Cold 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).
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!
310 comments Post a commentcomment
No. It indirectly caused it.
May I correct you… It was DIRECTLY!
You’re both very biased against NATO it seems.
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!
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.
We don’t need nato, we need a European defense army
until then, we need NATO, are you kidding
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
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.
https://dninews.com/article/ukrainian-forces-shell-six-near-front-districts-dpr-overnight
Ivan Burrows I think a say a European army!
Ivan Burrows I don’t remember na to to help Cyprus at all!
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.
No such animal as european army, every country should maintain its own army.
@Renata Komninos
The EU is too poor to rustle up enough cash to defend themselves adequately, your point is thus, silly.
Second-rate politicians are in charge of Brexit :-)!
“Second-rate politicians are in charge of Brexit”
Clearly the UK wants to negotiate on the same level as their counterparts in Brussels :-)
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.
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
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!!!
Putin made NATO relevant again. Deal with facts, and stop insulting intelligence.
Tchoum Xav You can’t be so stupid :D
… but if you are… damn… does it hurt :D
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.
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.
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! ;)
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.
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.
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?
@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.
NATO needs the new cold war to remain relevant. It only knows how to fight one enemy
Russia needs the new cold war to remain relevant. It only knows how to fight one enemy
Why are we talking about Russia?
This is known as the “I know you are, but what am I?” argument, a non-argument
Why are we talking about Russia? Did you read the title of the page?
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.
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.
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
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 …
Ukraine dont exist in Crimea history ….
@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.
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.
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.
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.
We want peace!
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.
You have just repeated NATO propaganda
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.
@Michael John James Brown
One man’s ‘propaganda’ is another man’s ‘assurance’.
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.
Yes, but on the other hand, Nato might also be a precondition for the new “Cold War”.
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..
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?
Against what???? :-O
.
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 ?
Cymbal
Michael John James Brown .
The full orchestra :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
A) British nationalist B) pro-NATO. Choose one dude.
Alessandro Pieroni
Why do I need to chose between them, we will have both thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AQ-D_OnF-E
Idiot…. stop reading MSM
@Alessandro Pieroni
Choose BOTH!
Choose Life!
@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.
The words “new cold war” makes the liberal US press horny.
all it proves is that the EU leadership is plain stupid
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.
No more brother wars! All the europeans should stay together! Russia is Europe!
ask ukraine and georgia about how russia is
Aeroth Robert both conflicts started with soros founded color revolutions
@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’.
full of russian trolls….
If you don’t like an opinion, you easily name the author troll :)
TJ Todorov what could a old communist bulgarian say…you were always pro russia
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!
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.
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.
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!
Why is this place called debating Europe if you delete my comments? You only debate opinions that you like?
Very much so. Although it is no cold war still.
NATO is over. We do not need anymore organizations that they are aiming only to promote weapons sales and create war climate.
Educate yourselves https://dninews.com/article/ukrainian-forces-shell-six-near-front-districts-dpr-overnight
Here we meet again! :-) You don’t mind if I suggest a more technical reading subject, aren’t you…? http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/44a280124.pdf (please focus on the first part)
Yes, we need NATO, all of us.
Romania is a euro-atlantic country, forever. We respect our military partners.
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.
https://dninews.com/article/ukrainian-forces-shell-six-near-front-districts-dpr-overnight
What happened in Ukraine was pretty hot.
and… what happened? As Victori Newland said – Obama’s administration spent 5 billion for nothing ;)
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 ?!
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, right. Create a false cold war to have a reason to keep NATO. IDIOTIC! !!
Lift the sanctions over Russia and Syria you morons.
@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.
Ukraine are war criminals …
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!!!
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…
ARSE
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….
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…
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….
@Patricia Ann Petro Clarke
ARSE = Association of Russia Supporting Excreta!
@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.
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.
erratum……..”an irrelevant EU” army!
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.
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.
If you believe Russia and it’s captured countries are free, then you are delusional….
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.
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”
БЫТЬ ОСТОРОЖНЫЙ ТЕПЕРЬ……
БЫТЬ ОСТОРОЖНЫЙ ТЕПЕРЬ……
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 ….
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.
O situație care ar cam trebui judecată la rece
O situație care ar cam trebui judecată la rece
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
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.
Fuck you nato fuck you ukraina
What cold war??? What i see is an islamic invasion. What are you going to do about it???
Full americans trolls.Je ne suis pas communiste ,je veux liberte,je ne veux guerre,c’est lui faire seulement les americants.
NATO is only relevant to the USA, no one else needs it
You should reconsider. Countries in Eastern Europe would be invaded by Russia in a matter of seconds.
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
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!!!!!
@Manuel Alegria
Try keeping up to date with current affairs – methinks you will soon realise the error in your ‘silly’ assertion.
NATO is necessary to all of you.
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 .
Budapest 1956,Prague 1968,russian tanks killing the democracy. Ukraine our days. Is NATO relevant???????
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.
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.
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.
Warmongers are the scum of the earth.
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.
Good question!
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
@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.
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
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.
UN soon to go …NATO is dying welcome the new alliance
? ???Cold war.ONLY war is Islamic !
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Enjoy capitalism..
I love capitalism
Let us see if it loves you!
To be still relevant NATO invented the new Cold War
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.
Boss of sua,nato love war love love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am68o6K3Y3E&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am68o6K3Y3E&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Do we have to start fight NATO? a company that only selling arms and creating wars
I think you have this backwards… NATO is manufacturing the new Cold War in order to claim relevance.
Nato and US provoqued this new cold war. Fuck them
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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.
Gorbatchov write it himself in his biography in 1996
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
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…
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…
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…
It’s NATO that is causing the ”new cold war” trying to justify it’s relevance.
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.
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?
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.
No more war ,stop it ,its about killing and killing ,WHY ??
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??
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
This opens the debate for us all to take on board.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU8rQWh_qtc
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.
@Karolina, when did he apply to join? Because my information says otherwise. It says NATO was bending over itself to get Russia to join.
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
Yes, thank you EU Reform. i didn;t know about this. I heard it from a former diplomat. Makes sense.
How about an aggressor BEING part of NATO. Turkey? How does that work?
As far as there is “New Cold war” it was started by NATO to justify its existence – so NO – NATO is totally irrelevant!
NATO only knows how to fight one enemy, and will manufacture that enemy to remain relevant
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”.
The existence of NATO is what was a contributing factor for the creation of this new cold war.
No. Imperialist Russia is the onlu factor.
.
The idea of a bunch of crazed European with a flag & a plan to unite Europe is a very good reason to keep NATO.
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
It proves that no matter under which banner an army marches, it’s not for the people.
It is because of NATO that we have a new cold war…
NATO has produced this new cold war. Without it it would be irrelevant and should be dismantled.
EU and whole Europe needs to grow up.
EU needs to be strong. EU needs to stay united.
Or is NATO expansion reason of new “Cold War”?
Or is NATO expansion reason of new “Cold War”?
NATO IS ABSOLETE.. eu needs more intel work and detectives together with speacial privileges to use force..
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.
Haven’t they created a new Cold war to justify NATO?
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…
Brothers in Arms, United we stand
Is this the same NATO that is running a collection service across the Med?
No, this service is run by the EU`s Frontex.
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 :(
Nato is useless. They protect the territory but there are no assailants and they do not participate in the war on terror.
They have created a new cold war so as to return to their comfort zone after repeated failures in the middle east
.
Take NATO away and see how long it is before the EU is invaded.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/manchester-arena-attack-intelligence-leaks-britain-stops-sharing-uk-intel-salman-name-a7754676.html
By who ?
Take NATO away and maybe, just maybe, Europe would finally be able to talk with its neighbours with some decency and rationality, instead of just parroting along the US… Hint: Ukraine… it’s been too stupid and dumb, to just be a lack of Political Intelligence (not all politicians in Europe are stupid or dumb, it’s just 99% of them are just STUCK with some “follow or die guidelines” down their throats)
I think NATO must be gradually substituted by EU Armed Forces.
Not with the present madmen as EU leaders
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
The Independent: «Britain stops sharing Manchester attack intelligence with US after leaks continue. Details and crime scene photos have been handed to the US media.» http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/manchester-arena-attack-intelligence-leaks-britain-stops-sharing-uk-intel-salman-name-a7754676.html
Nato yes, Eu leaders No!
NATO has created the new “Cold War” in the first place. So in that sense – yes, it is relevant, unfortunately.
End this shit, Nato don’t defend Europe , only used to american pindosi objectives .
Fuck Nato, caralho!
NATO is the reason why there is a cold war.
absolutly not…
NATO is USA foot troops suplier
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.
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.
no
nato indirectly caused it
No, in the acronym the T stands for terrorist.
That’s why they re unnecessarily waging a Cold War
it was and it is.
New cold war? when ends the first one?
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.
thats why its called a cold war. look at syria and all the middle east countries and tell me there isnt a cold war.
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.
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.
NATO is provocing this new cold war!
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.
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.
i am europeans, and NATO is our enemy numero 1. the journalists will tell u that europeans love nato but its not true.
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.
The new “cold war” is a construct by politicians in service of oligarchs who run the weapons lobby and compete for markets and resources.
We need a damn european army
NATO is the cause of the new cold war.
If Nato want cold war with Rusia then Rusia turns in(fascist Nazi) Turkey and planet -humanity-will count mullion deaths
No, no . NATO is the main backer of international terrorism
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,
NATO = enemy numero 2 of europe. numero 1 is the traitors.
the radicals islamics terrorists are enemy numero 3 of europe. numero 1 is the traitors that promote the nato foregners army occupation in europe.
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
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.
NATO has expanded relentlessly since the end of the Warsaw Pact countries and it’s probably more to do with wanting arms contracts. Cheered on by MSM
NATO is our enemy numero 1 in europe, all true europeans know it. if you support nato remove ur self from ma friend list.
Weapons sales were lagging but the new cold war had really helped to boost the industry sales and stock prices.
the wwiii will be the last one, without heroes, no one remain to declare heroes
NATO is scary.
NATO is a reason for new cold war. NATO needs enemy to justify its existance, so NATO created an enemy
So on your logic why the need for a EU army
Maybe it’s because NATO still exist we have a new cold war…. it’s should end after the Soviet union end in 1989; but America didn’t want stop the war.
Better to have an European army
No. NATO might have caused it.
if i remember well Cold War II started when the Americans decided to build military bases in Poland and Romania, close to the Russian borders. Military bases with ballistic missiles to “defend” Europe from an Iranian missile attack.. whatever
Then small Georgia with the support of NATO started bombing South Ossetia forcing the Ossetian to ask Russia’s support.
well all actions around trigger that
In 1989 new borders between est and west were setlled… Why did NATO wanted to step forward in Ucraine? Was not this quite similar to a declaration of war? The response of Rusia was actually the reaction, not the agresion… And NATO just dumped Ucraine. Will this be the reaction of NATO if Rusia will act against Poland or Romania (both hosting Europe”s anti-rocket ”shield”…) too?!
The Democracies caused a new cold War? .. Idiots
What democracies are you talking about?
Don’t ask a stupid question.
I”m afraid NATO will not act like UK when Germany attacked Poland in 1939. They will find reasons to step back…
Left arm counterclockwise position ritehand as stability
Isis belong now to nato
The EU wouldn’t last 5 minutes without NATO.
Before jumping to conclusions, please read the actual text of the North Atlantic Treaty which I’m posting below. The principle is simply that if one member state is attacked, it will be considered as an attack on all member states. The first country that fell back on this principe and invoked article 5 is the USA, after 9/11 (so nothing to do with Russia). The Soviet Union and its satellite states had a similar organisation called COMECON. The whole point of NATO is that no country goes to war on its own and not without a really valid reason, such as an armed attack on its territory. https://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf
Lots of russian undercover on this site. It’s easy for western Europeans to deny the menace in front on an enemy they never seen or dealt with. Please try to understand the terrible experience of the communist occupation before minimize the russian threat. Peace and security are assured by a well prepared defense against an enemy with no regard to the human and national rights of others. If you do not believe me try to imagine you’re an Ukrainian in Crimea. Not a pretty situation.
There are no Ukrainians in Crimea and never have been.
Your information is wrong. It was custom in the URSS to relocate populations, in order to create russian minorities. That was a simple example. Think about Romanian population in Transnistria. Try to avoid Russia today as a source for your info.
Relevant as client to arms dealers and enforcer of neoliberal policies…
A FORAS. Our land is still colonized.
If that doesn’t prove it, I don’t know what does. But you don’t need even need Russia to understand how relevant NATO is. You just need to take a look at Third World countries and how civil war, dictatorship and religious extremism breeds terrorism, migrations, illegal crime networks that threaten European borders today.
What cold War???
European countries in the East should have first and foremost their own defence capabilities even without American “help” that comes with strings attached.
There has been a cold war in the middle east between the Saudis and Iran for decades and guess who supplies them with weapons? NATO memebers and Russia. So yeah, fantastic job.
Cold War is good for the business
Even if there wasn’t a new cold war, military cooperation would be a good thing.
We should have a european army to use the resources efficiently. All these national armies are a huge waste. We need more bang for our bucks.
No thanks
Same bang for less bucks?
Because the US can’t be trusted to look after European (or british) interests, and because Nato doesn’t fuse all those inefficient (and irrelevant) armies into something useful.
Gustav
Damn right. To do more with the same spendings, we need a more centralized command and give every country some certain tasks. Espesially with buying equipment more precise, we can safe money, which is also good for European industries.
With Nato, every country wants to do everything
we will be out soon and we will work alongside America as usual. the rest can fight your islamic war thats coming. Europe is fucked France and Belgium already gone
Gustav While you can trust Germany ? You have learnt nothing from your history & are destined to repeat it. The free world stands ready to defeat you again.
Unless you have a second referendum and turn away from that ridiculous xenophobia.
But good luck negotiating with Trump. And Scotland. You have an interesting future.
Ivan, you completely lack any kind of historical or factual base for your opinions. It’s like you live in 1939, with a total disregard for anything that has happened since.
Gustav Wijkmark
.
We are leaving the antidemocratic EU & rejoining the free world while you isolate yourself behind a stolen flag & unelected politburo but I’m the ‘xenophobe’ lol
The German National Workers Socialist Party’s plan was to unite Europe under one flag and one anthem at any and all costs.
The EU fanatics plan is to unite Europe under one flag and one anthem at any and all costs.
I know my history comrade, clearly you do not.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/germany-is-quietly-building-a-european-army-under-its-command/
Ivan deleted all his posts yet again.
Gustav We will be fine thanks and why the hell would we hand over our military to an organisation we mostly hate and alot of the countries we dont trust anyway?.
Why is voting to leave a pointless unbeneficial expensive club which has been a disaster for us ..Xenophobic??
Gustav why whats happened since 1945 thats been such a benefit to the UK in Europe ?.
Ok NATO brought peace and nukes also, but thats nothing to do with the EU.
I await your points with eager anticipation.
Gustav
Its always like this. Ivan is a coward.
New cold war is funny nowadays. It is obvious that US, EU are playing the russiaphobia and easternphobia card. But if you have any real attachement to ordinary people, you will realize that WE LAUGH AT mainstream news media
Cold war??? Were?? Only see an invasion sanctioned by the corrupt EU politicians.
NATO’s attempt to stay relevant is pushing EU toward conflicts and start a cold war should be a criminal offense.
All the politicians involved should be stripped of immunity and prosecuted for treason.
If the EU empire builders get their way it will be even more relevant as it will have to two enemies in ‘Europe’.
Does mean that you think it’s NATO who invaded Georgia or you think it’s NATO who invaded Ukraine? Or maybe you think it was NATO who cyberattacked the Baltic region? Or…..?
Let me be ironic! No, it is not relevant Nato…… Europe has just the KGB
If want to keep the military industrial complex pumping , it s important.
But yes it is important, still. We d like to see the world change, we d like that.
Nato born in 1947 to defend capitalism against communism. Since 1991 by choice an army to protect investments by the big business all around the world
No, because the new cold war was started by the west precisely to make NATO seem relevant!!!
The new cold war proves NATO still exists.
Hopefully the Macron plan win!
I fiind a lot of these conments interesting….only one country has annexed parts of Georgia…and Crimea. ..has fostered uprising in ukraine..been instrumental in the shooting down of a civilian airplane and the deaths of 100s…continues to act beligerently towards the baltic states and escalates tensions in the east….nothing putin would like more than the ambivalence to nato solidarity being mooted by some in eu and usa.
Why have an EU army with 21 Nations (most of them being irrelevant) when you already have NATO with 29 Nations which includes the biggest military in the USA & the UK ? You need common sense, not money.
best place to buy viagra online http://canadlan-drugs.com
This weekend marks the Remembrance of all the military personnel who have given their lives since the First World War right up to the present day, their legacy of fighting for freedom, should never be in vain. Russia and Europe need to come together to resolve all outstanding issues that has strained past diplomatic communications between each other. The European continent deserves long-term peace, all the military formations in Europe and Russia need to belong to NATO, by doing so, the (us and them) Cold War 2 thinking needs to be resolved once and for all, with 48 nations including America, Canada and Turkey being part of the new alliance.
The answer to your question, is that NATO still remains relevant. The only change that I can see, is that the alliance needs to bring all the countries that cover the European continent, and place them under a re-energized neutral organisation that can potentially bring peace to all concerned. Otherwise the continent will always be plagued with the (us and them) outlook that will cause more harm than good long-term. The 11th November should remind everyone, that the sacrifices that service personnel from all nations have given in the name of freedom, should never be squandered. Russia and Europe can do so much in protecting the world, if given the opportunity by its leaders.
Транспортно-таможенная компания Азия-Трейдинг оказывает услуги по сопровождению внешнеэкономической деятельности предприятий.