    Today there are no grounds for illusions related to a possible revision of the alliance's strategy in the "eastern" direction.
    Thanks to the author.
  14. individual
    individual 26 November 2013 22: 01
    Despite the apparent solidity of the NATO bloc, their isolation is visible.
    Each pulls a blanket over himself revealing the ass of the other.
    Everyone wants to solve their selfish interests with other people's resources and finances.
    So far, the United States is best at it and the states are dictating their will to them.
    But here, too, the "misunderstanding" of the decision on Syria begins to be a living example, when the entire coalition was split.
    Back in 2006, US President George W. Bush criticized NATO members who did not want to send troops to hot spots.
  15. Silver70
    Silver70 26 November 2013 23: 39
    NATO has always been and will be an adversary of Russia, and Russia in defense must always rely only on its own forces winked
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. axay032
    axay032 27 November 2013 01: 39