NATO, does it have a future?

[2tallbill]

There was a thread several years ago about Russia joining NATO.

I looked for it but couldn't find it. What is the future for NATO?
It seems most Europeans care little about defending themselves
or at least spending the money and/or troops to do it.

I am going to post some articles to promote discussion. Others
should feel free to do the same.

I do implore everyone to keep the discussion civil.

[2tallbill]

Don’t Let Vladimir Putin Destroy NATO
James B. Foley Time Magazin

read about it all here
http://time.com/4276525/vladimir-putin-nato/

[2tallbill]

Indefensible: Europe cuts NATO spending while the U.S. pays

read all about it here
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/02/Indefensible-Europe-cuts-NATO-spending-while-the-U-S-pays/stories/201502280081

[Faux Pas]

My personal opinion is NATO isn't going anywhere and it doesn't matter if the Europeans fund it or not. NATO is a military extension of the United Nations and will in all likelihood remain funded by the U.S. or the UN or both

[GuppyCaptain]

My personal opinion is NATO isn't going anywhere and it doesn't matter if the Europeans fund it or not. NATO is a military extension of the United Nations and will in all likelihood remain funded by the U.S. or the UN or both

And certainly while Vlady baby maintains his aggressive stance.

[jone]

I have it on good authority that Greece will fund NATO.

[Faux Pas]

And certainly while Vlady baby maintains his aggressive stance.

IMHO, he wouldn't be the reason or even a threat. NATO just being NATO is all the UN needs to intervene anywhere it decides at anytime. The UN is the globalist's "authority" to do as they wish and NATO is just another tool to insure the world complies

I have it on good authority that Greece will fund NATO.

Fund it with what? 

[Gator]

My personal opinion is NATO isn't going anywhere and it doesn't matter if the Europeans fund it or not.

Agree, but not for this reason:

NATO is a military extension of the United Nations and will in all likelihood remain funded by the U.S. or the UN or both

NATO is not connected with the UN in governance or mission.  The UN's military activities are limited to peacekeeping, while NATO is about defense and intervention. 

[2tallbill]

I have included a map of the 28 NATO countries. The UN has 193 member countries
and it has no control over NATO, although sometimes they have incestuous relations.

[2tallbill]

NATO is not connected with the UN in governance or mission.  The UN's military activities are limited to peacekeeping, while NATO is about defense and intervention.

Exactly, if NATO was tied to the UN then Russia could veto any NATO action or
decision.

[Gator]

Should NATO broaden its mission to address terror, intervening against groups who sponsor terror attacks against member countries? 

NATO went to Afghanistan to fight al Qaeda and even the Taliban (who did not attack the US).   However, so far there is no proposal to deploy to Syria even though ISIL attacked France and Belgium. 

Maybe some fear that if NATO took a broader stand against terror, it would take over the domestic programs as well. Or maybe the different member countries simply are not comfortable in sharing intelligence, etc. 

In any event, Putin's initiatives give reasons for keeping NATO intact.  Question:  did the NATO actions to include Poland, Baltic States, etc.  compel Putin's subsequent actions in Ukraine?  When the situation was reversed, we know what we did. 

[The Natural]

NATO these days are mostly an instrument for Washington policies of regime change. European countries participated in the campaigns in the middle east and is now paying for it with the wave of refugees. I think it's dawning on many politicians that these bombing campaigns eventually comes back to bite us, and maybe think twice about what NATO's become.

[jone]

The most expedient truth has nothing to do with NATO and everything to do with the former generation of Soviet operatives who now sit in the Siloviki.  They saw NATO as a means to bring Russia back to prominence.  After all, if Russia didn't have an enemy, how could its people be mobilized?

Russia was looked at, by NATO, as an emergining ally in the fight against terrorism.  Then everything gets turned around on European soil.

I know it has been suggested, but NATO owes its resurgence to Russia for doing such boneheaded things to keep the current leadership in power.

[Faux Pas]

Agree, but not for this reason:


NATO is not connected with the UN in governance or mission.  The UN's military activities are limited to peacekeeping, while NATO is about defense and intervention.

Really? Maybe you should remind NATO of that?

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50321.htm

[Brasscasing]

What most people don't realize is that NATO was formed not only to deter Soviet aggression but to ensure there was a collective North American (US, Canada) adult in the room post WW2 Europe. ...

"A short history of NATO

It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration."...

http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html

...North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union....

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/nato

Although conceived by the US, Canada and several other Western European nations (think WW2 allies for the most part) NATO was mandated and is subordinate to the UN Charter...

...The North Atlantic Treaty and the UN Charter

The Charter of the United Nations, signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945 by fifty nations, provides the legal basis for the creation of NATO and acknowledges the overall responsibility of the UN Security Council for international peace and security.

The preamble to NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on 4 April 1949 makes it clear that the UN Charter is the framework within which the Alliance operates.

http://www.nato.int/summit2009/topics_en/20-nato-un_relations.html#charter

Is NATO still relevant?

No, it's not. It failed miserably with Georgia and Ukraine and it's dithering and inaction over the last decade has made it nothing more than an ineffectual debate society.

IMO NORAD and a beefed up Commonwealth Nations pact would suffice for North American, Western Europe's (UK and like minded Nordic/East European nations) and far flung Commonwealth countries like OZ and NZ's collective security with the added bonus of costing half of what the NATO infrastructure costs now.

I believe that fluid agreements for military intervention more along the lines of 'coalitions of the willing' are more effective in this day and age.

I'm also aware of the ongoing problem of NATO being muzzled under the current US administration's foreign policy and several influential European nation's "peace at all costs" stance when dealing with aggressor nations and this may change with a new US administration (we can only hope).

The challenge with a debate of this nature is reconciling the third world country club's (UN) increasing irrelevance and perpetual gridlock of it's Security Council as it relates to the current world situation.

It seems legally (used as an excuse to avoid taking action for the most part) all roads lead to the UN charter/resolutions.

I believe dismantling this ridiculous bureaucracy (UN) should be the first priority of 1st world nations (having said that there are a number of stand alone agencies within the UN that are worth saving examples being WHO, UNHCR and one or two others).

Brass

[BC]

Brass,

Best not to demolish old bridges, even if failing, until a better one has been built.

Georgia and Ukraine are very bad examples of failed NATO policies as neither are members, thus do not enjoy any benefits or protections thereof.

[Brasscasing]

Brass,

Best not to demolish old bridges, even if failing, until a better one has been built.

Georgia and Ukraine are very bad examples of failed NATO policies as neither are members, thus do not enjoy any benefits or protections thereof.

Hiya BC,

You're technically (by the book) correct on both counts. However, I submit that NORAD and the Commonwealth Of Nations are already established treatise that encompass common security for it's member nations.

NORAD's operational mission is self evident and could probably be tweaked to include whatever was deemed necessary to enhance North American security with little negotiation.

 The Commonwealth - Although not a military organization/charter could be amended to include a military commitment for the common good. Currently The Commonwealth Charter states the following...

International peace and security

We firmly believe that international peace and security, sustainable economic growth and development and the rule of law are essential to the progress and prosperity of all. We are committed to an effective multilateral system based on inclusiveness, equity, justice and international law as the best foundation for achieving consensus and progress on major global challenges including piracy and terrorism.

We support international efforts for peace and disarmament at the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. We will contribute to the promotion of international consensus on major global political, economic and social issues. We will be guided by our commitment to the security, development and prosperity of every member state.

We reiterate our absolute condemnation of all acts of terrorism in whatever form or wherever they occur or by whomsoever perpetrated, with the consequent tragic loss of human life and severe damage to political, economic and social stability. We reaffirm our commitment to work together as a diverse community of nations, individually, and collectively under the auspices and authority of the United Nations, to take concerted and resolute action to eradicate terrorism. 

commonwealth-charter-section/international-peace-and-security

As it stands The Commonwealth defers to the UN Charters for security/common defense issues but I would guess that if the UN were rendered defunct this article could be expanded to include an Article 5 like declaration for member nation mutual protection.

NATO member nations - History shows us that NATO has rarely acted as a result of a member nation being attacked invoking an Article 5 collective defense response.

The only time it was ever used if memory serves was the U.S. invoking an Article 5 after 9/11.

NATO intervention is more often than not a UN security council directive. I suggest that the invasion of both Georgia and Ukraine more than satisfied a NATO response as a history of NATO operations would demonstrate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Operations

In Ukraine's case the Budapest Memorandum should have been more than sufficient grounds for NATO intervention.

NATO has been shooting up countries on a regular basis where so-called member nations were nowhere to be found for 20+ years now. Yet on the two occasions the organization truly needed to fulfill the mandate for which it was created it just didn't happen.

This makes the organization in it's current incarnation useless in my book and it should be disbanded.

Brass 

 

[Gator]

Really? Maybe you should remind NATO of that?

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50321.htm

Perfunctory. 

[Gator]

NATO these days are mostly an instrument for Washington policies of regime change. European countries participated in the campaigns in the middle east and is now paying for it with the wave of refugees. I think it's dawning on many politicians that these bombing campaigns eventually comes back to bite us, and maybe think twice about what NATO's become.

Partially true.  Examine the three largest sources of refugees. 

-  You can blame the US for refugees from Iraq.  Although the situation would not have been as bad if the US had maintained a meaningful presence.

-  Obama says the EU took the lead on Libya.  You believe Obama don't you.   

-  The largest source of refugees is Syria where NATO, EU, US did nothing (other than endorsing the concept of Arab Spring).   

The BIG question - why does Europe allow the refugees to enter?  The refugees take your financial aid and other government support, yet continue to hate you.  And the future looks worse.   Many of the refugees are able bodied men who could fight for their country and rebuild it after the conflicts have declined.   IMO, Europe should not accept such men.  Europe should spend its money on refugee camps that prepare the displaced population for eventually returning to their country.  And train young men to fight for their country.   

[AkMike]

IMHO, he wouldn't be the reason or even a threat.

 

[Faux Pas]

Perfunctory.

Not so much to the Serbians, Afghans or Libyans 

[The Natural]

The BIG question - why does Europe allow the refugees to enter?  The refugees take your financial aid and other government support, yet continue to hate you.  And the future looks worse.   Many of the refugees are able bodied men who could fight for their country and rebuild it after the conflicts have declined.   IMO, Europe should not accept such men.  Europe should spend its money on refugee camps that prepare the displaced population for eventually returning to their country.  And train young men to fight for their country.

I agree. It's crazy to let in so many, especially for the Advanced welfare states like Norway (Sweden is as good as done for With it's mindblowing number of immigrants).
So many more could have been helped Close to where they come from. Most aren't the really poor and desperate, but People looking for a comfortable life in a welfare state. They most often has lost their Passports but not their I-Phones.

[BC]

   

The BIG question - why does Europe allow the refugees to enter?  The refugees take your financial aid and other government support, yet continue to hate you.  And the future looks worse.   Many of the refugees are able bodied men who could fight for their country and rebuild it after the conflicts have declined.   IMO, Europe should not accept such men.  Europe should spend its money on refugee camps that prepare the displaced population for eventually returning to their country.  And train young men to fight for their country.

The roots lie in the words below.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Most of Europe has been very accepting of refugees, but yes the capacity to properly process and filter out those not deserving refugee status has been overwhelmed these last years.

Recent agreements with Turkey to provide a buffer with intent of repatriation as soon as the situation on the ground improves is underway.

Lets also not forget lessons learned in the past where segments of society were ostracized and eliminated.  Europe is especially sensitive to history and the topic may be much more 'at home' than in the US.

I believe the root cause lies much deeper than what one sees at first sight, mainly with regional destabilization.  Any time the powers in a region are weakened, many interests will try to leverage their weight to gain influence and profit.

-  The largest source of refugees is Syria where NATO, EU, US did nothing (other than endorsing the concept of Arab Spring).

   

Endorse, instigate, finance, whatever is much like the butterfly in Africa that causes a devastating hurricane that lashes the US Gulf and East Coast.  Even if considered 'bad' or contrary to our thoughts and ideology, if it somehow works it's probably wiser and less destructive not to screw around with it.  IMHO Iraq provided fertile ground by destabilizing the entire region that is now enlarging.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, NY, Paris, Brussels.. in one way or another are all more related than not.

Sadly, I note the superpowers are also now playing post Cold War chess games via such proxy conflicts.

I only hope that more history will be remembered than forgotten.

[Gator]

The roots lie in the words below.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...."

Nice try, but I am not buying it.  Whether correct or not, the general opinion here is that Merkel et al welcome refugees more for economic reasons (aging population) rather than moral values. 

BTW, in the era of your quoted poem, and eras before and after, America indeed needed the masses to settle the vast open lands in the West (much of which had been stolen from Native Americans and then Mexico), to build cities and infrastructure, to operate the factories of a growing economy, to extract the coal and oil needed to fuel the economy, .......  The situation has changed.  The lands have been settled. Our working class is now underemployed.   The masses are not welcome. 

And if Europe is so accepting of refugees for moral reasons, there are situations in Africa just as bad as Syria and Libya.   
   

Even if considered 'bad' or contrary to our thoughts and ideology, if it somehow works it's probably wiser and less destructive not to screw around with it.

I would say we have learned our lesson.  However, after Bush's mistake of invading Iraq, Obama became as much an interventionist as Bush and his plans for the aftermath were even more faulty.  It seems  we have finally learned our lesson (yet I recall the same sentiment after Vietnam).

IMHO Iraq provided fertile ground by destabilizing the entire region that is now enlarging.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, NY, Paris, Brussels.. in one way or another are all more related than not.

Long before Bush and Obama destabilized Iraq, the Europeans did much to alter the politics of the region.  Europeans drew the political lines to replace the Ottoman Empire.  Prior to that Europeans were colonialists, e. g., your adopted country wrestled control of Libya from the Ottomans and stayed.  And to take it to the ridiculous, the Romans and Carthage. 

Sadly, I note the superpowers are also now playing post Cold War chess games via such proxy conflicts.

So far the US has not escalated hostilities,  whether it be Georgia, Ukraine, Syria.   The South China Sea could become the exception.   Fortunately the Chinese economy is very intertwined with the West's, giving hope that sane heads will prevail.  That could change if we end free trade, upgrade the military, and become hawkish.   

I only hope that more history will be remembered than forgotten.

I too hope this is the case, yet given time some crazed egomaniac will push too far.  It could happen with Iran. 

[BC]

Nice try, but I am not buying it.  Whether correct or not, the general opinion here is that Merkel et al welcome refugees more for economic reasons (aging population) rather than moral values. 

BTW, in the era of your quoted poem, and eras before and after, America indeed needed the masses to settle the vast open lands in the West (much of which had been stolen from Native Americans and then Mexico), to build cities and infrastructure, to operate the factories of a growing economy, to extract the coal and oil needed to fuel the economy, .......  The situation has changed.  The lands have been settled. Our working class is now underemployed.   The masses are not welcome. 

And if Europe is so accepting of refugees for moral reasons, there are situations in Africa just as bad as Syria and Libya.   
   

The poem referring to the Statue of Liberty for me  pretty much says that those seeking new shores, in whatever condition can become a part of productive society, so yes immigration plays a fundamental role in past and modern day economics.

In the past Germany has not only sought sources for their workforce post WWII but also had an open door policy for refugees and those seeking asylum from countries where political and other politically motivated persecutions prevailed, mainly from the east.  But yes, overall humanitarian policies prevail as they should.  The current wave of refugees do not really meet that criteria but a processing environment is in place.

http://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/Topics/Migration-Integration/Asylum-Refugee-Protection/Asylum-Refugee-Protection_Germany/asylum-refugee-policy-germany_node.html

Although this is for Germany, most other EU follow suit with similar regulations.

The crux of the matter at the moment is that a sponge can only absorb a certain amount of water... and now much of EU is looking at a sponge floating in a  pail of muddy water.

An aside.. I was in Belgium last week and flew in/out via BRU..  Security was very very tight with multiple id and boarding pass checks even when driving into the airport and returning a car rental.

The terrorists are winning.  The Brussels incident alone costing 5 million per day and Trillions in costs over the years for the US fighting wars and reacting exactly like the terrorists want.

Considering that freedom has always had a cost, often in blood, I wonder if in the end game the cost is really warranted..  Yes seek and destroy those who wish to cause harm.. but at the same time don't let them  win by destroying our freedoms.