A Forward Controller brings the paratroopers from 3 PARA in to West Freugh, Scotland during a drop from a French Air Force C160 aircraft. Soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade are training to maintain their role as the British Army’s Rapid Reaction Force. More than 1600 troops taking part in Exercise Joint Warrior in southwest Scotland. The training is a key step in maintaining the skills necessary for the Airborne Task Force (ABTF) role, which sees the Colchester-based 16 Air Assault Brigade ready to deploy anywhere in the world at five days notice. The exercise scenario sees the area of West Freugh airfield representing part of an area disputed by two fictional nations named Pastonia and Dragonia, which are divided by economic and ethnic factors. The scenario represents complex challenges for the international community requiring NATO to send a rapid intervention force to the area to create the conditions for a United Nations peacekeeping force to take control. The UK’s ABTF used a combination of parachute, air assault, and tactical air landings to rapidly insert the troops into the disputed area. Once inserted the ABTF, based around the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 SCOTS) Battle Group, continued to defend the airfield. The Battle Group also developed the airfield into a base from which several air assault operations could be launched to defeat the enemy force, create stable conditions for the population, and potentially evacuate UK civilians. Lieutenant Colonel Neil Den-McKay, Commanding Officer 5 SCOTS explained: “The ABTF is a light by design, powerful and highly capable taskforce, designed for operations anywhere in the world. The training to undertake this role is incredibly cPhotographer: MARK Owens Image 45153890.jpg from www.defenceimages.mod.uk For latest news visit: www.mod.uk Follow us: www.facebook.com/defenceimages www.twitter.com/defenceimagesCold War II began with the Ukraine crisis. At least, that’s what analysts such as Robert Legvold argue, pointing out that the current pattern of proxy conflicts, espionage, and geopolitical manoeuvring fits the Cold War model. Others, however, dispute the notion that Russia and the West are currently engaged in a new Cold War, arguing that the situation is more complicated; there are now multiple centres of power, and the current divide is not as ideologically-driven.

Nevertheless, it certainly feels like old rivalries have been reignited. NATO forces are currently taking part in the biggest Western troop build-up along Russia’s borders since the Cold War proper. More than 7,000 troops have been deployed in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. Meanwhile, the “frozen” conflict in Ukraine is heating up.

During the Cold War, collective defence against the Soviet threat was at the heart of NATO’s mission. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO seemed to lack a clear purpose. Today, though, even as the US President disparages NATO as “obsolete”, it’s clear that many senior members of the Trump administration still see the alliance as very relevant. Could the new “Cold War” reinvigorate NATO?

Curious to know more about NATO operations in Eastern Europe? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

NATO_2
We had a comment from Dirk, who argued that Russia will see the troop build-up in Eastern Poland as an act of aggression. Why not, he suggests, instead have the troops in Germany or Western Poland with the possibility to react, but with enough distance to avoid provocation?

To get a response, we spoke to Anna Fotyga, a Polish MEP from the ruling Law and Justice party, and Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. What would she say to Dirk’s suggestion?

We also had a comment from Michael, who argued that the Cold War is over, and that all Russia wants today is to be left alone, without NATO bases surrounding its borders. Is he right? And does that mean that NATO today is redundant?

To get a response, we put Michael’s comment to Afzal Khan, a British Labour MEP and Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. What would he say?

To get another perspective, we put the same question to Hilde Vautmans, a Belgian MEP with the liberal Flemish VLD party and a member of the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. How would she respond?

Does the new ‘Cold War’ prove NATO is still relevant? Is NATO’s troop build-up in Eastern Europe needlessly provoking Russia? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Defence Images


247 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

    • Bobi Dochev

      May I correct you… It was DIRECTLY!

    • Duncan

      You’re both very biased against NATO it seems.

    • SD

      It’s irrelevant who you blame but remember this it’s better to be friends with Russia and vice versa than enemies. Both sides have the capabilities to destroy each other easily. And mark my words this would be a war that your children would see with their own eyes, a war on your own streets, a war in your own cities. Millions and millions of people would die and those who survived would wish that they had died because life would be forever changed and not for the better, radiation sickness, poisoned water, rubble everywhere. No more concerts in London, no more cafe in Paris or seeing the sights of Moscow. Having a permanent adversary is not helpful to the General Public. It might be helpful to those who sell weapons, to those politicians and other Elites who wish to have more power to fight this supposed or factual enemy but the general public has nothing except the costs the threat of death looming in the background if things take a turn for the worse. This monkey madness politics must stop!

    • Duncan

      SD, I agree to an extent. It’s better to be peaceful than militarily hostile. But, I’d add this condition into the mix. To the extent that we don’t want to be causing trouble. It’s never better to bow down or run in the face of an aggressor. Always stand your ground, reach out with your hand but be ready to clench it into a fist if they’re still trying to cause trouble. That’s just what NATO are doing. Nobody’s talking about mobilising against Russia in a 1st strike situation, just not leaving the door open and falling asleep on guard duty when the neighbour’s place got robbed recently. Frankly the troops deployed in eastern Europe would only slow a Russian attack down, not be enough to protect indefinitely. But hopefully would buy enough time to mobilise a response force. As long as Putin avoids conflict then so will NATO. People forget that not even in the cold war did either side want a war, just used the threat of force to support a game of politics. I think this is what’s happening again. Places like Syria will be the areas the two forces will demonstrate military capabilities. Which is of itself deplorable, but at least means Europe should be safe. Of course, that’s unless all these idiots crying out for an EU army get their way. At that point it’ll be open season. No turkey, no Canada, no USA, UK would maybe still get involved depending on just how constructive exit negotiations went (not a threat btw, just a pointed fact that if the EU are purposefully going to cause the UK problems it might put a strain on public opinion to send people off to die for the EU, and also risk leaving our own territorial area undefended) so all in all lots less troops, probably more so since the EU would lose half the military budget funds and they’d cut spending to 1% or less because of austerity. Then before they could launch a defense, they have six months of debate and a 27 state vote to agree to do it. . . . . . . . . Makes me worry that this sort of thinking is so popular on here.

    • Imanuel d'Anjou

      until then, we need NATO, are you kidding

    • Paul X

      Do you really believe the bunch of second rate politicians in Brussels are competent enough to be put in charge of an army?

      ..and which great military commander in Europe is going to be put in charge on the ground?….NATO works because command and control is dominated by one (major contributing) nation……..bringing together 27 second rate military forces with all the individual agendas and internal politics is a recipe for disaster and would probably lead to the most ineffective force on the planet

    • Ivan Burrows

      Renata Komninos

      It would be interesting to see if Germany came to your rescue when Turkey invades.

      Given their history they would throw you to the wolves.

    • Renata Komninos

      Ivan Burrows I think a say a European army!

    • Renata Komninos

      Ivan Burrows I don’t remember na to to help Cyprus at all!

    • Duncan

      Renata, are you serious? Turkey “helped” Cyprus when Greece invaded. Turkey are part of NATO. It’s the fact they’re still “helping” that’s the problem.

    • Павел Манев

      No such animal as european army, every country should maintain its own army.

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Renata Komninos
      The EU is too poor to rustle up enough cash to defend themselves adequately, your point is thus, silly.

    • Karolina

      Second-rate politicians are in charge of Brexit :-)!

    • Paul X

      “Second-rate politicians are in charge of Brexit”

      Clearly the UK wants to negotiate on the same level as their counterparts in Brussels :-)

    • Karolina

      A person with average intelligence can work out that you have to be better than your opponent in order to be the winner of negotiations and therefore you would need first-rate politicians. Probably, they would not go for Brexit at all and so you are stuck with the second-rate ones.

    • Paul X

      A person with above average intelligence realises that negotiations are not a competition and nobody looks to win or lose instead the aim is to try and come to a mutually acceptable compromise

  1. Bobi Dochev

    The new “Cold war” was started by NATO!!! After years of peace, demilitarization and cutting the military budgets more and more people asked why we need such organization… then the damn NATO criminals finally made an enemy and now the money flow is back to them!
    Only complete idiot could think it is a matter of security – IT IS A MATTER OF MONEY! A LOT OF! BILLIONS AND BILLIONS!!!

    • Tchoum Xav

      Putin made NATO relevant again. Deal with facts, and stop insulting intelligence.

    • Bobi Dochev

      Tchoum Xav You can’t be so stupid :D
      … but if you are… damn… does it hurt :D

    • Justinas Stankūnas

      Maybe if Russia stopped massing troops at our borders and doing training exercises while trespassing on foreign territory you wouldn’t sound like a moron trying to put blame on NATO for starting tensions that western nations are trying to cut down.

    • Duncan

      Bobi, you’re being either gullible or stupid. When did NATO invade Crimea? How do the troops/commanders of NATO benefit from increased military spending? The financial benefactors are companies like BAE, H&K etc. And the people who benefit in terms of wellbeing are the people protected by a larger, better equipped military. Generals don’t get a pay rise out of it.

    • Bobi Dochev

      Hey buddy, even your President and Prime minister admitted that you started the “5h day war” :) Try again :)
      Beginning of the 90’s NATO also ‘promised” not to expand further east but then provoke the Russians several time – when you push somebody to the edge it is normal that before fall down he will react towards you!
      Here is the deal – I do not blame NATO – I just explain why this is criminal organization! ;)

    • Duncan

      Yeah sure Bobi, because Putin getting a place on NATO’s advisory was provocation. Because NATO weren’t ready to admit Russia into NATO and prevent anything like this being possible ever again just a decade ago. Which btw, Russian forces were already being reequipped to make possible. Until Putin started all this, there was a genuine chance for NATO to guarantee no large scale war was possible. The northern hemisphere almost in it’s entirety is quite the alliance to try and attack. So it would just not happen. Putin caused this, Putin can end this. Till then, we’re at loggerheads again.

  2. Любомир Иванчев

    NATO is not relevant anymore. USA should have their armed forces, the EU should create our own armed forces, and we should balance the interests between USA and Russia as a buffer zone. Europe has geo-political and economic interests with both countries and taking sides should not be the question at all. Europe’s interests are to have peaceful, civilized, productive relationships with our trade partners and allies. The constant threat of war is never good for these relationships and it is never good for the economy.

    • Duncan

      Well, as a counter argument any EU army would be impossible to use and as such would be useless. Why would USA want to provoke a war in Europe when the whole purpose of NATO at it’s foundation was to prevent war in Europe? And if Europe has economic interests in both the USA and Russia then both the USA and Russia have economic interests in Europe and as such it ought to be a 3-way destructive effect if any go to war against one of the others, so why is that different now than under a separate EU force?

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Любомир Иванчев
      Russia’s population is less than 1/2 of the USA’s.
      Russia’s GDP is c1/8 th of the USA’s.

      Ergo, Russia is of limited/pipsqueak importance to the EU when contrasted with the USA.

  3. Spyros Zochios

    Russia΄s annexation of Crimea was not only an offence to the international law, it was a brutal action against the will and stance of the western countries that borders do not change. Russia did not show respect to the cause of peace, certain that Nato could not go on war in this place of the world for the sake of Ukraine. Russians believe that Crimea is part of their territory and although they themselves offered the independence it is now high time they take it back. Russia likes to ignore that by questioning the borders of its neighbors it may open the appetite of other countries who for the sake of peace support the settlement of borders in Europe remain.
    The question is whether Nato is relevant. Yes it is relevant. Relevant to intervene and exercise pressure till Russia is persuaded that Crimea be given independence. Of course not by war. War against Russian in its lower abdomen can not be considered a wise attitude and action too.

    • George Titkov

      There is one main issue with your statement – NATO’s statute does not involve “going to war for the sake of Ukraine” or any other non-member country. So it is arbitrarily but persistently suggested that because Russia took Crimea, Russia is going to also attack Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which are NATO members. Secondly, you are wrong about Russia ever giving independence to Crimea. Do you realize that ~85% of the population there are ethnic and Russian-speaking Russians? In fact they only asked for independence once – in 1991, AFTER the USSR fell apart and Ukraine became a state for the first time in History. Crimea voted on a referendum for independence then, to be independent not from Russia but from Ukraine. Ukraine ignored it, although Ukraine itself was allowed to leave the USSR. So, what you are referring to Russia once offering independence to Crimea is the act of Nikita Khrushchev, who merely changed the administrative border within the USSR, it was never an act of ceding territory by one independent country to another. And then came the 2014 west-incited coup in Ukraine which brought neo-nazis to power, of whom some still call for burning the Russian-speaking Ukrainians in gas chambers. However the West turns a blind eye to this and repeats the mantra of ‘Russian aggression’, because that means more money for the military industry.

    • Spyros Zochios

      I always have in mind Nikita Khruschev΄s act. Since i want to be right and I do not like to harm or question people΄s legitimate interests i would kindly ask you to refer exactly to how the status in Crimea has changed. What Khrushev΄ s act provided and what has changed. Is the administrative border still in force? What i want to notice is that i have reasons to support and be in favor of referendums so that majorities decide the fate and destination of peoples. Yet i know that all countries share this opinion when it protects their interests and ignore it when it is another country΄s problem. This is why i want to be always committed to the principle that borders are not disputed and Treaties and agreements as well regardless who is in power, a prince was stubbed, or a soldier was killed in the borders In that case we will have endless wars instead of everlasτing peace. I remember the crimes of Nazis in Ukraine and i would not be against Russia΄ I am pleased we exchanged ideas mr Titkov

    • Eleonora Ilieva

      Crimea was always russian, hundreds years after Russian fightthe ottomans … go read some history you fool … there was referendum and the crimeans are absolutely happy with Russia …

    • Eleonora Ilieva

      Ukraine dont exist in Crimea history ….

    • Duncan

      @Eleonora, the referendum was done under Russian military occupation with Russian troops all over the polling stations, and who knows, maybe even doing the counting? Besides, under the agreement that formalised Ukrainian separation from the U.S.S.R. Crimea became Ukrainian territory, if the people living there didn’t want to join Ukraine that is when they should have left and gone to Russia, they didn’t.

    • Maia Alexandrova

      Duncan, you have misunderstood the whole nature of the Crimean conflict and keep repeating the lies of the anti-Russian propaganda:

      Lie 1: In the referendum in 2014 people voted under “the barrel of a gun”, therefore the results are not valid. This is only a fabrication – if you ask people who voted, no one will tell you this was true. People felt free to exercise their choice and still feel free to live, they are not under occupation. The same refers to the 1991 independence referendum where 94% of the people voted for independence from Ukraine on the same day when Ukraine voted for independence from USSR. Do you think that was also under the pressure of “Russian military occupation”? While USSR respected the will of Ukrainians, Ukraine did not respect the will of Crimeans. This is the root of the problem. What should have happened in 1991 was for Eltsin to reverse Khrushchev’s administrative order and legally separate Crimea from Ukraine, because that order only gave the peninsula to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, but not to an independent Ukraine. Putin only completed what Eltsin should have done all those years ago. Only this time they wanted to join Russia, rather than be an independent republic, so that’s what was done.

      Lie 2: Crimeans who did not want to live as part of Ukraine should have left and gone to Russia. Why should they leave their own land? They are not invaders there – they did not go to live there during Soviet times, it was the opposite – the Ukrainians came only after the 1960s. Russians have lived in Crimea for many generations, long before USSR came into existence and long before any Ukrainians moved to Crimea. So this is their land, their country and they have the right to determine their own future, rather than the newcomer Ukrainians.

      As long as EU and USA do not understand the Crimean people and do not respect their will which means violating their human rights, the problem will not be solved. No sanctions will force people to abandon their freedom and accept again injustice and oppression by Ukraine.

  4. Spyros Zochios

    Russia΄s annexation of Crimea was not only an offence to the international law, it was a brutal action against the will and stance of the western countries that borders do not change. Russia did not show respect to the cause of peace, certain that Nato could not go on war in this place of the world for the sake of Ukraine. Russians believe that Crimea is part of their territory and although they themselves offered the independence it is now high time they take it back. Russia likes to ignore that by questioning the borders of its neighbors it may open the appetite of other countries who for the sake of peace support the settlement of borders in Europe remain.
    The question is whether Nato is relevant. Yes it is relevant. Relevant to intervene and exercise pressure till Russia is persuaded that Crimea be given independence. Of course not by war. War against Russian in its lower abdomen can not be considered a wise attitude and action too.

    • Spyros Zochios

      I always have in mind Nikita Khruschev΄s act. Since i want to be right and I do not like to harm or question people΄s legitimate interests i would kindly ask you to refer exactly to how the status in Crimea has changed. What Khrushev΄ s act provided and what has changed. Is the administrative border still in force? What i want to notice is that i have reasons to support and be in favor of referendums so that majorities decide the fate and destination of peoples. Yet i know that all countries share this opinion when it protects their interests and ignore it when it is another country΄s problem. This is why i want to be always committed to the principle that borders are not disputed and Treaties and agreements as well regardless who is in power, a prince was stubbed, or a soldier was killed in the borders In that case we will have endless wars instead of ever lasτing peace. I remember the crimes of Nazis in Ukraine and i would not be against Russia΄s will to defend Russians who live there. Yet i do no agree that it is a strong reason to change situations I am pleased we exchanged ideas mr Titkov, through dialogue we can understand the stance, the claims, the rights of people we do no know.

  5. Cãlin Rednic

    NATO is still relevant, but not because of the new “cold war”. It’s a fortunate state of events that it exists and guarantees the safety and stability of the so small pieces puzzled Europe and it proved its eficiency and utility by guarding the overall peace on the continent, being a binder of the multiple DEFENSIVE systems.

    • Cãlin Rednic

      Imagine that! Without even wanting to do it, but only by expressing the way I see the things. Truly! :-) It has to be true, then and I’m glad that you embrace it and pointed it to me.

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Michael John James Brown
      One man’s ‘propaganda’ is another man’s ‘assurance’.

  6. Daniel Parvanov

    Progressives (looney left in US aka Democrats) trying to cause new cold war, cause they lost the election …

    29/08/2017 James Kirchick, American reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist, has responded to this comment.

  7. Stathis Stathopoulos

    NATO is designed to be against the working class and therefore it is still relevant… It will be reinforced. Except that now Russia will be part of it..

    • Imre Bártfai

      Working class? Was Stalin’s USSR the workin class itself? Did your ancestors ever tried one of the leisure camps of this “working class” country like mine did?

  8. Ivan Burrows

    .

    Of course NATO is relevant, without it Eastern Europe would now belong to Russia, or do you think the EU as kept them at bay ?

    • Alessandro Pieroni

      A) British nationalist B) pro-NATO. Choose one dude.

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Alessandro Pieroni
      Choose BOTH!
      Choose Life!

    • Duncan

      @Alessandro, the two nee not be mutually exclusive. You can be a nationalist and still want foreign friends and allies, it just means you want your own countries needs to be put before other countries needs in the less extreme form of nationalism. Don’t automatically assume all nationalists think put our country first and put every other country to the sword/forget they even exist. This is a misconception probably formed off the loose connection with the term nationalist socialist or Nazi for short. But without nationalists fighting against the Nazis in the form of resistance groups, the free French etc. Europe would most likely still be under Nazi occupation.

  9. Ainhoa Lizar

    Why would Russia, the biggest country on earth, want to occupy any country? It was the west who decided to destroy and split Europe in two! It was the west who started a fratricide war for greediness and to defend the jews. And now… Western Europe belongs to lord Rothschild… and it´s becoming a muslim caliphate and the same west want´s the same faith for everyone.

    • Aeroth Robert

      ask ukraine and georgia about how russia is

    • Alessandro Pieroni

      Aeroth Robert both conflicts started with soros founded color revolutions

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Ainhoa Lizar
      Russia does not subscribe to democracy, is aggressive, coercive and corrupt.

      It has had c100 years as a ‘basketcase’.

      The WORLD could do without such ‘basketcases’.

    • TJ Todorov

      If you don’t like an opinion, you easily name the author troll :)

    • Aeroth Robert

      TJ Todorov what could a old communist bulgarian say…you were always pro russia

    • Maia Alexandrova

      Aeroth Robert, if someone defends Russia, that doesn’t mean that they are a communist. You have to move on to 21st century – communism is gone now. Bulgarians are culturally closer to Russia, besides, Russian soldiers died for our freedom from the Ottoman oppressors and we will be forever grateful to them for that. In WW2 it was not the Russian planes that were bombing Bulgaria, but the British and American ones. Using your logic, you can be categorised as an old American troll… Just remember – Russia is not communist and is not USSR any more!

  10. Ariste Arvanitides

    ΝΟ. The New cold war indicates the unwillingness of leaders to live in a world of peace and cooperation among nations and peoples. It proves that leaders create conflict to make profits, steal other peoples resources, for their own personal gain. The people are just used as cannon fodder.

  11. Ariste Arvanitides

    ΝΟ. The New cold war indicates the unwillingness of leaders to live in a world of peace and cooperation among nations and peoples. It proves that leaders create conflict to make profits, steal other peoples resources, for their own personal gain. The people are just used as cannon fodder.

  12. Ainhoa Lizar

    Aeroth Robert Ukraine is not a saint. No one is stupid. They own gas money to Russia and now they want to get in the EU hoping that the EU will pay their bills. It´s a shame that they succumbed to the treacherous money and lies of the west ruled by the jewish lobbies and turned against their own brothers. And beside that Crimea belonged to Russia before and there was a referendum. And you are not a european if you say that brothers should kill each other!

  13. Ainhoa Lizar

    Why is this place called debating Europe if you delete my comments? You only debate opinions that you like?

  14. Antonios Forlidas

    NATO is over. We do not need anymore organizations that they are aiming only to promote weapons sales and create war climate.

  15. Mihaela Elena

    Yes, we need NATO, all of us.
    Romania is a euro-atlantic country, forever. We respect our military partners.

  16. catherine benning

    No, it proved the very reverse. That it is a machine of useless war moves suitable only for c1800 minds.

    Trump needs to rethink this entire perception. Make it too expensive for anyone to afford.

    • Bobi Dochev

      and… what happened? As Victori Newland said – Obama’s administration spent 5 billion for nothing ;)

  17. Horia

    In the year of the 20th anniverary of NATO-Russia treaty, Russia seems to be strongly against NATO. Why ? Because NATO disagrees the russian tendency for Ukrayne fragmentation ?!

  18. Yordan Vasilev

    The Russian invasion in Eastern Ukrain threatened the peace in Europe. The president Putin can say that Bulgaria or Poland are age-old Russian territories and conquer them. This is very dangerous. NATO is still rellevant, because of that situation.

  19. Albert Gomperts

    So much ideological bullshit here. Russia continues to work to cause disruption in the Western Alliance. Ask yourselves why? UK wants to weaken European alliance, bloody fools. Europe needs to get serious about defence. Islam is a red herring, Russia is the menace.

  20. Viorika Motoi

    Thei must help in a ferst moment when is start this situacion not nau when rusia has taket a big part of teritory ,naw is to late.

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Eleonora Ilieva
      I’m in favour of MORE sanctions against the Russian oligarchs.

      The poor, benighted, blighted, impoverished and media-controlled Russian person should not have to endure another 100 years as part of a basketcase nation.

  21. Michalis Pouros

    I dont see any cold or warm war. I only see inequality and poverty growing… give the money to those that really need help and stop such conficts and destroying our environment…. Humans should only have one task. To discover Humanity and its values!!!

  22. David Whittington

    People who follow dictatorships should be careful who they tell. NATO has prevented Russia from sweeping across Europe for decades. It’s destruction, from the American dictator, friendly with Putin, would give Russia a free hand in Europe and probably the excuse for war against western Europe. Many do not know or learn from history. An enemy of freedom is not stopped through reckless appeasement, but through strength with many standing together. In both world wars, America did not bother to get involved, other than making a profit by selling arms and supplies to both sides, until they were physically attacked. I believe Trump will remove America from the equation of protecting Europe, because this moron believes Putin will leave America alone, if Putin has the ability to wage war on Europe. But, China will not wait, America would be next on the list. Trump could be the downfall of us all. For we are the piggies in the middle of all this…

    • David Whittington

      Patricia Ann Petro Clarke If this is intended for me, I suggest, you take on bored what is happening in the world, and stop talking out of your’s….

    • Kalin Hristov

      While I disapprove of obscenities I have to point out that the lady has valid reasons for objecting to your statements. My objections(and I assume hers are similar) are the following – The Warsaw Pact(mostly USSR) was created about 5 years after NATO( mostly USA), and so cannot be the aggressor ( Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. -look it up)….and while the USSR and later Russia has been involved in several conflicts, there can be no comparison with the US(NATO)which has hardly been OUT of conflict – in all corners of the world – unsanctioned by international law and and always for profit and gain – both financial and geopolitical….In short – The sorry state of Europe and the World today is largely the fault of the arrogant US foreign policies of the last 65 years or so…

    • David Whittington

      The lady shouldn’t need a handler to fight her own battles, when she has nothing to say…… The history of the world has been one of hostilities on both sides, be it moving chess pieces or armies across a field of battle. No one is totally without sin, nor are they totally innocent, to say so would be a mind of delusion. Conquered lands, be it in Europe under a Red Flag or in the Middle East under the Stars and Stripes, rarely have second chances. However, leaders come and go but the people still bleed. So what is the answer? Remaining ready to fight but leaving peace in Europe, or for one side to disregard it’s future by kowtowing to a dictator, be it Russian, Chinese or American. If we are to live long lives, our goals should be the same, to live and prosper, not to be told what to do by demigods. Just like 1917 people want to be free of such people, not have them replaced by worse incarnations. So we either get our governments to see sense or fall into another pointless war… What most governments do, is make things so bad for it’s people, like the Great Depression or the murders of Stalin in the 1920’s – 30’s, that a war with anyone is preferred to the natural destruction of there own governors. For having seen this devastation of war up close, it would be foolish for the naive to want it….

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Patricia Ann Petro Clarke
      ARSE = Association of Russia Supporting Excreta!

    • Duncan

      @Kalin, NATO formed after the USSR the Warsaw pact as you put it wasn’t really relative since NATO formed to combat the threat posed by the USSR. After ww2 half of Germany, all of Poland and much else of eastern Europe was left to Stalin’s control as appeasement. That didn’t stop him trying to get more.

  23. EU Reform- Proactive

    What does the new ‘Cold War’ prove? It is a dismal failure in (modern) diplomacy!

    According to the “narrow EU nationalistic” viewpoint, an irrelevant EU is promoted and planned by top EU “bean counters” at present. This is in line with its concept of its “supranational” agenda to eventually achieve a unitary European State.

    However, in a global context it makes more sense to seek unity, pool resources & cooperate on DEFENSE (as opposed to OFFENSIVE scheming & regime changes) using a proven organization like NATO. To agitate for a split in western military strength will only assist rouge states and encourage future would be & conquest hungry superpowers.

    The greatest diplomatic scoop to achieve in the 21st century would be a rapprochement with Russia- (yes “Russia”) to eventually include them in a unitary (Western) Alliance- like it or not!.

    Who will be instrumental & first to put aside and overcome all present political pettiness and enter history with an achievement standing proudly side by side along other global initiatives by bygone world’s greatest Statesmen?

    Such a race would be truly worthwhile.

    • EU Reform- Proactive

      erratum……..”an irrelevant EU” army!

  24. Andrea Scacchi

    I think the new “cold war” exist only because NATO threats a bunch of countries who want to be free.
    If you believe that surrounding non-NATO country with NATO bases is right (Russia) you are part of the problem.

    • Matze Meier

      don’t forget that they were not pressured to join. They want to. And they want to for a reason. Russia did make claims over regions that formerly belonged to the Soviet union. Now they are independent can choose the alliances they want. Putting Russia’s national interest (and imperialistic interests as such) in front, its neighbouring countries are degraded into “colonial zones” that can be taken, broken or claimed. I hope we as a continent move past that mindset.

  25. Nicolas Tzolas

    It is hard to understand that EU with a population of 500 million is unable to shape up its own army. Twenty five NATO countries out of twenty eight are European. Take away the 3 non European and we have a purely European Defence System. We need a European Defence system, not the one that ” keeps united” the two ends of the Atlantic. And how much united are those two ends? Suppose some day Russia invades Alaska – how many European countries would send their army there? I know it is convenient when USA pays for the biggest part of NATO expenses, but there are clear signs that this ”philanthropic enterprise” is coming to an end.

  26. Iustinian Ion Toader

    În prima zi după desființarea NATO, ruşii vor ocupa Europa, iar SUA îi vor aplauda. Vor pune un banner mare pe statuia libertății cu următorul enunț : “AŞA PĂȚESC ȚÂMPIȚII”

  27. Georgi Parushev

    Obviously some EU countries has forgotten for 71 years about the Eastern Front. Teasing Rissia with troops around Rissian borders is not a good idea, cause it’s not a problem Russia to remind them the history ….

    • Duncan

      Georgi, Russian troops were already being deployed on Russia’s western border. NATO is not teasing anyone, it’s taken a pragmatic and frankly minimal approach to securing it’s eastern frontier to what is frankly an increased risk than previously of that frontier becoming under attack. If Russia attacks NATO, I can assure you it won’t win. It could be argued there would be no winners, but gone are the days when Russia stands a chance of taking NATO countries and holding them as new territory. Even with it’s disproportionate military spending by gdp it still cannot match the combined capabilities of NATO and NATO’s associated allies using conventional warfare, and in a nuclear war, we’d all be dead fairly quickly, Russians as well as NATO’s peoples. The difference is we want to be friends with Russia, but Putin has to stop trying to throw his weight around or be replaced if that’s ever going to really happen. We don’t care for bullies.

  28. eusebio manuel vestias pecurto vestias

    Russia is clearly a threat to Eastern Europe and the Middle East we must put pressure on NATO members to start building a fair share of troops money to keep this threat in the bullet

  29. Павел Манев

    Right question you should ask is: Was the new” Cold war” actually initiated by the West to try and justify NATO’s relevance in today’s world? I am pretty sure this is actually the case.

  30. Pepa Petkova

    Full americans trolls.Je ne suis pas communiste ,je veux liberte,je ne veux guerre,c’est lui faire seulement les americants.

    • Grigore Razvan

      You should reconsider. Countries in Eastern Europe would be invaded by Russia in a matter of seconds.

    • Manuel Alegria

      absolutly not…
      Russia is broke, full of propaganda, and wiching people do not make waves.
      NATO is used by the americans to legalize its stupid moves

    • Pelin Aristide

      Have u ever lived one day under a comunist regim? And about stupid moves ,what about Crimeea,Georgia not long time ago.Is easy to speak when u are tousand km away!!!!!

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Manuel Alegria
      Try keeping up to date with current affairs – methinks you will soon realise the error in your ‘silly’ assertion.

  31. Nik

    For the super arms factories to make profits , politicians to get money for re election we need a threat . Russia and the oil producing countries are perfect.
    With Russia we polarize ,the oil producing countries we keep the oil price high .

  32. Pelin Aristide

    Budapest 1956,Prague 1968,russian tanks killing the democracy. Ukraine our days. Is NATO relevant???????

    • Bódis Kata

      In 56 those were Soviet tanks and the biggest ethnic group of the troops were actually Ukrainian.

      Ukrain drafts by force and sends to the active eastern front 3-5x as many young men of the ethnic minorities as Ukrainians > as a percentage of the populations.

      Nobody ever was held property responsible in Hungary for the retaliations (executions, torture, imprisonment) that followed in Hungary in 56-57. The lack of external military support is commonly viewed as the “west had let Hungary down”.

      The Hungarian political left since the fall of communism had several prime ministers, all of them had close personal connections to the family (descendants) of ths man responsible for issuing the command to kill own citizens and his son, a secret service chief. >> Former boyfriend of the still living daughter, family friend, son-in-law and his friend. They are often referred to as “Clan”.

      I thought to share some lesser known bits of recent history.

    • Pelin Aristide

      It is your opinion and i respect that.What i want to say is that some central european countries are playng a ,,double game,, today and history will allways remember this.

    • Bódis Kata

      There’s no double game. There’s energy dependancy, there are decades old commercial traditions. There’s also the basic logic that it’s better to maintain amicable relations with a powerful neighbor than to alienate him. All the rest is propaganda; and there’s really a ton of that.

      The west had let down Hungary before (actually, several times, there were other historical instances, too); so we prefer to think for ourselves. Some people can respect that, others not.

      Ps: In the first comment I was writing about some not very well known facts. I hope you can tell the difference between facts and opinions.

  33. Bódis Kata

    In 56 those were Soviet tanks and the biggest ethnic group of the troops were actually Ukrainian.

    Ukrain drafts by force and sends to the active eastern front 3-5x as many young men of the ethnic minorities as Ukrainians > as a percentage of the populations.

    Nobody ever was held property responsible in Hungary for the retaliations (executions, torture, imprisonment) that followed in Hungary in 56-57. The lack of external military support is commonly viewed as the “west had let Hungary down”.

    The Hungarian political left since the fall of communism had several prime ministers, all of them had close personal connections to the family (descendants) of ths man responsible for issuing the command to kill own citizens and his son, a secret service chief. >> Former boyfriend of the still living daughter, family friend, son-in-law and his friend. They are often referred to as “Clan”.

    I thought to share some lesser known bits of recent history.

  34. Mirosława Iwanów

    NATO jest przestarzałe i USA nie będzie w nie inwestować…cyt. prezydent Trump Na razie udają,że straszą niedźwiedzia . Jak niedźwiedz się wkur…zostaną po nich zgliszcza

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      @Miroslaw Ivanov
      The US accounts for c75% of NATO’s budget – it just wants some NATO members to up their payments to an agreed level (c2% of GDP).

      Please try to keep abreast of current affairs.

  35. Mirosława Iwanów

    NATO jest przestarzałe i USA nie będzie w nie inwestować…cyt. prezydent Trump Na razie udają,że straszą niedźwiedzia . Jak niedźwiedz się wkur…zostaną po nich zgliszcza

  36. Andrew Potts

    NATO needs to down size as the Warsaw Pact has gone but the Generals don’t want their careers to end. The greatest threat to European security lies in a different direction.

  37. Eric K

    The wording of the question is a bit imprecise, and the question itself is not the most important one. NATO still relevant – to what? NATO does not allow the “New Cold War” (or more appropriately, the “hybrid war”) to become “a Hot War”, that is an open armed conflict between Russia and EU. So, in that sense it is very relevant. The more interesting question is how reliable NATO in its current form is for defending the EU. The most numerous army in NATO is that of USA at 2.2 million. The commitment of the Trump administration to defending allies (in or out of NATO, in Europe or in the Pacific) is uncertain. The second most numerous army is that of Turkey, at 1.0 million. Today Turkey is a country whose President is highly critical of “The West” – can EU count Turkish army will rise in defense of that same “West”? And, at number 5 stands the army of UK at 0.38 million – one of the two nuclear EU states. Today UK is a country which is preparing to exit the EU in what is certain to be an ugly divorce: the words and behaviour of the brexiters during their campaign is a good indicator of what is coming. Can we count on UK politicians to send British lads to fight for Poland if they blame Polish “immigrants” for taking British jobs? Obviously, the security of the EU at this moment rests in hands that may no longer be trusted to provide it. It is clear that a new EU army is urgently needed, regardless of NATO. Such an army can have a significant stimulating effect on the EU economy as well. The EU army need not mean the end of NATO, but will certainly cause its evolution, particularly if Turkey ceases to be a member.

    07/03/2017 Bruno Lété, transatlantic fellow for security and defence at The German Marshall Fund of the United States in Brussels, has responded to this comment.
    07/03/2017 Paul Taylor, Contributing Editor at Politico and former European affairs editor for Reuters, has responded to this comment.

    • Duncan

      That’s a very pessimistic outlook. I’m still hopeful that Brexit can be done in such a manner as to not destroy Anglo-EU relations. And those relations would need to be completely destroyed for the UK to be willing to let someone invade Europe without us wanting to help defend and/or liberate it. Our Prime Minister Theresa May has also, possibly at the expense of a full day spent afterwards taking a hot shower and scrubbing a layer of skin away been able to talk with the new POTUS and secure a confirmation of support for NATO (I’d ask the EU political powers to consider this selfless act of humility when negotiating Brexit) so the USA are still vocally on board too, albeit maybe not for much longer if certain member states don’t start meeting their minimum spend requirements, but at the very least it’s bought enough time for this to happen. And Turkey may well be fundamentally set against the EU for now, but it still won’t risk losing NATO status and US good will. Without it their new MBT’s built with help from South Korea would not have been possible, their exports would drop off significantly, their puppet state in northern Cyprus would be more openly objected to, perhaps to the extent of a blockade or liberation. And so on and so forth. Turkey plays ball because Turkey cannot afford to do otherwise. Erdogan could try to turn to Putin instead, but that might result in Turkey being just a puppet state unable to implement separate foreign policy or political will. The two nations are far from long standing friends, heck it’s why Turkey joined NATO to begin with.
      07/03/2017 Bruno Lété, transatlantic fellow for security and defence at The German Marshall Fund of the United States in Brussels, has responded to this comment.
      07/03/2017 Paul Taylor, Contributing Editor at Politico and former European affairs editor for Reuters, has responded to this comment.

  38. Violeta Popa

    Nimeni nu vrea razboi. Toti vrem pace! Dar nu poti avea incredere in toti oamenii. Uitativa la ce care ne conduc si ne fura si mint in fata! Asa ca trebuie sa fi permanent pregatit de razboi chiar daca nu o sa-l porti niciodata! Tata a fost militar. A fost pregatit dar a murit si nu a purtat nici un razboi. Mi-as dori si eu ca pana voi pleca definitiv intr-o stea (F.Piersic) in tara mea sa nu se poarte nici un razboi.

  39. Stathis Stathopoulos

    NATO is directed against the working class of its own member states also. It will be kept with perhaps a changing role.. The only way to get rid of it is for socialist change to occur maybe first in one country and then one by one all the rest..

    • Bogdán Róbert

      I strongly hope your socialist change will never occur. If anything, I think we need fewer government handouts, fewer taxes, fewer regulations and more competition between free enterprises. Socialism sucks, I lived it and I fought it, with a gun in my hand, in a military uniform. And I’m pretty pleased with the result.

  40. Bogdán János Róbert

    Yes we still need NATO, but NATO’s expansion should stop. The ideological differences between east and west are still rooted deeply in people’s minds. We are more individualistic societies, they are more collectivists. They will always see things differently and that’s a source of conflict. So the way to achieve long lasting peace is only through strength, because weakness invites violence. We should focus on trade with Russia, I think it’s the only way to build bridges, but we should remain united and strong.

  41. Bradford Playford

    I think you have this backwards… NATO is manufacturing the new Cold War in order to claim relevance.

  42. Alexandru Sudiţoiu

    No, no, my dear friend. You have this backwards and I’m not basing my opinion on a belief, but on facts. Facts like the good relations between NATO and Russia until the Ukrainian people decided to change course, until they’ve decided to go towards the West for prosperity which they didn’t have under a corrupt regime controlled from and by Moscow. Russia begun this conflict by annexing foreign territory and breaking international law, scaring the shit out of its neighbors. NATO only responded to a new risk on the international scale.

  43. Alexandru Sudiţoiu

    I believe it does, yes. Ukraine wasn’t part of NATO and look what it happened. At this time NATO serves as a very useful tool for deterrence due to its article V. It is the only reason for which countries in Eastern Europe can afford having a sovereign foreign policy, as opposed to one under Russia’s constant influence and threat.

    • Todor Dzhambazov

      What happened in Ukraine? NATO tried to expand and threatened Russia’s base in Crimea and it’s very national security. It would never happened if USA didn’t play its dirty games. It’s Russia which gave Crimea to Ukraine after the end of USSR. Don’t forget that more than 90% of it’s population consider themselves Russians…

    • Alexandru Sudiţoiu

      NATO didn’t try to expand. That’s the problem. Ukraine wanted to change course and join NATO and the EU. The whole situation is similar to a relationship în which your girlfriend no longer wants to be with you, so she finds another. What did Russia do? Beat the hell out of her. After all, domestic violence is now legal în Russia.

    • Gustaaf Van den Boeynants

      NATO not only tried, it did, against what was promised in 1990 to Russia, that is that NATO would not expand east. It did: from Estonia to Bulgaria almost all are NATO members now. That’s NOT what was agreed upon

    • Alexandru Sudiţoiu

      According to mr. Gorbachev there was no such promise on behalf of NATO. Please, stop spreading fake stories. It would also be unethical. You can’t deny a country that fulfills all requirements to join NATO if that respective country desires so. This is the problem. You people don’t seem to have a very clear notion about ethics in International Relations. Oh, wait, Russia and ethics. Silly me. It isn’t NATO that desired to expand. National countries decided to join NATO as a mean to secure their own future, having a very negative historical experience with The Russian Empire/The Soviet Union, another empire by all practical means.

      For the time being NATO remains as fundamental as it was during the Cold War. Not only in order to deter further Russian aggression, and Russia has proven that it has no problems with using war as a mean to achieve its ends, but also due to its indirect effects. Take a constructivist perspective, for example. NATO is not just an alliance, but also a security community which bounds states togheter, socialize them in certain norms and provides means of action against different crises that may destabilize the international system. In a globalized world that is a necessity. Thanks to NATO its member states do not perceive each other as direct threats, but as part of a community with rules, working togheter.

    • Gustaaf Van den Boeynants

      Gorbatchov himself writes it differently in 1996, when of this new ‘cold war’ there was not even thinking. Of course in 2014 american media say this was no promise.

      I agree that Gorbatchof should have asked to put it clear in their documents, he too was naïve not to, tginking he was putting an end to both Soviet as Nato imerialism…

  44. Hanis Cristian

    NATO contra unei armate de teroriști cu tabere în mai multe țări și echipați cu armament militar cumpărat din Europa ? … Cine morții masii sânt comandanții aia născuți din familie ” gunoi ” … ?!… … Hhmmmm…

  45. Hanis Cristian

    NATO contra unei armate de teroriști cu tabere în mai multe țări și echipați cu armament militar cumpărat din Europa ? … Cine morții masii sânt comandanții aia născuți din familie ” gunoi ” … ?!… … Hhmmmm…

    • Konstantin Konstantinov

      Dude,you serious?There is a huge difference between NATO and US Army.BTW Ukraine claimed independence in 1918,Brest treaty.Stalin wiped it away and caused the GLADOMOR as a vengeance.

    • Todor Dzhambazov

      I don’t think there is difference between NATO and US Army. NATO does what USA think it’s right. Bulgaria also declared independence in 1908 but are we really independent even now?

  46. Alexandru Sudiţoiu

    NATO didn’t try to expand. That’s the problem. Ukraine wanted to change course and join NATO and the EU. The whole situation is similar to a relationship în which your girlfriend no longer wants to be with you, so she finds another. What did Russia do? Beat the hell out of her. After all, domestic violence is now legal în Russia.

  47. Konstantin Konstantinov

    Nobody likes Russia ,mate,even you.Everyone wants to keep away from the comrades.You live in a NATO member country for fuck sake,not in Russia,because life here is times better than over there.Admit it!Have ever applied for a russian green card lottery??

  48. Durão Barroso

    NATO is not relevant anymore. Neither is the European Union. Their are militar and political apparatus pushing for a neoliberal agenda that will eventually lead countries into world war.

  49. Gustaaf Van den Boeynants

    Russia has done not one agression between 1991 and Georgia in 2008, not even when its exclave in Kaliningrad was surrounded by Nato.

    Only now, when the hawks in Washington want to have the fertile Ukraine and the kleptokrats of Ukraine want to get closer to EU in order to sell their frauduleously privatised industry for big money, Russia invaded a piece of land where 65% of the people were russian and wich has always been russian in the past. It’s a correction of a mistake made by Chroustchof.

    In a military alliance the big one always dominates the other countries, and so the military alliance protects the intrests of the big one abroad. Therefore US should get out of Europe just like Russia did.

    And no more playing the police in the middle east for the oil and the zionist friends

  50. Gustaaf Van den Boeynants

    Gorbatchov himself writes it differently in 1996, when of this new ‘cold war’ there was not even thinking. Of course in 2014 american media say this was no promise.

    I agree that Gorbatchof should have asked to put it clear in their documents, he too was naïve not to, tginking he was putting an end to both Soviet as Nato imerialism…

  51. A_Strange_Idea

    NATO could never stop a future cold war nor is it relevant in one, because cold wars are happening at all times between all countries. However, when there is discrepancy in military power, countries seem to get along, when military powers is close, conflict arises for dominance. Dominance raises degree of freedom of things you can get away with, so it will never stop being a thing as long as there are multiple powers and factions. What should be relevant instead of NATO is an organization that educates people in the suffering of conflicts, so even when leaders want to engage in war, people will refuse.

  52. Maia Alexandrova

    NATO is a means to justify military spending, a way to secure the profits for the companies producing weapons. Imagine if NATO wanted peace – then those companies would lose huge market opportunities. Weapons manufacturers have a very strong influence on American policy and legislation. The only thing they want is more wars, otherwise they would be out of business. The role of NATO is to ensure a continuous and stable market for the producers of weapons through military aggression around the world, even for no reason like it was in Iraq. NATO did not prevent Turkey’s invasion and annexation of Northern Cyprus, so it is useless in defending its members, let alone other countries.

  53. Karolina

    The new cold War is BECAUSE of NATO. Putin wanted to join 2-3 times but was refused and in a rude way as well. Instead a defensive shield was built along his garden fence. What did you expect? Not everyone has strong nerves. Too much vodka perhaps.

    • Duncan

      @Karolina, when did he apply to join? Because my information says otherwise. It says NATO was bending over itself to get Russia to join.

    • EU Reform- Proactive

      Duncan, please let’s remain within “historical” facts:

      1st attempt: 1954/55 (Geneva- Molotov) the Western powers rejected the Soviet proposal to join NATO on grounds that the USSR’s membership of the organization would be incompatible with its democratic and defensive aims. (Refer to NATO Clause 10) Consequentially “The Warsaw Pact” or the “Treaty of Friendship” was founded by the communistic USSR in 1955.

      2nd attempt: Russia’s Putin floated the idea to join NATO in 2000. Political events transformed the USSR in 1991 to become the Russian Federation (Russia).

      3rd attempt by Russia’s Putin: in 2003.

      4th effort: In 2008, Dmitry Medvedev, called for talks on a new European security architecture. Russia was given the “diplomatic brush” on all occasions.

      Eventually, they (Russian Federation) gave up and hardliners on both sides won the day. They continue the cold war- to protect, expand & justify each others different aims- until now.

      Considering this complex history, how can any reasonable new US administration change their diplomacy- without becoming suspect or be seen as overly suspiciously Russian friendly or even a betrayer of the US & West?

      It “check mates” any new initiatives. It has to be done in “secrete” & away from the gullible fake press!

      Germany’s “Der Spiegel” published on open letter of invite in 2010- by German defense experts:
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/open-letter-it-s-time-to-invite-russia-to-join-nato-a-682287.html

    • Karolina

      Yes, thank you EU Reform. i didn;t know about this. I heard it from a former diplomat. Makes sense.

  54. Karolina

    How about an aggressor BEING part of NATO. Turkey? How does that work?

  55. Bobi Dochev

    As far as there is “New Cold war” it was started by NATO to justify its existence – so NO – NATO is totally irrelevant!

  56. Sebastiano Schavoir

    I join the commentators ideas. Nato and US policy are intertwined in a way that the EU ends up demonising its most precious neighbor on the continent, giving reasons such as “cultural backwardness”.

  57. Ivan Burrows

    .

    The idea of a bunch of crazed European with a flag & a plan to unite Europe is a very good reason to keep NATO.

  58. Matej Mlinarič

    What you call new cold war is just different geopolitical interests when it comes to this. But military capabilities are very influential commodity when it comes to such international negotiations. So if you don’t want to increase spending for Russian fossil fuels then we will always need NATO to protect our borders. Just in case anybody gets any ideas of targeting our populations for leverage.

    Easiest way to avoid mutually destructive conflict is negotiations to figure out how to ensure that, if prices of fossil fuels are lowered won’t end up collapsing Russian economy so that war would be only alternative for them. Just there is no mistake about this. Russia needs to diversify their economy but in order to do that we all need to resume trade. So figure out how to resolve this issue with Crimea. Also you need to understand that to Russia that means access to Black Sea and they will protect it even if that means war.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6njHg4TGBfc

  59. Joerg Sp

    NATO has produced this new cold war. Without it it would be irrelevant and should be dismantled.

  60. Goran Penic

    EU and whole Europe needs to grow up.
    EU needs to be strong. EU needs to stay united.

  61. Zille Vuk

    NATO IS ABSOLETE.. eu needs more intel work and detectives together with speacial privileges to use force..

  62. Anatilde Alves

    It proves how Nato is ridiculously inefficient, when one of our members goes around bombing and making threats. How about keeping the trumpster in check? Either that or cut the USA loose , before they will get us in wars that aren’t ours.

    • Pedro Kulzer

      Alfredo: Exactly right. What’s more: NATO is only one of the “weaponized tentacles” of the establishment elites. NATO is a puppet, as is UN as well. Unfortunately, they did not arise after WW2 to keep peace and the RUssians at bay, but to do the dirty work for the elites still ruling us and where mst people are too blind to see the truth they can’t handle…

    • Jokera Jokerov

      No, this service is run by the EU`s Frontex.

  63. Daniel Parvanov

    NATO is not obsolete it is underfunded as most countries do not invest what they should by the treaty … Also new cold war is pushed as political narrative but some hot heads mostly by the lefties (cultural marxists) that talk stupid things and can make it hot :(

  64. Bruno Verlinden

    Nato is useless. They protect the territory but there are no assailants and they do not participate in the war on terror.

  65. Jez Boulton

    They have created a new cold war so as to return to their comfort zone after repeated failures in the middle east

  66. Jose Antonio M Macedo

    TSF Radio: «Portugal does not undertake to allocate 2% of GDP to NATO. The Defense Minister in Brussels for the NATO summit says Portugal must be realistic and not make big promises on defense spending. Azeredo Lopes will defend in Brussels that Portugal must convince the allies through the commitment to the missions of the alliance. (…) At this summit, the goal of increasing military spending should be reinforced, after a target of at least 2% of GDP has been set. Portugal currently dedicates about 1.2%.» http://www.tsf.pt/internacional/interior/portugal-nao-se-compromete-em-destinar-2-do-pib-para-a-nato-8505733.html

  67. Natasha Pikoul

    NATO has created the new “Cold War” in the first place. So in that sense – yes, it is relevant, unfortunately.

  68. Franco Suarez

    NATO is not just a provocation to Moscow, it is a betrayal to humanity. If Europe seeks peace, then expand our military on AmeriKKKan soil and threaten their people, like they threaten europeans; But, let’s do it as a european force, not as the vassals of AmeriKKKa that NATO is.

  69. Enric Mestres Girbal

    The cold war was revived by the EU wanting to interfere in Ukraine’s policies. Nato is only relevant as long as the EU don’t sign a treaty with Russia.

  70. Joao Antonio Camoes

    There is no cold war, nor even warm, hot or whatsoever. Be realistic. Any war between nuclear powers is an impossible war; no loser, no winner, no viable victory. Everybody would loose, the human race would loose.

    • Andu Ogodai

      thats why its called a cold war. look at syria and all the middle east countries and tell me there isnt a cold war.

    • Joao Antonio Camoes

      Andu Ogodai cold war has precise meaning: it means war spirit and preparation withou war. It applied to specific era i.e. during the post WW2 between former Soviet Union/east european countries and USA/western eoropean countries.

  71. Sérgio Santos

    If NATO doesn’t act only where there’s interests of the major powers, yes they’re still relevant. But what’s been happening is the exact opposite. So I think we as Europe must rethink it, start cooperating more with the other European countries, and maybe drop the warmongering USA to deal with all the shit they provoke by themselves.

  72. Jean Charles Branco

    i am europeans, and i consider NATO more evil than the radicals islamics extremists. NATO is enemy numero 2 of europe. the enemy numero 1 of europe are the traitors that support the occupation of usa in europe, the enemy numero 2 of europeans are nato, the numero 3 but not less evil is the invadors that came thanks the problem numero 1 and 2.

  73. Jean Charles Branco

    traitors of europe are the menace numero 1 to us in europe. the menace numero 2 is the usa evil zog occupation of europe. the radicals islamics problem was created by the traitors and the usa occupation policy. awake europeans ,support ur local nacionalist party. if u support nato remove ur self from ma friend list.

  74. Jean Charles Branco

    i am europeans, and NATO is our enemy numero 1. the journalists will tell u that europeans love nato but its not true.

  75. Jean Charles Branco

    journalists are part of the problem, the follow the Hasbara agenda we in europe are hostage of this zoggery sinc to many time. sinc 1989 that usa shuld have leave europe. usa zog army move out of europe. we in europe consider usa zoggery more evil than the radicals islamics extremists, and u know we dislike the islamics now imagine how we dislike this usa zogery occupation.

  76. Bódis Kata

    The new “cold war” is a construct by politicians in service of oligarchs who run the weapons lobby and compete for markets and resources.

  77. Katerina Mpakirtzi

    If Nato want cold war with Rusia then Rusia turns in(fascist Nazi) Turkey and planet -humanity-will count mullion deaths

  78. Αναγέννηση

    End the British State Sponsored Turkish Military Invasion and occupation of EU member Cyprus since 1974 which is a British- Turkish alliance against the United States in Cyprus , which violates the sovereignty of EU member Cyprus , so as to provide the British Military bases in Cyprus a security advantage against American efforts since 1950 in trying to expel the British Military from Cyprus so as to be replaced with the establishment of American military bases in Cyprus , that has has been thwarted by the British State Sponsored Turkish Military invasion and occupation of Cyprus since 1974 , which resulted in the US military committing the worlds biggest foreign policy military debacle not seen since the ancient Trojan War as admitted by American Pentagon officials in the form of the US military overthrow of the Saddam Hussein Baathist Regime in Iraq in 2003 that lasted till 2013,

  79. Jean Charles Branco

    the radicals islamics terrorists are enemy numero 3 of europe. numero 1 is the traitors that promote the nato foregners army occupation in europe.

  80. Manuel Alegria

    what “COLD WAR”???
    USA&Israel attacking Syria and other countrys, and Russia defending them… is not “Cold War”…
    Is the JewishUSA warmongers being stupid, and wishing NATO will provide troops to die in their adventures

  81. randomguy2017

    Get rid of NATO.
    Why is EU constantly siding with Atlantacism, Liberalism, Neoconservativism? Weakness?
    Europe can be European, no need to copy USA.

    Current conflict, no siding with Ukraine or Russia.
    Near future side accept both of them at same time.

    Both those countries are mostly European.
    Both have good and bad people.

required
required Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

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

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.