After more than a decade of continuous military engagement in Afghanistan, NATO is preparing for troop withdrawal. Last week, US President Barrack Obama announced that all but 9,800 American troops will leave the country before the end of 2014 (the US being by far the biggest troop contributor to the NATO mission in Afghanistan). Remaining forces will stay to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces. With its last major combat operation drawing to a close, what role will NATO play in a post-Cold War world?

On Wednesday 4th June, Debating Europe will be partnering with the Security & Defence Agenda for its Annual Conference “Overhauling Transatlantic Security Thinking”, taking place in Brussels from 14:30 to 18:30.

We had a question sent in to us from Gary, asking what lessons NATO had learned from Afghanistan, and how those lessons would be institutionalised so they won’t be forgotten by future leaders.

We put this question to General Philip M. Breedlove, a four-star general in the US Air Force who currently serves as the Commander of US European Command as well as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe. How would he respond?

How can NATO stay relevant in the twenty-first century? A great deal has changed since NATO was founded in 1949, even if recent events in Ukraine have stirred up memories of the past. There are those who would like to see NATO focus purely on “traditional” collective defence, while others argue that the organisation needs to adapt to counter new and unconventional threats from outside its borders, including insurgencies, global terrorism and cyber-warfare.

We had a question along these lines sent in by Chris, who asked whether NATO is now entering a “post-operational era” following the Afghanistan drawdown, or whether recent events in Ukraine and the Crimea might suggest otherwise.

Finally, we had a question from Chris asking whether NATO was prepared to meet the security challenges of the 21st century – from nuclear proliferation and piracy to cyber-attacks and terrorism. Does NATO’s structure still reflect the Cold War context, or is it flexible enough to adapt?

Is NATO still relevant in a post-Cold War world? What lessons have we learned from the NATO presence in Afghanistan? And what role should the organisation play in the 21st century? Share your questions, comments and thoughts in the form below and we’ll take them to policy makers and experts for their reaction!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Marines

108 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Patrice Puchaux

    NATO is totally useless for EU: it is an international army supervised by USA, we don’t need protection from them so we do not have to take part.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Patrice Puchaux
      Any EU army SHOULD NEVER be supervised by France – look at the RWANDAN GENOCIDE, never mind the cowardice in WW1 and WW2!

      Any EU army SHOULD NEVER be supervised by Germany – look at, erm, well you know what I mean.

      I guess NATO does have its advantages…

    • avatar

      I live in eastern Europe and I think you’re terribly wrong. When you all westerners celebrate the 70th D day we celebrate the beginning of Russian occupation. Please try to imagine that’s happening to your country.

  2. avatar
    Gregorio Boretti

    NATO is the biggest and worst symbol of US imperialism and control over Europe. We need a free Europe, fighting for peace and not for bringing war all over the world.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Gregorio Boretti
      I think you mean the EU, NOT NATO!

  3. avatar
    Xavier Schoumaker

    Public contracts without public oversight for the armament industry:
    that’s why NATO still exists without any functions.

  4. avatar

    The 2-nd most powerful XXI century military force on the planet with a up to date defensive plan.

  5. avatar
    Tarquin Farquhar

    I’ve noticed that a lot of NATO haters tend to come from countries that benefit from NATO membership BUT don’t pay much if anything to NATO in the first place.

  6. avatar
    Chris Monadiki

    i am a cyprus citizen and a mother. i was married with a syrian man for six years. he showed to everybody that he was a very good person but he was a very big lier. i have with him two children and not a long story he promised that we are going to journey to beirut to see his family and fraudulently kidnapped my children. WHAT CAN THE EUROPEAN CAURT CAN DO FOR ME? AND ALL THE REST MOTHERS HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. avatar
    Chris Monadiki

    We are a needy family sustained only by providence and its not enough. i have three childen the first is from my first wedding and i urge your help to come back safe and sound because it is located in a war zone and i fear for their physical health and life where are you NOW EUROPE?????

  8. avatar
    Luc Sabbe

    NATO is a good institution, but the EU should operate with its own army in it, not with 28 useless small armies.

    • avatar

      We don’t need any army, anywhere. There are no threats. They’re all made up by the military industrial complex to scare people and increase industry profits. All these imaginary wars (on ‘terror’ and ‘drugs’) must be stopped.

  9. avatar
    Lee Tong

    Defence only I think the world is grown enough expecialy the last decade to clean up his own mess…

  10. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    I do wonder also if we all have learned anything from NATO’s or UN’s armed interventions. It would be good to do a SWAT analysis to each and every intervention and then decide on a path to follow. This is not “analysis paralysis” this is a common sense approach. What we know about past interventions has been heavily filtered by biased media reports and does not constitute reliabel data.

  11. avatar
    catherine benning

    NATO is past its sell by date… It’s simply an arm of the USA used as a way to expand their imperialism.

    It is not in Europe’s interests to be connected to such an offensive organisation

  12. avatar

    NATO should be abolished. And also, it should not be replaced with anything. Time that governments here in European countries stopped listening to the warmongers from Washington.

    Spending money on ‘defense’ (code speak for enriching military industrial complex) is pure waste.

  13. avatar

    NATO is the sword to protect and if possible universalize the Anglosaxon version of the West. It protects the heritage of the British Empire, now under US leadership.

    Europe has the EU but no sufficient own defence capabilities. In fact, its defence capabilities since the end of the Cold War (1990) are continuously decreasing, whereas those of the US went up, if measured in financial terms. This already tells a lot about the division of weight inside this transatlantic organisation. EU member states are not even able anymore to protect their borders agains intrusion of unarmed illegal migrants.

    The idea of having the EU as a second column of Transatlantic defence, on an equal footing with the US has not realized so far, and probably never will, because the EU as such seems to be too diverse for a common army.

    What remains is the idea of a European lead nation which significantly increases its defence efforts and then coordinates with enhanced military establishments in other EU member states (Defence Union, compareable with EMU). Such a structure could operate inside and/or outside NATO.

    In any case, as long as European defence depends solely on the US via NATO, also the destiny of the EU is bound to decisions made in Washington (not Brussels or capitals of member states).

    • avatar
      George Yiannitsiotis

      Threre are complex problems to face whilst dealing with the subject:
      1. NATO includes non-EU member states (like Turkey, Albania, Iceland, Norway, Canada and the USA)
      2. The EU includes non-NATO member states (like Cyprus, Malta, Finland and Sweeden)
      3. The mandate of a European Defence Force would be limited to the defence of the EU borders (countries like Sweeden, Finland and Germany for their own reasons can not extend this mandate to NATO standards)
      4. The USA would never accept a 2nd force with a mandate that a) wan’t be under US control and b) may raise obstacles or disturb the balance in delicate areas like the Eastern Mediterranean (in particular shifting balance between Greece & Cyprus on the one hand and Turkey on the other)

      Keeping all these in mind, one can imagine how difficult is to change the military structure in Europe for the foreseeing future.

  14. avatar

    I think that if someone is looking hard enough, will find the exact same type of comments in the years pre-dating the WWII ; mostly from the same countries which were caught with their pants down sort of speak.Way to go guys..

  15. avatar
    Pedro Redondeiro

    NATO is indeed still ver yrelevant, just like the ukraine crisiHowever maybe it should be redesigned to be something like a “Peace and order” north atlantic force or something like. A common north atlantic Ofensive/ defensive body! ;)

  16. avatar

    NATO has kept the peace in Europe since its formation in 1959 ,I don’t see where the negatives come from apart from people not liking US involvement . If Ukraine had been a NATO member the Russians would not have annexed the Crimea . NATO is a defence association it is a power for good .
    To answer the question NATO’s role in 21st C is to spread its membership to peaceful nations around the World , an attack on one is an attack on all is a message that will keep would be bullies in their own homes .

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Well said!

    • avatar
      catherine benning


      Are you serious? Do you believe the European people are simpletons altogether? I don’t believe for a minute you are not fully aware of what has been going on in the name of the British and European people. Blairite money makers are at the back of supporting this. And they still are. Through a money making concern called the ‘Blairite Progress Campaign Group.’ And where do you think the funding for this duplicitous group comes from? Give you two guesses.

      Please – get real.

    • avatar

      Catherine , Your link to the Russian propaganda TV channel is hardly justification for your conspiracy claims .

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Well said again!

  17. avatar
    Rob Szabó

    Eu army in place of NATO? Hardcore geopolitical significance. Also I note Southern Europeans tend to be in favour of scrapping any military at all (when I lived in Lisbon, people seemed to favour far left parties, at least while at university) and Eastern Europeans tend to be in favour of a strong military deterrent as they remember the recent past.

  18. avatar

    Obama came up with a billion in spending. Multiply that with a 100 and with some luck maybe we will last 10 hours against russian invasion. I mean Portugal or Spain.

    • avatar
      catherine benning


      And your pro Washington bull we have to put up with ad infinitum is draining. You and Paul X are so full of how Europe is at odds with itself, and therefore unable to manage it’s own defence, is more than a joke Are you trying to tell me, that the madmen in the Pentagon, the White House and Downing street are all strumming the same tune?

      Please give me a break. You, and those who agree with you, must belong to some kind of arms company that thrives on and survives on selling arms and mercenaries to the tax payers of Europe. Which is why you are so stressed when anyone suggests this is a con game being played on all of us.

      And as far as RT are concerned, when they speak, they make sense, when the media, played by Murdoch and his cronies, stand in front of a block of white salt and tell you it’s black salt, you do have to wonder how much they are being paid to sell such clap to their fellow citizens.

      And who is selling and buying these weapons of mass destruction?

      So, if you stop foaming at the mouth about European inadequacy, you may find we are just as adept at the game of war as the friends who are backing you.

  19. avatar

    I d rather want my country to get nuclears (Just for the unlikely case) and become a big switzerland independent and neutral.Nato s role should be that of herry houdini–>expert in disappearing

  20. avatar

    I think we should ask Breedlove what the role of nuclear weapons will be in the future, how NATO is going to defend against nuclear arms ( for all whom think that NATO is irrelevant, only by binding our efforts we can meet the nuclear thread that still excists today ), in how far a nuclear threat can influence major crisis ( like the crisis in the Ukraine right now ) and limit the possibilities of conventional warfare today.

    • avatar

      Yeah sure it like to see that…that ain t star wars

    • avatar

      Dear Alex Casella,

      What do the EU and facism have in common exactly?

      Greetings, Theharmonicaman

  21. avatar
    João De Lalanda Frazão

    True, the only barrier to the establishment of a common defense policy was indeed the variety within the continent that had resulted from different geopolitical experiences. Yet, I find that an EU army is still better than being subordinated to Washington’s external orientations, as it only harms the idea of the EU worldwide and, in fact, restricts our deeper integration.

  22. avatar
    Mike Robinson

    Not a person that has spoken has lived where NATO has helped a country be free from Communism, Nazism, or Facism. I personally do not agree with everything they have done, but I certainly do not agree with everything in these communistic posts either. I am not, nor have I ever been in agreement with the whole of NATO. No nation should ever let their troops come under the command of another, but rather, the another should be subject to the countries it is made up of. If not so, then it should be dismantled, but only if the organization does not come the auspices that it is suppose to represent.

    • avatar

      Liberate the world from thieving banker capitalism!

  23. avatar
    David Estêvão Gouveia

    NATO is an umbrela for small countries, NATO has to defend member countries from threats, all classes (terrorist, drugs, economic), nationalities and religous threats

  24. avatar
    Prof. Ion Steriotis

    NATO was used by the victorius Americans:
    To control Europe
    To oblige European Countries to buy american military ecquipment!
    What we need is a European Army
    European Foreign Policy
    Europeans we are 500.000.000!
    We have a strong currency Euro -among the 2 more used in the World
    European Union is Now INDEPENDENT

  25. avatar
    Prof. Ion Steriotis

    I think I was clear:
    Europeean Army
    For European Citizens and Countries
    For the European Foreign Affaires Policy
    For Europe and not for american interests!
    With European Military Personel and Matterial!

  26. avatar
    Ion Steriotis

    Nato was used by the Americans to CONTROL politically and economically European Countries!
    Off with Nato
    We decided for a EUROPEAN ARMY
    See my detailed Notice inside!

    • avatar
      Paul X

      See my detailed notice above why an EU army would be a toothless bunch of parade ground warriors

    • avatar

      Exactly.It would also be way cheaper then all the national armies.Thinking of the tech for exapmle.There are probably like 20 diffrent classes of fregattes in europe,which all costed billions of research.Instead of wasting the money for researching diffrent,ships,tanks,planes and so on,just work on one together and invest the saved money in additional numbers.

  27. avatar
    Leo Maggi

    The policy of the planet has changed with the advent of the global market mondial…the interes of the state are different from is necessary to review the roles and alliances of states in the global situations.

  28. avatar
    Rebeca P. Martins

    I have a whole chapter in my thesis about how we could adapt our troops to modern challenges… It’s time to >really< use our hard-power as soft-power.

  29. avatar

    1948? or 2014? Consider that 66 years have passed- none the wiser?

    The “North Atlantic Treaty” gave birth to its baby called NATO at the Pentagon clinic between 22 March and 1 April 1948. Twelve nations signed the treaty and thus became the founding members of NATO as follows:

    The 3 BENELUX states, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, UK & USA

    Its original aim was: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”……….to “counter” the military power of the “USSR”…………it was in 1948!

    Does the EU in 2014 want to keep the cold war mentality alive and counter the ghost of the USSR military power & Warsaw Pact? If nobody- including the military planners/politicians- did not notice the changes since than- they all need a wake up call!

    As always- its agenda remains “enlargement”! Why? Never thought about different options?

    Yes, Article 4: “triggers merely consultation over military matters”.
    Article 5: “defines the “casus foederis”- an attack against one –is an attack against all” ..don’t include high risk members than- seriously, who wants to risk a war a-la 1939?

    • avatar
      George Yiannitsiotis

      “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”

      Supposedly, a “European Army” can keep the Russians out (not of Ukraine but the “EU territory”) and remove the Americans also. Who is going to keep the Germans down?
      The main economic-political and in the future military threat for Europe is Germany! The casino-bond “euro-currency” has already fed the neo-nazionalist beast giving Germany the upper-hand in all political and economic decisions withing the EU. Should a “European Army” be formed without a credible force counterbalancing the Germans, there be a nightmare for all but Hitler!!!

    • avatar

      @ George Yiannitsiotis

      Dear George,

      I find your view on future Germany outrageous and preposterous. I suspect that you blaim Germany for the sorrows of your country. Indeed your coutrymen have been calling names full heartedly. Your economic situation ought to be someone elses fault and since you envy Germany’s succes you’ll blaim her. And why not? It is easy to pick Germans; you simply call them nationalsocialists and Merkel gets a square moustache. How ignorant and low that is mister Phd. Greece should be thankfull for having her mess payed for by the decent Northen states of the Union. However it is not and it still has not fixed its moral problems ( like paying taxes fairly ) nor has its bureaucratic system improved any. Look at youself for once!

      Greetings Theharmonicaman.

    • avatar
      George Yiannitsiotis

      Wrong perception: Germany had the option to a federal Europe in the early 1990s. Instead of following that path, started a well planned neo-nazionalist foreign policy that envisages Hitler’s dream of a new order in Europe by other (non-military) means. Old enemies were targeted (first, Yugoslavia 1991-99), old allies supported (Croatian, Slovenjan, Ukrainian nazionalists among them). The choices made by the German political-economic elite, regardless of Greek economic failure, have been neo-nazionalist.

      You may be offended; however, reality is harsh!. Regarding Greek economic failure, it is easy to put the blame on the PIIGS but please read this: . The only option left to Greeks is described at the 2nd part of this comment.

      PS Political choices have their cost. In the case of the German political-economic elite, the neo-nazionalist path instead of a pro-European one, gradually isolates Germany from the rest of Europe.

  30. avatar

    Dear all,

    I wonder why so many of you feel so much resentment towards the USA.

    Greetings, Theharmonicaman

    • avatar


      Because Trotskyism, Leninism, Marxism, Maoism, Che Guevaraism, Fidel Castroism and Kim Jong Unism and other skeletons like such are hidden in some (never lived behind Iron Curtain) closets waiting for “liberators”Russians to bring “justice” for exploited and abused workers and peasants by the reactionary bourgeoisie and american imperialists. There are also Adolf H and friends, you name it, plenty of fanboys having resentments toward US of A . It’s not that hard to figure it.

    • avatar

      I actually was used to be a US fanboy as a kid beliving this land of the free crap and stuff.Well when you grow up and start browsing the internet and start to look who the US bombed since 1945 and out of which reasons(are they actually still looking for saddams weapon?) and who they work with(Bullying the Shia in Iran cause they r religous regime,but work together with the wahhabit regime in saudi arabia,which is way worse then Iran could ever become),well at some point you just have to come to the conclusion that this country acts like satan in disguise.
      Some people migth not like the Russians but at least they re more like fair and square and say what they think,while the US have they disturbing sneaky ways.

  31. avatar
    Stanley Jr Obinna Ibe

    Now a days I really don t see the contribute of NATO……it should be more a leading actor in situation like in the russian and Ukraine cases.

  32. avatar

    The EU Commissioner who spoke on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme was offensive. Britsih people do not need to be insulted by unelected, second-rate foregin politicians. My parents’ generation fought for Britain’s freedom but there wasn’t much point really because instead of the Nazis we have the EU.

    • avatar

      It’s that so ? Only Farage first rate politician can do that from the top of his own arrogance. Being british, it’s by default allowed to bash east european nations.

    • avatar

      Dear Englishman,

      In the Netherlands we experience the same. Foreign politicians whom do not understand national poltics and make ignorant statements about our national politics. In the Netherlands we seem to understand British politics to such an extend that we do not find mr. Farage to be national socialist nor a facist because that is simply fact.

      Greetings, Theharmonicaman

  33. avatar
    Paul X

    Nice bit of censorship going on here, title page says 58 comments on this topic box to right says 40?

    …18 comments deleted without trace?…nice one DE

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      You have noticed it as well, Paul X. I thought I was seeing things. Cannot even put up valid newspaper reports now from the British papers.

  34. avatar
    Paul X

    lol…now there all back……must have taken them away for proof reading..

  35. avatar

    Yeah that organisation is for peace obviously.Khmer rouge(worse psychopaths then adolf),taliban,wahabi regimes not to mention the great democratic systems that egypt,irak and lybia live in.I d rather live under an an laizist autocrat like assad,then some brainwashed muslimbrothers.the laizist autocrat is far away in the capital not influencing the lives of the people in the landscape very much.The long hand of the radical islamists will reach you everywhere.
    The highquality peace produced by nato is notorious all over the world^^

  36. avatar
    Ken White

    General Breedlove
    I have a few questions for you that i hope you can answer for me

    1. Are Russian Special Forces still operating in the eastern ukraine?

    Two Humanitarian questions

    1. Would SHAPE/NATO help in maritime search and rescue operations in the med sea in supplying long range maritime patrol aircraft to look for refugees that are in distress ? There is already a massive loss of life reguarding the refugees.

    2 What is SHAPE/NATO is doing to help in help with Humanitarian aid to the balkans?

    Public Affairs

    If you are going to have the common people behind you there at SHAPE/NATO you will have to improve your public affairs. Your PAO is dreadful to get a response back. I have sent emails to your PAO and I have not gotten a response

  37. avatar

    I think a real European Defense Policy would be less wasteful than current NATO bureaucracy and better democratically controlled.

    • avatar
      Paul X

      I think any European controlled defense policy would be a 100% waste of money

      The ethics and politics of the EU countries is so diverse you would never get unanimity on a decision to deploy a common EU force it would therefore never get out of its barracks

      EU army = military white elephant

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      I agree with you, Andy, and as important or indeed more so, within in Europe’s direction and control. That in and of itself has to be an enormous money saver. Frees Europe from having to partake in umpteen wars throughout the world that it has no business being involved in. Not in our interests. Protectionism from outside our borders and control is a scam. The mafia played that lark for years.

  38. avatar
    catherine benning

    And here we read that without the need to consult parliament or indeed have the citizens of the UK know, we are getting further into a nuclear pact with a bunch of nuts from across the big pond.

    This has to stop and the people right across the EU should be on their feet marching to oppose this war mongering twosome before they kill the lot of us. Have you read of the mayhem they have created in the Ukraine in order to spread war to Europe? Check out this mornings British Guardian if you are in the dark.

    And the joke is, bloody Catherine Ashton was brought out of the darkness of Wigan because of her ban the bomb leadership at Greenham Common in her ancient, dim and hidden past.

  39. avatar

    Oh yeah, finally the “Bush Doctrine” (War on Terror, yada, yada) start to provide what I always suspected. They remove Saddam without a minimal precaution or idea about who’s gonna reign Iraq after US military withdraw. What can I say ? Sh*it happens, now deal with it ! Yeah, you ! Neo liberals and Neo conservatives together with US hard core republicans. You start this sh*it ? You finish it ! On your own expenses, cause if I will caught you stealing from Social Services, Health, Retirement, or Public Schools, you will end up worst than hanging Saddam.

    • avatar

      Yeah that s how it is.Assad and Saddam are autocrats,but at least they re more or less laizist autocrats.I mean a laizist autocrat sits far away in his palace in Damaskus and doesn t really effect your everyday life.Well those wahabi mass murders go everywhere.No matter where you life even in a far unimportant province village ,they still come into your house and force their shit on you.
      Here you got the choice and I know who i would pick.

      At least it was more or less quiet and save under Saddam at least when you stick to the rules.I doubt people there are happier with how it is know

  40. avatar
    Zaved Hossain

    They have nothing to do……russia is fucking the whole europe but they are still silent :o

  41. avatar
    Alex Tselentis

    Rebuilding all the highways and bridges its bombed and destroyed across the world, Europeans are sick and tired of this non stop WAR EVERYWHERE .. NATO needs to start bridge building with the countries its isolated through needless conflicts, or its nothing but chaos for Europe !!! And stop provoking Russia and WW3 would be good also.

  42. avatar
    Jaume Roqueta

    NATO’s role should be to desapear!… Debating Europe is doing propaganda pro NATO and against RUSSIA?…why? dont you think we should promote peace and prosperity? but as good politicians you are… you say this while bombing foregin countries or helping to increase tensions like in ukranie, siria, iraq etc… please… go home… leave this place to younger people…

  43. avatar
    Jaume Roqueta

    Can anybody tell me… where are the guns of ISIS made in? eh Debating Europe… can you pleas post here the European companies that sells weapons to ISIS? via Qatar and Emirates?… can you please tell us how many people in the European Comission has a reltationships with this companies…

  44. avatar
    Dennis Kelly

    We don’t want Nato, we don’t want a military, we don’t want the EU.

    We want community based local government, we want small groups of dedicated workers, we want our Nationhood back.

  45. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    Is there now a greater need than ever for soft power ? from humanitarian aid to assistance in nation building? ABSOLUTELY YES! Enough of this military solution nonsense. War never solved anything. Humans have been waging war for millenia and that has not solved anything.

  46. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    Let me see… The West supported the Sunni of Saddam against the Shiites of the Iranian revolution several years ago.
    Then the West attacked against Saddam and hanged him, because he owned nuclear weapon, which he hadn’t.
    Then it supported the jihad fighters in Syria against Assad.
    And a little later the West discusses with the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites and supports them against the jihad fighters in Iraq, who are connected with those in Syria!!!
    Sorry but I’ve… lost it somewhere!!!

    • avatar
      George Yiannitsiotis

      Κι όμως, είναι απλό κ.Σωτηρέλη:
      1. Την εποχή που η “Δύση” (ΗΠΑ) υποστήριζε τον Σαντάμ Χουσέιν ως ανάχωμα στο Ιράν, είχε χάσει τον παραδοσιακό της σύμμαχο λόγω βλακείας (ανατροπή Μωσαντέκ 1950 που οδήγησε στην ριζοσπαστική ανατροπή του Σάχη το 1978-9) και αναγκάστηκε να συμμαχήσει με έναν εν δυνάμει σύμμαχο της τρισκατάρατης ΕΣΣΔ (το μπααθικό καθεστώς του Ιράκ) για να περιορίσει την επιρροή του ισχυρού στρατιωτικά (ελέω όπλων made in USA) Ιράν στην ευαίσθητη περιοχή του περσικού κόλπου. Εκείνη την εποχή, σημειωτέον, η περιοχή παρείχε τα 4/5 του πετρελαίου που διακινείτο στον “ελεύθερο κόσμο” (η ΕΣΣΔ ήλεγχε το 25% της παγκόσμιας παραγωγής αλλά δεν το διέθετε στην “διεθνή αγορά”).
      2. Ο έλεγχος της περιοχής απαιτεί ένα ισχυρό δίπολο (Ισραήλ-Ιράν) που θα κρατά τους Αραβες on check. Οι ΗΠΑ το γνωρίζουν πολύ καλά αλλά δεν αντιλαμβάνονται την ανάγκη συμβιβασμού με το Ιράν και στρατηγικής συμμαχίας με Συρία-Λίβανο-Ισραήλ-Ιορδανία. Οι Ρώσοι που ξέρουν να παίζουν σκάκι (μακροπρόθεσμη πολιτική εν αντιθέσει με το βραχυπρόθεσμο αμερικάνικό πόκερ) μπαίνουν σφήνα για να εμποδίσουν την “υπερδύναμη” ως προς την υποταγή του Ιράν και να αντισταθμίσουν την πίεση που δέχονται στην Ουκρανία και τον Καύκασο.
      3. Η Ελλάδα έχει κάθε λόγο να επιθυμεί μια προσέγγιση ΗΠΑ-Ρωσίας καθώς αυτό θα οδηγήσει σε ευνοϊκότερη ισορροπία ισχύος στην περιοχή ως προς την ίδια την ύπαρξη του Ελληνικού κράτους. Αντιθέτως, το εθνικό συμφέρον της Ελλάδος επιβάλλει την ρήξη ΗΠΑ-Γερμανίας και το σπάσιμο του Γαλλογερμανικού άξονα εντός της “ΕΕ”. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, αφ’ης στιγμής η ΕΕ δεν έχει δική της αμυντική πολιτική και δόγμα υπεράσπισης της “Ευρωπαϊκής Επικράτειας” καθώς και τον μηχανισμό (ευρωπαϊκός στρατός) για την αξιόπιστη αποτροπή κάθε επιβουλής 3ων εις βάρος της, το ΝΑΤΟ αποτελεί πολύτιμο εργαλείο διασφάλισης της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας της χώρας μας στον βαθμό που η Ρωσία ελέγχει την βόρεια ακτή της Μαύρης Θάλασσας και οι ΗΠΑ τη Μεσόγειο. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, η ΕΕ-Γερμανία είναι άχρηστη ως προς το συγκεκριμένο θέμα.
      Ελπίζω να σας βοήθησα στην κατανόηση βασικών γεωστρατηγικών παραμέτρων.

      Δρ Γ.Γιαννιτσιώτης
      Πολιτικός Επιστήμων – Διεθνολόγος

      Σημείωση: οι θρησκείες και οι πάσης φύσεως ιδεολογίες-ιδεοληψίες δεν παίζουν απολύτως κανέναν ρόλο στην χάραξη εξωτερικής πολιτικής.

  47. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    It is the law of the instrument and it goes like this:
    Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding.
    Give a man a gun… and the rest follows, just like with the hammer.

  48. avatar
    Romeo Ene

    I live in eastern Europe and I think you?re terribly wrong. When you all westerners celebrate the 70th D day we celebrate the beginning of Russian occupation. Please try to imagine that?s happening to your country.

  49. avatar
    Lígia Mesquita

    NATO’s role should be to drop their guns. There are no wars if there’s no one fighting for them. Do you think Obama would set foot on Iraq himself? No way.

  50. avatar
    Olivier Laurent

    NATO is supposed to be a defense organisation. this so call humanitarian aid is just a way to disguise an offensive.

  51. avatar
    André Mendes Santos

    Nato should because the EU’s army. An army at the disposal of a european goverment, in the context of an european federation with a unique and united foreign policy

  52. avatar
    Nick Xios

    @theharmonicaman who wrote “Greece should be thankfull for having her mess payed for by the decent Northen states of the Union.”

    The ‘Northern states of the Union’ payed for a disguised bank bail out. Citizens of both North and South lose. It may have avoided short term pain for both groups, but at what cost? These same banks are still bankrupt, they are not lending to businesses, and they still reward themselves for reckless gambling–they keep the winnings and the losses are shoved on the taxpayers. Meanwhile the public debts keep piling up…

  53. avatar
    unity marimo

    indeed nato’s actions and functions shud b restricted only to member states for the sake of peace keeping

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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

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

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.