Short Take: Reforming NATO

3 should have been abolished years ago

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

abolish

3

3

3. It’s bodyguards for billionaires.

1

3

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.

A big 3!

3

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.

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.

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

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.

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

3. Pure and simple.

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?

3

3. Thirty years late is better than never.

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

3.

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

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.

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.

3