NATO: an alliance that does not unite, but separates!
Members of this alliance once united common goals. But now everything has changed. NATO countries are increasingly beginning to use this bloc for their own purposes. As a result of such actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the alliance to unite different countries together, even in cases where common interests are present.
The creation of NATO sixty years ago was the point. The allies on both sides of the Atlantic united to defend Western Europe from the "terrible" Soviet aggression. When the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist and the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred, NATO had already fulfilled its mission.
Much to our regret, the representatives of the NATO members began to act exactly as the society had predicted: they began to save their careers and jobs. Instead of dissolving NATO, they were looking for reasons to preserve this organization.
According to experts, NATO needed to strengthen and expand its position in the countries of Eastern Europe. In addition, it was necessary to assign additional functions to ensure world security. In addition, the block needed to go beyond the boundaries of its area of responsibility and take measures even where nothing and no one threatened the members of this organization. So, Senator Richard Lukar said about this: "Either NATO will have to go beyond the limits of personal responsibility, or will have to retire." No official or politician who respects himself will ever want to allow this to happen.
Nowadays, the alliance has practically nothing to do with American security. Russia now militarily is a pale shadow of the former power of the USSR. The probability of a new revival of the Red Army and its triumphant march to Berlin or Paris is now below zero. Moreover, France and Germany are now selling their military technologies to the Russian Federation, and sometimes weapon.
The conflict is still possible, but closer to the east, where Russia and the rest of the former Soviet republics are arguing and arguing over the borders, their rights and other problems they have got. In addition, Moscow is currently incapable of anything other than the spanking of unlucky Saakashvili, who started the war in Ossetia in 2008. Russia's attempts to devour Ukraine or the Baltic countries can lead to a catastrophe. And if you think about it, then it is understandable - the United States has no weighty interest in these disputes in order to risk confrontation with a nuclear country in this region, which Russia considers significant for itself.
Georgia is a good example. If this country joins NATO, then the alliance will have to pull the burden of responsibility on itself, without receiving any benefits in return. Yes, Georgia sent its troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, but such a contribution was very insignificant and, probably, less significant than the assistance that was provided to Georgia by the United States, not to mention the risk of a conflict with Russia because of the problems that not of interest to America.
It is very good that the alliance did not intervene in the Georgian conflict. But NATO is increasingly beginning to drag abutting members into other conflicts advertised and initiated by their partners. The very idea that entering into a conflict should help in defending the collective interests of NATO members has completely disappeared.
In 1999, the States found themselves in conflict with Serbia, although it did not represent quite significant interest for the United States and was almost as unimportant for the leading European powers. Serbia was not a threat to any NATO member state. In addition, some member countries of the alliance, such as Greece, even opposed this conflict. But most likely in the administration of Bill Clinton it was considered that the irrelevance of this region for the security of the United States is only another plus for the start of the intervention. It should be noted that the intervention of the United States did not lead to anything useful: Kosovo, the new US satellite, for a long time required a military presence; it began ethnic cleansing against the Serbs and other minorities, created a government headed by a gangster. In addition, Kosovo has become anathema to the vast majority of world powers.
Subsequently, the United States began to force its partners to send military forces and equipment to participate in the hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of these wars were completely foolish undertakings, especially for European states, which looked on impassively from the way the George W. Bush administration unleashed the dogs of war.
The Iraq war was never popular, due to the fact that a large number of countries had more realistic assessments of this catastrophe, compared to the Bush administration. The war in Afghanistan, at any rate, can be justified by saying that this is the answer to September 11. But to develop the conflict after almost a decade did not make any sense. Currently, Canada and even Great Britain, a loyal ally of the United States, have announced their withdrawal.
And now the situation with Libya. The Libyan war is not just extravagance, but extravagance on stilts, as the philosopher Jeremy Bentham once said about opposing philosophy. Libya did not pose a threat to any member of NATO. The humanitarian rationales were like dubious claims, not as a fact, and were somewhat similar to George Bush’s statements about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which no one had found. Now no one even has an idea of when this conflict will end, who will gain the upper hand in it, what Libya will be in the end, and how now to avoid next adventures with state-building. Libya is just no one needed conflict.
Indeed, about four months have passed since the start of the war, which was supposed to last “days, not weeks”, as promised by Barack Obama. And now, the NATO members are attacking each other with clubs and knives.
Germany abstained from voting in the UN Security Council, while Turkey and Poland refused to participate at all at the beginning of the voting. More than half of NATO’s 28 member states were simply inactive. And only six countries made their military contributions, mostly insignificant.
For example, the Dutch government, whose aircraft are now patrolling the sky of Libya to protect against non-existent Libyan air forces, just recently refused the gene. NATO Secretary Anders Rasmussen in a request for support for ground forces. “We need to take into consideration our assessment of the situation and political support for such a decision. We do not object to the bombing, but our country is not currently participating in them, ”Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte explained his country's position. And the head of the Dutch defense department, Hans Hillen, openly criticized the "creeping mission" when NATO tried to expel Muammar Gaddafi from Libya.
The Italian government initially refused to send troops, then joined the operation, and now calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities for humanitarian reasons. The government of Norway decided at the end of July to withdraw its small military grouping - 6 aircraft. France, which became one of the main instigators of the conflict, recently began negotiations with the government of Muammar Gaddafi on the cessation of hostilities.
Apparently, only Britain retains its stubbornness. According to Defense Minister Liam Fox, London prepared for the conflict to continue in the 2012 year. "We have a large supply of determination and political will, we have enough military potential, and we will succeed in accomplishing this mission to the end," he said at a speech at the Royal Institute for Defense Studies in London.
And he complained about those who do not support his confidence: “Too many of our partners from Europe still have the desire to ride a hare, although they should take Libya as a wake-up signal.” Their military contributions, he added, “are sometimes just pathetic.” In addition, Tripoli "will only add confidence to those who think that we do not have the willpower, money and opportunities."
The administration of the President of the United States took part in the Libyan conflict reluctantly, and American forces were withdrawn after two weeks of active bombardment of Libyan air defense positions. But in the month of June, the United States still carried out a quarter of the total number of sorties of NATO combat aircraft and used missiles and unmanned aircraft. It is clear that the States participated in the fighting, despite the fact that the administration absurdly claims the opposite. Washington turned these military actions into its own when it recently accepted the rebels as a legitimate authority in Libya, even taking into account the fact that America has absolutely no interests there that would at least somehow justify the third war against a Muslim state in a decade.
In fact, now that the French government has deserted from the ranks of the supporters of this military conflict, the 27 of the allied countries are leading (or, at least, officially supporting) what is called the war of Great Britain.
Using aphorisms, we can say that it is time for a big change. “The United States cannot shoulder the burden of military efforts of all other countries, and the European participants of NATO should not hope that the United States will be able to help in any situation,” said British Defense Minister Liam Fox.
This is how he proposed to solve this problem: in Libya, Europeans need to do more than they do today. But this is not the way out to invest more and more forces in a war that no one needs. The problem today is much larger than it might seem at first glance.
Before leaving for a well-deserved rest, US Secretary of Defense Robert Michael Gates launched a verbal projectile toward NATO's Brussels headquarters. A large number of European states have made minor contributions to NATO for many years. Over the past 10, the American share in NATO military spending has grown from 45 to 75%.
Thus, a warning was issued to Gates: the North Atlantic Alliance is threatened by "collective military uselessness." As a result of such actions, Americans may think that "the return on American investment in NATO does not compensate for the costs." This can be proved by the fact: “the strongest military alliance in stories for eleven weeks already, it is conducting an operation against a poorly armed regime in a country with a small population, and the Allies will soon begin to run out of ammunition, which will force the United States of America to fill the gaps again. ”
This problem, as suggested by Gates, can be solved only by increasing military spending in Europe. Rasmussen agrees with him, and, in his opinion, the European participants of NATO should "come to the scene." But this venture from the very beginning was waiting for failure. As Gates acknowledged, the military budgets of Europe "have long and chronically starved for the necessary funding."
Today, at least 2 percent of the country's GDP gives only three European states for defense: Greece, France, Britain (America, for example, spends five percent). But Greece is becoming alarmed by her NATO NATO Turkey, and not some external threat. But France and Britain are already losing ground: the previous year, British Defense Secretary Liam Fox promised to cut costs "mercilessly and without regrets." Germany, which has the largest economy in Europe, spends a little more than 1 a percent of GDP on the defense industry and is rapidly reducing the number of its own armed forces.
European states are not threatened with military danger now, and therefore they do not want to save on general welfare in their states, spending large sums on an army that does not bring any practical deviants. Until now, NATO has allowed members of the union to "live for free": join and get insurance from the superpower, which is the only one in the whole world, and besides, you do not need to give anything in return. Europeans most likely will not voluntarily refuse such a deal.
Even if Paris and London thought (at best) that it was worthwhile to start a war in Libya, no one else thought so. A large number of countries refused to do something significant, and now Paris has turned into reverse. Europeans are probably embarrassed because of the failure in Libya, but their answer is likely to be: “no more stupid wars,” and not “we will strengthen our armies”.
What is the solution to the problem?
What is seen as paramount is that the US needs to withdraw its troops from Libya. After all, this war is meaningless, it does not affect any serious American interests, it causes great humanitarian harm, continuing military operations that lead to the death of innocent people.
Steni Hoyer, a minority leader in the House of Representatives, criticized the cost-cutting proposal, explaining that such a decision "would undermine the North Atlantic alliance's ability in the President of the United States to support the efforts and actions agreed upon by the alliance." But this is not a reason to throw money down the drain and risk prestige because of a war in which Washington should not have participated at all.
In fact, despite Hoyer's statements, America needs to weaken NATO. Robert Gates said: "We all need to make a choice and decide which is best suited for the interests of the United States." And this means that it is time for the United States to stop its charitable actions to donate funds for the military needs of European countries. (As well as South Koreans and Japanese, who themselves can ensure the security of their countries.)
Gates spoke with great regret about the “bursting patience and weakening appetite” of Americans who are forced to “spend their meager funds on those countries that obviously do not want to allocate the necessary allocations and make the necessary changes in order to become worthy and serious partners in business own defense. " But such a violation of digestion should have come a long time ago, well, and patience burst too.
NATO membership should not be an end in itself, but a means to achieve the intended goal. During the Cold War, NATO helped maintain peace. Today, NATO is drawing the United States into unnecessary wars. Libya helped to see that NATO has outlived its usefulness. Washington’s goal is to help NATO withdraw from its current position.
Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter