The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Short Take: Reforming NATO

1. How many of you think the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) needs reformation in some way?

2. How many of you think it is just fine the way it is?

3. How many of you think it should just be abolished?

If you could please limit your answer in the comments to 1, 2 or 3 I would be very appreciative. There will be a long post for a full discussion of the issue soon. I want to get a sense of how everyone is thinking on this issue before I complete to essay.

Previous

The Necessity Of Surplus For Tech Innovation

Next

Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – September 15 2024

60 Comments

  1. Bob Brewer

    3 should have been abolished years ago

  2. bruce wilder

    3. Abolish

    That’s hard to distinguish from 2. Reform if I consider realistically that there will be some successor(s)

  3. Jan Wiklund

    1. Surely it needs, but is it possible? When the West was ascendant, it was enough to have a deterrence against attacks from others. But now it doesn’t seems defensive any more, if one doesn’t subscribe to the rule attack is the best defence.

    According to its Strategical concept, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm, it considers non-deliverance of important raw materials an attack, and thus a war cause. If the Chinese offers a better price for some raw materials to an African state, the Nato feels free to attack this state with missiles, apparently.

    They didn’t need to in the 50s-80s, because they were strong in other fields such as economy and politics. Now they aren’t, they have only the guns left. And that makes Nato a rther scary thing.

    Also, I doubt they understand this. I don’t think they are capable of running a war, but yet they threat it like a sorcerer’s apprentice. See https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/the-third-world-war-has-been-cancelled:

    “The above, I hope, puts concepts of “escalation” into some sort of perspective. “Escalation” is just a word, representing the wish of weak governments to do some hazily defined things to look strong. But as I have pointed out endlessly, NATO has nothing to escalate with, and nowhere to escalate to. It will also be obvious from the foregoing, I think, that NATO has no organisational capability to escalate either, apart from making rude gestures. The staged political and bureaucratic decision-making structure of the Cold War is long gone, so the idea that “escalation” might in some sense “get out of control” makes no sense. Talk of “World War 3” therefore makes no sense either.

    It’s very hard for western “strategists” to appreciate how limited western options actually are, which is why there is so much wild talk and so little informed analysis. It’s a curiosity of this whole dismal affair that “strategists” seem disconnected from reality in every sense. Just as they can’t decide whether Russia is ridiculously weak or terrifying powerful, so they can’t decide whether the United States, in particular, is an empire in the last stages of disintegration, or a hyper-powerful player dictating everything that happens in the world. The reaction to my observation that the West is weak and out of options is too often “they’ll think of something,” and “they’re crazy”, which are not answers but ways of avoiding reality.”

    So, in short, I believe the Nato is mainly a threat to people living in the member states. The day Nato is put to test, we will be the main victims.

  4. responseTwo

    Nato is run by the US ruling class. Your not going to reform it. Wait for it to crumble.

  5. different clue

    Since the official stated purpose of NATO was for Europe and Canada and America to jointly protect Europe ( and America/Canada slightly but how real was their fear?) from invasion or other takeover by specifically Communism emanating from the USSR.

    I realize that was not the real reason, at least not entirely. But that was the reason sold to us, specifically by Truman and Vandenberg here in the US. As Senator Vandenberg ( Republican of Michigan I believe) , told Truman . . . ” You have to scare hell out of the American people.” So let us pretend to believe that Communism was the reason and let us see if we can torture the American government into pretending Communism was the reason. And based on that, let We The People see if we can torture and terrorise the American DC FedRegime into unilaterally cancelling its membership in NATO in such a way that NATO collapses and disappears.

    That would be NATO abolition, the best outcome.

    If EUrope wanted to have a mini-NATO of its own, let them keep up their own mini-NATO among themselves if they so choose. Without America ( and if Canada also decides to defect, then without Canada either) , it would no longer be a North Atlantic-wide Treaty Organization. It would be a strictly North East Atlantic Treaty Organization. And if such an organization wanted to practice Truth in Labelling, it could cancel the name NATO and rename itself NEATO. Standing for North East Atlantic Treaty Organization.

    Hey NEATO! No more NATO. And we Americans could finally bring our NATO hostages home. ” Hostages”? Yes. The hundred thousand American soldiers and support-staff held hostage by NATO on bases all over EUrope.

  6. Carborundum

    It seems to me that one either has to be more selective about which countries join or one has to have a means of decision making other than consensus. Some of the post-89 joiners made a good deal of sense and others, really have not. It sucks to be a buffer state, but there’s a reason why we repeatedly see this type of arrangement throughout history. Unfortunately, my view is entirely moot given alliance realities.

    Abolishment would be a Bad Idea [tm]. Very little good has ever come from power vacuums. A huge fraction the problems we’re currently dealing with are direct or indirect consequences of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

  7. StewartM

    1). I’d say the original alliance, plus East Germany in the unified Germany, but none of the former Warsaw Pact or neutral countries east of that.

  8. Tc

    No informed opinion except why the fuck is Hungary in either NATO or the EU,? It should have been kicked out ages ago. Poland and Slovakia plus maybe Czechia are or have recently been questionable democracies for EU membership too.

    So I guess that means option 1 here

  9. Curt Kastens

    Abolish NATO. Replace NATO with an EU Defence Ministry. This Ministry would oversee a an EU Coast Guard, and an EU Air Force. Each EU country would continue to have its own army. But the EU Defence Ministry would coordinate the size of each nation’s army and the type of units that it would have to avoid wasteful duplication.
    A Russian Division or Two should be placed on the English Channel. And the Iranian Air Force should be placed in charge of Ramstein Air Base.
    The Nation of Germany can show its gratitude to the Nation of the United States by ceeding the territory that the US military hotel in Garmisch sits on. The Soviets got Kalinjngrad from Germany. The people of the USSR suffered a lot from the Nahzi invasion. Based upon a principle of proportionality the US shroud get the hotel in Garmisch-P..

  10. Douglas Larsen

    Kind of curious that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has opened membership to Asian and Latin American countries.

    The organization is a political tool of course, and while the world would be better off without it, that’s not going to happen—at least not in my lifetime.

    Look forward to your article.

  11. shagggz

    3! It serves no purpose beyond hornswoggling people into war with Russia. “Let’s you and him fight.”

  12. JR

    3. Can’t come up with any good reason why it shouldn’t be abolished.

  13. albrt

    abolish

  14. EarlyGray

    I agree with Jan Wiklund that 1 is ideal. Having a defensive alliance is justifiable and it should be reformed to be such. But that’s not on the cards is it?

  15. Clonal Antibody

    3. It should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact was abolished.

  16. Tom Whipple

    3

  17. Eric Anderson

    3. It’s bodyguards for billionaires.

  18. Bill H.

    Abolish. Forthwith. It was created to restrain the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.

  19. Buckley

    1

  20. SocalJimObjects

    2. It’s a paper tiger filled with incompetent people, so it’s fine the way it is.

  21. JOHN CHRISTOPHER WHEELER

    3

  22. KT Chong

    There will be a new military bloc vs. NATO.

    • The US wants to take down participant nations of Belt and Road Initiative.

    • In addition, the US and Europe are facing an increasingly hostile and uncooperative Global South, due to the Western support of the genocide in Gaza and West Bank.

    • The US will back coups and incite civil unrest in BRI nations and the Global South, (the two mostly overlap;) and, if a coup fails or an unrest does not materializes, the US will use direct military invasions and occupations, most likely with assist from NATO.

    • In reaction and self-defense, a new military alliance in the Global South will be formed to counter the malign intents and actions of the US.

    I am gonna call it… the Global South Alliance (GSA) or just Global South Initiative. (GSI).

  23. Jim Fish

    Should have been abolished when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. Ideally, should never have been established in the first place as a US-dominated/US-centric offensive organization.

  24. Nora Handler

    A big 3!

  25. Mike Cooper

    1

  26. John

    Abolish it as should have happened when Warsaw Pact dissolved. It always was a hostile war making pact.
    We should also go back to putting armed forces under WAR ministries and calling it what it is. Defense is complete hogwash.
    The AMOC stopping is probably the biggest threat North Atlantic countries have in common. A treaty org about that would be nice.

  27. Willy

    While the current purpose of NATO is god knows what, the biggest current result of NATO is that it’s kept its member nations from warring against each other. Almost 75 years without a major European war seems remarkable. So 1.

  28. Bill

    Since the USA occupied Britain and Europe in 1945 and largely remained an occupier, Europe and NATO does what the US wants even when against Europe’s best interests so disband NATO.

  29. StewartM

    Willy

    While the current purpose of NATO is god knows what, the biggest current result of NATO is that it’s kept its member nations from warring against each other.

    While that’s true, Willy, it’s also a good reason to have kept the USSR together. Just Gandhi’s idea of keeping India together was a good idea, and India/Pakistan is a bad idea (i.e., it has two countries that shared a lot in common and whose populations used to live together in reasonable peace, no regarding each other as mortal enemies and pointing nuclear weapons at one another). It’s also why the “two state solution” to Israel/Palestine is a bad idea, as it will likely end just like India/Pakistan.

    When all the nationalities of the USSR were under one political tent, they lived in with each other in reasonable peace, they intermarried and got jobs all across the USSR—you have say, people from the central Asia republics living in St. Petersburg, etc. As I have said, you had, say Ukrainians at the very top of the Soviet government (Khrushchev, as one example). Once you broke them up into separate political entities, then the leadership of all those entities is motivated to bring up and amplify old grievances that are best forgotten to justify, maintain, and promote their power. By contrast, the Soviet leadership was strongly motivated to lessen those grievances and promote harmony.

    And NATO currently is encouraging this mess. The hypocrisy is that France wouldn’t allow Aquitaine to break away, Germany wouldn’t allow Mecklenburg to form its own independent nation, the UK would not be keen with Northumbria seceding, and of course the US maintains that Texas can’t be its own nation again. True, Ukraine has its own language but even then shares much of its culture with Russia and thus the situation is more akin to India and China, both of which house dozens if not hundreds of different languages but likewise share largely the same culture.

  30. Dan

    If we’d just done #3 back in 1992 and not spent the rest of that decade raping Russia, there wouldn’t be a dire need for #1 now

  31. Bill Jacobson

    3. Abolish.

    “NATO is the only plausible justification in my country for the American military presence in Europe.” — Bush to Mitterand, April 1990

    “The reason NATO still exists is to handle the problems that NATO’s continuing existence creates.” — Chas Freeman, April 2024

  32. Siew Wong

    3.
    NATO has passed its use by date.
    It is being used by the US to preserve its global hegemony and imperialism. The US is now extending NATO’s reach to Asia to bully China. If NATO is not disbanded, it will likely start WW3 instead of keeping to its founding aim of preventing the next world war.

  33. Mary Bennet

    Combination of #1 and #2. There is no need for Turkey to be a member any longer and possibly not the Mediterranean countries either.

    While there is no longer a need to defend against Communism, if there ever was, a need does exist to defend the North Atlantic and Pacific and the parts of the warming Arctic which are adjacent to North America and Europe. I think that reality is the fundamental reason why Finland and Sweden joined after decades of proud neutrality.

    Japan should be invited to join if not already a member. A reformed NATO should be not only a military alliance of members, but should have the means to defend members and their citizens against irresponsible and wasteful commercial exploitation as well.

    Russia IS NOT our enemy. For the record, as an American citizen whose ancestors participated in the Revolution, Union army, and WWs I and II, I. DO. NOT. CARE. what atrocity was committed in what village in The Pale by what half-starved, never been away from home before, brutalized Czarist soldier. IMO, the Mittel European diaspora, of all three faiths, needs to give up its’ old-world resentments. I don’t see Americans of Pakistani or Indian origin agitating for us to go to war with Pakistan or India.

    Belt and Road is a sensible project which is long overdue. Unfortunately, it seems to be collapsing of its’ own weight, at least in some places. See Sri Lanka for an instructive example. It is also interesting to note that India is having no part of B & R.

    A reformed NATO should be quietly having talks with Russia about peaceful use of the Arctic sea-lanes and responsible exploitation of Arctic resources. China could have its’ coveted access along with the rest of the world but not with ownership, and no establishment of Chinese only enclaves. Inuit should be privileged for settlement of a warming Greenland.

  34. Purple Library Guy

    3. I could see a case for 1, but I have no confidence in it; I really lean much more 3.

  35. Purple Library Guy

    @KT Chong: I think that counter-organization, or a big chunk of it anyway, will be called the “Shanghai Co-operation Organisation”.

  36. TimmyB

    NATO should have allowed Russia to join. That would have been the only reform necessary.

    Now? It should be abolished. A new European security system is needed however to keep European nations from fighting each other.

  37. Tim

    3. Pure and simple.

  38. Willy

    it’s also a good reason to have kept the USSR together

    What’s really gonna bake your noodle, is if NATO had successfully encouraged both Ukraine and Russia to join up, would there still be a “Special Operation” going on? Or in NATO, would they have reunited peacefully and encouraged other nations to join them just like in the good old days? And with a new USSR (some say the Soviet Union was less union and more empire, so this time it’d be more union) would China have started its own equivalent multination organization to nowhere, and we’d all be back at some kind of cold war thing going on?

    As you might be able to tell I’ve never been much of a joiner or an empire builder, and so uniquely positioned to poke fun at that kind of stuff.

  39. somecomputerguy

    NATO is the most effective international military alliance in history. It should be a model for the rest of world. The more members it has the better.

    Just don’t mistake NATO for a defensive alliance against an external threat.

    NATO’s symbol shouldn’t be a compass rose, it should be a fat, slumbering toothless tiger, and that is a good thing. Actually, a great thing.

    Given the preceding 1000 years of European history, an easily coequal founding goal was to keep its members from fighting each other. It has succeeded fabulously. Better than fabulously; NATO members don’t just suck at fighting each other, they can barely have an argument with anyone else. That is quite a change from the 19th century.

    NATO’s mediocrity should be a source of pride, both for the Europeans and for the U.S..

    What is the secret of NATO’s success?
    My understanding is that it turned European militaries from a source of national pride and identity, and an important source of spending domestically, into an external obligation which could easily and credibly be short-changed.

    My understanding is that NATO members don’t have “complete militaries”; some have stronger ground forces and pathetic air forces.

    Someday, the Greeks will get tired of permanent depression, and dump the Euro. Can anyone envision a joint German/French military operation in the name of their bankers?

  40. Nate Wilcox

    Looks like most everyone is going for #3. I think NATO is going to go out the hard way.

  41. Olivier

    3

  42. Ben

    3. Thirty years late is better than never.

  43. Stephen T Johnson

    3

  44. Feral Finster

    Should have been abolished long ago. The problem now is in doing so.

  45. somecomputerguy

    Will no one rise to my tendentiousness?

    Russia should have been a NATO member 25 years ago. Russia would have been the the only member with a proven, credible external security threat; China.
    In the ’50s China was printing maps showing large swaths of the Soviet far east as Chinese territory. In the ’60s they fought major battles on their border. If China wants to expand it’s borders…

    I thought Russia was a credible candidate for membership back then. 20 years from now, who knows how things will look?

    Eventually, current conflicts will alleviate. Leadership will change. People will change.

    NATO has a 75 year proven track record as disarmament program masquerading as a defensive alliance.

  46. Jorge

    3.

    Since 1990, NATO’s main purpose has been to control African natural resources.

  47. Freduardo B

    Why was NATO in Libya? Or anywhere outside of Europe?

    3

  48. District 6

    NATO was formed in 1949 to stop the spread of communism in Western Europe. To snatch a line from Bushie Jr: Mission Accomplished. It should have dissolved in 1991. #3.

  49. Gaianne

    3.
    NATO should have been abolished in the early 1990s. Extending NATO to the Russian borders was an astonishing piece of bad faith which will not do the West any good, even in its own terms.
    The West was already in decline, but the activities of NATO have committed the West to complete destruction–even without a nuclear war (which the Russians are still working to avoid).

    –Gaianne

  50. District 6

    NATO started out with 12 member countries and had 16 by the end of the Cold War. After NATO completed its mission, it doubled in size to 32! It would appear that NATO today is largely a racket: bring in additional countries so you sell them military equipment.

  51. Dan Kelly

    I missed this.

    Abolished.

  52. Stephen Bobb

    3

  53. Willy

    Still 1. But this time, get Russia and Ukraine to both join on the condition they cease all hostilities, after which they’ll each receive one helluva welcome basket. That’s reform Part A.

    Reform Part B. Get China to join. Then abolish NATO as being as nonsensically irrelevant as is this comment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén