Military Review

Does NATO need it? (The Boston Globe, USA)

26
Does NATO need it? (The Boston Globe, USA)


The British decision to withdraw from the European Union was a rough shake-up for the bronzed world order. Now that the EU is shocked by the new reality, it’s NATO’s turn. When the leaders of the member countries of the alliance meet on Friday in Warsaw for their summit, they will insist that their alliance, as before, is of vital importance because Europe is threatened by Russian aggression. But the reverse is true. This NATO has become an instrument of America in the escalation of a dangerous conflict with Russia. We need less NATO, not more.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 to enable American troops to protect a war-torn Europe from the Stalinist Soviet Union. Today, Europe is fully capable of independently ensuring its security and paying for it, but the structure of NATO remains unchanged. The United States continues to replenish its budget by almost three-quarters. But it no longer makes sense. The US should maintain political intimacy with European countries, but they should stop talking about how these countries should protect themselves. Left alone with reality, Europe can move away from the edge of the confrontational chasm, where the North Atlantic Alliance stubbornly leads it.

Russia in no way threatens America’s fundamental interests. On the contrary, it shares our desire to fight global terror, control nuclear threats and solve other urgent problems that challenge international security. Everything depends on the point of view: someone considers Russia to be a destabilizing force in Europe, and someone thinks that it simply protects its border regions. Anyway, this is the problem of Europeans, not ours. Nevertheless, American generals leading NATO, who really want to get a new task, focus on the opinion of Russia as an enemy. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, in spite of common sense, put Russia first in his list of threats to the United States. Washington has seized anti-Russian passion.

The NATO summit in Warsaw will become a platform for boastful assurances, numerous warnings about the “Russian threat” and solemn promises to respond to this threat with a demonstration of military force. The United States plans to quadruple spending on NATO military projects on or near Russian borders. The Alliance recently opened a new rocket base in Romania, conducted major military maneuvers in stories modern Poland and announced plans for additional deployment of thousands of US troops at the Baltic bases, some of which are within the reach of artillery fire to the Russian St. Petersburg. Russia, for its part, is building a new military base within the reach of artillery fire to Ukraine and is deploying 30 000 troops at border posts. Both sides are armed with nuclear weapon.

NATO considers the difficulties in relations between Russia and neighboring countries a military problem. It is reasonable. NATO is a military alliance, and it is led by military, minded military categories. But our conflict with Russia is essentially political, not military. It simply requires constructive diplomacy. NATO is a rude tool, unable to solve such delicate tasks. If Europeans believe that reciprocal escalation is the best way to cope with Russia, let them cope. But it should be a European choice, not ours.

The NATO command and its political masters from Washington are unwilling to yield to the reins of European security. They fear that Europeans will seek reconciliation with Russia instead of pursuing aggressive confrontation. Such a prospect is hated by American generals, politicians, and military contractors. Continuing to finance NATO, we buy ourselves the right to draw swords at the Russian borders.

Some Europeans are unhappy that America is using NATO to increase military pressure on Russia. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called the recent maneuvers in Poland, involving 14 US troops, "inciting military hysteria and battle cry." In an open rebuff to NATO, Steinmeier said: “He who thinks is symbolic tank a parade on the eastern border of the alliance will provide security, clearly mistaken. We should not create an excuse and an excuse for the resumption of the old confrontation. "

NATO helped preserve peace in Europe during the Cold War. This organization does not meet the requirements of the XXI century. Strengthening tensions with Russia, it destabilizes the situation, but in no way contributes to stability. Europe needs a new security system. Unlike NATO, this system should be created by Europeans for European needs and requirements. It should be led by the Europeans, and they should pay for it. This will allow the United States to abandon its many years of mission, which may be noble, but should not last forever.
Author:
Originator:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/04/nato-necessary/DwE0YzPb8qr70oIT9NVyAK/story.html
26 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avvg
    avvg 8 July 2016 05: 37
    +6
    NATO-This is a big club in the hands of America, but Americans do not need NATO.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 8 July 2016 06: 05
      +6
      The creation of the alliance, first of all, envisaged the goal of protecting the liberal value system from the communist one, which had proved its power in the victory over fascist Europe. The idea of ​​communism has ceased to be a "ghost" and actually spread not only across Europe, but also across other continents. Let's leave the statements of J. Wells about "utopia" (still ahead). The article notes the effect of "brixit", but seems more significant in relation to NATO, the second step to condemn the invasion of Iraq. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the dark outlines of the elements of the rusted Cold War system that NATO embodies are becoming increasingly clear. Now NATO is for Europe like washing powder in Powell's test tube. In fact, it is a matryoshka doll of the American expansion of keeping Europe in obedience. If the Europeans wake up in the consciousness (and it goes to that) that they can live independently without being poked in the back because of a puddle, then NATO will be recognized not only as an anachronism, a harmful element of the international policy of prodding and coercion, but also mortally dangerous for the world civilization.
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 8 July 2016 06: 30
        +5
        The article is great!
        Moreover, for the first time I read from an American a completely REASONABLE opinion about NATO and the US mission in it for the countries of Europe that I can’t even believe that such a thing is possible at all!
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 8 July 2016 06: 44
          +3
          Quote from the article
          The NATO command and its political masters from Washington do not want to give way to European security. They fear that Europeans will seek reconciliation with Russia instead of pursuing an aggressive confrontation. This prospect is hated by American generals, politicians and MILITARY CONTRACTORS. Continuing to fund NATO we buy ourselves the right to draw swords on Russian borders.

          But this author’s statement is simply a GLITTER of frankly truthful American analytics! good
    3. Pavel1
      Pavel1 8 July 2016 06: 05
      +4
      Well, Donald Trump's ideas begin to break through in the form of different statues. Trump is a dangerous politician with his views on NATO, will they let him carry out his plan? Although it is only worth the United States to leave Europe, as unreliable as Italy, Turkey can completely change its orientation.
      1. Altona
        Altona 8 July 2016 06: 16
        +3
        Quote: Paul1
        Well, here are the ideas of Donald Trump begin to break through in the form of different statues.

        ----------------------
        Trump simply voices sound right ideas, the formulation of which the neocons and left liberals have tabooed. Weapon rattling, the perfection of which has been repeatedly improved since the Cold War, will not lead to good. For some reason, the American military-industrial complex and its lobbyists decided that the Americans and the whole world should pay for their Wishlist. Not only they, of course, but also a number of players who are interested in military hysteria.
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 8 July 2016 07: 17
          +2
          If we talk about Trump and H. Clinton, then the difference between them is as follows.
          Trump reflects the national interests of the United States within the country, and Clinton reflects the interests of American globalists, i.e. in the outside of the country - namely, American (Anglo-Saxon) transnational corporations.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Observer2014
      Observer2014 8 July 2016 08: 31
      +2
      avvg hi
      NATO-This is a big club in the hands of America, but Americans do not need NATO.

      NATO is not a big club. And a herd of cannon fodder. When there were tensions on the brink of war with Turkey. Someone from NATO was not convinced of zeal to fit in with Turkey. Now let's imagine that Russia got all the same from the border countries. special forces, by morning everything. Next they are preparing a referendum (figuratively) And what, NATO is immediately starting a war against Russia ?! laughingLet it beat like a torch in the chest, dangle, to and fro. And each country from NATO looking around will pray (at least not the first to fight)
  2. Teberii
    Teberii 8 July 2016 05: 46
    +4
    NATO is needed only by America. The Americans keep all their allies in their hands, you just won’t get out.
  3. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 8 July 2016 05: 48
    +3
    The question is who is stronger than the USA + NATO and the attempts of Europe to become independent?
    ! If the USA wins, then the USA.
    2. If Europe wins, the United States will bring the right to power there and throw at us, arming and providing "meat" from Africa and Latin America. That is, they will rule Europe all the same.
  4. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 05: 56
    +6
    This will allow the United States to abandon its long-term mission, which may be noble, but should not last forever.

    I have only one question: what was there noble? And the hedgehog understands that NATO was created as an apparatus of military influence, guaranteeing a well-fed, economically "risen" in the war America unquestioning submission of the countries of the muzzled Europe (moreover, pretty much frightened by the suddenly expanding scale of pro-communist countries after the global swing known as the Second World War) ...
    I will note (and this is indicative in the sense of unequivocally disclosing the motives for creating NATO) that the USSR also applied for its admission to this bloc. And - of course, we were refused (which forced the red giant himself to then attend to the creation of an opposing NATO bloc - the ATS). For even from that time everything became crystal clear: the Empire of Good is so good that it prefers to fight the Empire of Evil in the future with whatever pawns (I almost wrote, "pshek"), but not its own.
  5. Coconut
    Coconut 8 July 2016 05: 57
    -5
    NATO was created as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact ... there is no threat from Iran from Russia anymore .. then why the hell is it nada? request
    1. PlotnikoffDD
      PlotnikoffDD 8 July 2016 06: 03
      +7
      When NATO was created, there was no ATS even in the project.
    2. Kos_kalinki9
      Kos_kalinki9 8 July 2016 06: 14
      +5
      Quote: Coco
      NATO was created as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact ... there is no threat from Iran from Russia anymore .. then why the hell is it nada? request

      It’s even like that, NATO is a counterbalance to the Warsaw Pact.
      Let me ask a question: was there a boy ????
      NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; French Organization du traité de l'Atlantique Nord, OTAN) is a military-political bloc uniting most of the countries of Europe, the United States and Canada. Founded on April 4, 1949 in the USA,
      Warsaw Treaty (Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance) of May 14, 1955 - a document that formalized the creation of the military union of European socialist states

      The famine of NATO began to counterbalance the Warsaw Pact, it was already created 6 (Karl six years earlier). The American generals sat and thought that the damned commies would create the Warsaw Treaty in six years, and we’ll create a NATO counterbalance to them today.
      Learn the mathematical part. Or sometimes think and check before writing.
    3. ivselim
      ivselim 8 July 2016 06: 21
      0
      Quite the contrary ... the dates of the creation of NATO and the ATS, at least, compare.
    4. midivan
      midivan 8 July 2016 06: 22
      +2
      Quote: Coco
      NATO was created as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact ... there is no threat from Iran from Russia anymore .. then why the hell is it nada? request

      ooh brother, tie it up, judging by ava and nickname it's not about nuts at all lol subsequently severe depression and often ending their lives having laid hands on themselves yes and since it’s mostly shoved through the nose, it’s not far from the brain, here the Bormental dock dwells, it will tell you better about the consequences laughing
  6. Stinger
    Stinger 8 July 2016 06: 00
    +2
    Europe needs a new security system. Unlike NATO, Europeans must create this system to meet European needs and requirements. It must be led by Europeans, and they must pay for it. This will allow the United States to abandon its long-term mission, which may be noble, but should not last forever.


    And there is. This is constantly being said by Russia. Yankees go home.
  7. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 06: 04
    +1
    Quote: Coco
    NATO was created as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact ... there is no threat from Iran from Russia anymore .. then why the hell is it nada? request

    Sorry, are you really that stupid, or did you just get deuces in history at school?
    Year of NATO - 1949 (by the way, let’s say thank you so much to Churchill for escalating the post-war anti-communist hysteria, that’s how the hawk was like that, all sorts of bridgles and mccains are not suitable for him!).
    ATS creation year - 1955.
    More comments needed?
  8. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 8 July 2016 06: 07
    +2
    An interesting and sensible opinion, and given that it is also an American, the article gains even more interest. But of course you can’t think I’m particularly flattered about this, it’s necessary to take into account that this is even a competent but still purely subjective opinion, far from official rhetoric. Nevertheless, I liked the article anyway. hi
  9. engineering
    engineering 8 July 2016 06: 11
    +1
    Nobody will ever leave NATO, this is Klondike, Eldorado, to cut the budget funds of the countries of NATO members, on the contrary, they are looking for opportunities and reasons for the adoption of new countries in their structure, preferably located closer to the borders of Russia.
  10. S_Baykala
    S_Baykala 8 July 2016 06: 13
    +7
    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 so that American troops could defend the war-torn Europe from the Stalinist Soviet Union

    Ancestors, how did you scare them all! Half of the world of "poor fellows", having united, were going to "defend" from one country. Europe "destroyed by the war" ... In fact, this very Europe attacked the Stalinist Soviet Union, and it was our country that was really destroyed. And the Americans played the main role in the destruction of Europe.
  11. knn54
    knn54 8 July 2016 06: 15
    +5
    Someone must fight in different places on the planet for US interests.
  12. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 06: 16
    +3
    Quote: engineering
    Nobody will ever leave NATO, this is Klondike, Eldorado, to cut the budget funds of the countries of NATO members, on the contrary, they are looking for opportunities and reasons for the adoption of new countries in their structure, preferably located closer to the borders of Russia.

    Well, the mafia is. The pay scale is very attractive, but the retirement plan smells bad.
    And also a kind of financial pyramid. Coupons are cut by those who are closer to the top, so they are trying to involve with all their might the rank and file, who are already late for the profit, "suckers".
  13. V.ic
    V.ic 8 July 2016 06: 54
    0
    Baltic bases, some of which are located within reach of artillery fire to Russian St. Petersburg. Posted by Stephen Kinzer

    Distance Narva-Leningrad in a straight line 137 km.
    In practice: The best multiple launch rocket systems. The leaders inevitably go artillery guns of Russia "Tornado". They shoot shells of caliber 122 mm at a distance of up to 100 kilometers. - Read more on FB.ru: http://fb.ru/article/162811/artilleriyskoe-orudie-vidyi-i-dalnost-strelbyi-obzor

    -artilleriyskih-orudiy-ot-starinnyih-do-sovremennyih
    Something here is a puncture from the author.
  14. Abbra
    Abbra 8 July 2016 08: 45
    +2
    This article is too big for this Kinzer. I would write: DOES NATO NEED? NO, NOT NEEDED. And that’s all ...
  15. Million
    Million 8 July 2016 10: 01
    +1
    NATO is a weapon in the hands of the United States, which can deprive the sovereignty of any state that is a member of it)
  16. pavelty
    pavelty 8 July 2016 15: 04
    0
    I repeat, the index finger works, and to whom I will shoot, I’m FSU - at least an Estonian, even a Pole ....