NATO has new sense of purpose. Not long ago, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was wondering about its relevance in a post-Cold War order. Since the 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia, however, NATO has found a new mission. Or, rather, it’s re-found its old mission. After all, aren’t we back in an age of spies, murky assassination plots, constant propaganda, and nuclear brinkmanship?

At the same time, NATO has been a target for US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric. While on the campaign trail in 2016, he famously labelled the organisation “obsolete” (though, once in office, he reversed his position). Even as recently as July 2018, President Trump was blasting his NATO allies as “delinquent” for failing to meet their spending obligation of 2% of GDP on defence. Of course, Trump isn’t the first US president to criticise the Europeans for not pulling their weight militarily, but under his presidency transatlantic relations have sunk to an absolute low. Is Trump right to openly question the value of NATO? And what has NATO done for us?

On 20 September 2018, our sister think tank, Friends of Europe, is holding its annual Policy Security Summit in Brussels, the flagship event of their peace, security & defence programme. Speaking at the event will be (among many others) Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary-General; Jose Alberto de Azeredo Lopes, Portuguese Minister of Defence; Frank Bakke-Jensen, Norwegian Minister of Defence, and Julian King, European Commissioner for the Security Union. Debating Europe will be at the event and putting some of your comments and questions to participants!

What do our readers think? We had a comment sent in from Jthk, who thinks the Cold War would have been lost without NATO (and the US would never have achieved the status of a superpower). Is he exaggerating its importance? What has the North Atlantic Alliance given us, and what would the world have looked like without it?

To get a response, we spoke to Rose Gottemoeller, Deputy Secretary General of NATO. How would she respond?

That’s a very good question and it is one I have reflected upon a lot since I took this job as NATO Deputy Secretary General almost 2 years ago. I believe that actually NATO played an extraordinary role in consolidating the gains in security that were achieved by the end of the Second World War and then was able to adapt as an organisation to carry this forward in tackling the challenges of the Cold War. So, I do think that the unity of the alliance, the resolve, the way that we were able to develop defence over time but also, again, adapt to new threats and challenges, was also extraordinarily important in bringing to a successful close the Cold War as well. Your question is a very good one – I hope you think my answer was as well.

To get another perspective, we put the same comment to Anders Schröder, Defence Spokesperson for the Swedish Green Party. Sweden, which follows a policy of neutrality in foreign affairs, is not a NATO Member State (though since 2016 it has been a “NATO Affiliate”, and it did deploy troops to Afghanistan to support the NATO-led mission there). So, what is his position from outside the Alliance? And would he want Sweden to consider joining?

Well, I’m sure NATO was important for a number of different countries during the Cold War. As a Swede, I’m looking at it from a Swedish perspective. Our perspective is that, while we can see the benefit for many other countries, for us it has been more beneficial to stay out of the alliance.

Next up, we had a comment Ivan, who thinks that Trump’s aggressive approach to NATO will actually save it from irrelevancy by forcing European Member States to increase their defence spending to 2% of GDP. So, in a way, is Donald Trump a good thing for NATO?

How would Deputy NATO Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller respond?

Ivan, there’s no question that President Trump’s policy of delivering a short, sharp shock to the NATO allies has been effective in getting many countries who need to be spending more on defence, and on bolstering our share defence – getting them to take their commitment to the Wales Investment Plan seriously. I do like to emphasise that the President’s very strong approach to this is one that has resonated with the leadership of the allies in their capitals. I think that has been important.

I also like to point out that the Defence Investment Pledge was reached in 2014, at the Wales Summit. It was a watershed year in the alliance because in 2014 we faced a newly aggressive Russia, with Russia seizing the Crimea and destabilising the Donbass, and the rise of ISIS in that year [with its] seizure of Mosul and the establishment of their Caliphate. So that year was a big wake-up call for the allies, so the Defence Investment Pledge came in. It was that year that the cuts stopped to defence budgets across NATO. Cuts stopped, the budgets started to turn around and increase.

But I think it’s valuable that President Trump has pushed the allies even harder and faster. So I think that there are benefits to sometimes some ‘tough love,’ as we say, but at the same time I do believe that the allies had gotten the message beforehand and that it was the geostrategic situation – the renewed challenges that NATO had to face – that started the process rolling.

We also put the same question to Amanda Sloat, Robert Bosch senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe. How would she respond?

Numerous American leaders – including Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton – encouraged Europeans to increase their defence spending. At the Wales summit in 2014, all members agreed on the need to spend two percent of their GDP on defence by 2024. Trump is right that allies must share more of the burden and take steps to improve their own capabilities. However, his bellicose rhetoric and threats against countries that don’t meet the target are unhelpful. The upward trajectory in alliance defence spending began in 2015 and has continued since Trump’s election: five members met the target last year, three more should meet the target by the end of this year, and 15 countries plan to reach two percent by the 2024 deadline. It is also worth remembering that allies contribute to NATO in many ways, while defence readiness requires smart spending that enhances capabilities (e.g., investment in equipment rather than higher pensions).

Finally, we had a comment sent in Pedro, who doubts whether Europe can still rely on US commitment to Article 5 (the “collective defence” provision in the North Atlantic Treaty). What would Rose Gottemoeller say?

Pedro, I don’t think that there is any option for NATO members but to continue to fulfil their commitments under the Washington Treaty. That goes for all NATO members, whether the United States, Canada – those are our transatlantic alliance members – or any member of the alliance here in Europe. Every member signs up to the Washington Treaty. It’s a solemn national commitment to the organisation and a country would have to decide that they wanted to withdraw from that commitment but all the members of the NATO alliance see it as really adding to their net security. Being members of the alliance, as we like to say, is that old fashioned one for all and all for one. In essence, it’s a force multiplier for every country who is a member of NATO and that goes for the United States as well.

So, the President of the United States, of course, has been somewhat critical of NATO in recent times but these are issues that many Presidents of the United States have criticised other NATO members for, not spending enough on their own defence, so I think that those critiques are well founded and have helped to push the alliance in a good direction in terms of spending more on defence but at the same time the commitment of NATO members, including the United States, to the mutual defence pact that is enshrined in the Washington treaty, I think that commitment remains and is very strong.

Is NATO worth saving? What would the world have looked like without it? And will Donald Trump’s presidency ultimately be a good thing for NATO? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: (c) BigStock – maxxyustas; PORTRAIT CREDITS: Anders Schröder, CC / Flickr – Miljöpartiet de gröna; Rose Gottemoeller, CC / Flickr – CTBTO

79 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    DE: Is NATO worth saving?

    Please, first publish a report of who is behind the “destruction” of NATO- to enable us to suggest how to save it.

    The “EU grapevine” reports a possible secrete agenda by JCJ to establish an EU army instead! Is that true?

  2. avatar

    The USA needs Nato so it can create a permanent wedge between Germany and Russia. It also needs Nato so it can bully and attack other Nations. Europe should have it’s own security force to separate itself from US foreign policy objectives, no more Iraq war, no more Libya, Syria etc.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      I think Russia does a good job putting wedges between it and ALL NATO nations.

  3. avatar

    It’s either NATO (and US military occupation of EU countries), or us.
    Let’s put Europe first, and ditch NATO and put it in its place – the cold war past.

    • avatar

      While I don’t necessarily care for the Yanks, should we combine all nations and form 1 army?
      How much should we spend towards an EU defence? Where should the bases be built?

    • avatar

      Mathilde an EU military alliance would be sufficient for EU’s protection, without giving up member-countries’ sovereignty even more.
      Moving towards “1-army” is not a solution at all.

    • avatar

      EU is peace, they said…

    • avatar

      EU members are just making wars outside from Europe, you’re kindly. And what about art. 42 who places the europeans states under NATO, NATO doesn’t make wars? That’s a real new information!

  4. avatar

    Europe should be able to defend itself, but there is nothing wrong with alliances, as long as we’re not drawn into unnecessary conflicts by the US.

  5. avatar

    Nato should always change towards a fair collaboration for fair objectives. Not being protectors of corporations businness but peoples rights.

  6. avatar

    NO because NATO serves only the American interests and the American foreign policy.
    Why are European soldiers in far Afghanistan? why aren’t they in the European external borders?

  7. avatar


    The sum is greater than its parts

  8. avatar

    Without NATO the EU would be in Russian hands within 2 days so you work it out.

    • avatar

      Thats right. Thats why we need to work out a propper EU defence with one central command, to be less dependent on the US.

    • avatar

      Theresa May is that you?

  9. avatar

    If Europe would ever like to evolve in a Union , it needs to make it’s own defensive structures and cut the umbillical cord with NATO.

  10. avatar

    Europe should have its own, not be subject to US. And UK.

  11. avatar

    NATO like the corrupted EU of bureaucrats and bankers is crashing down already since 2016! Those who do not aknowledge this fact, they just live with illusions or it is because they mourn for the “pocket-money” that they get from institutions and NGOs that soon will loose!

  12. avatar

    To maintain NATO first you have to make sure that as equal members must respect the sovereignty of other member countries and to stop hating or violating other countries borders. Without that how do you offer protection the countries . Are you selective or just don’t care . If that is true you need to dismantle . There is no need for small countries to be patsies for superpowers

  13. avatar

    it’s time for a strong European army! Army to keep our borders and our peoples! we do not need a Nato that will determine our people’s politics and the cost of enmity. We do not want to pay with lives for wars that we have not started! It is time for a strong, united Europe and an army!

  14. avatar

    1) it’s a cold war relic
    2) it doesn’t insures the members states sovereignty
    3) how can “allies ” threatening each other with war?
    4) costs to much to be maintained
    If an alliance can protect it’s members even from other members and costs a shiton of “$”
    Why worth been saved?

  15. avatar

    NATO is now essentially obselete…it could not even solve the Human Trafficking that is suffocating Europe. It’s a big waste of money. Europe should unite militarily to solve this human Illegal Migration itself …if it has the balls!!

  16. avatar

    NATO is wrong paradigm.We don’t have real international laws!

  17. avatar

    EU, NATO, USSR, PESCO, all these type things are dangerous.

    Focusing on NATO its clearly an Anglo-American organization meant to keep the Americans in, Russians out, Germans down. And keep the Anglo-American military structure on top. The Cold War stopped, Warsaw Commie Pact is finished, so NATO should shrink or disappear too.

  18. avatar

    You lot need to grow up,if it hadn’t been for the Americans and their allies the Red army would have rolled across western Europe seventy years ago and there would be no Europe today.
    And how about a more recent event, the Bosnian conflict,I remember the U.N ‘peacekeepers’ mostly made up from European countries commanded by a French general being largely ignored by the Serbs,the Dutch soldiers abandoning the men of Srebrenica to be massacred.It was only president Clinton ordering NATO to intervene with a bombing campaign that ended the genocide.

  19. avatar
    catherine benning

    Is NATO worth saving?

    NATO is a scam. Governments tell us it is to keep us safe from possible enemies.Then creates enemies in order to keep themselves in a job that pays a fortune to continue war in some part of the world. It is a big earner for those who want to have a nice never ending office job. And a big dupe on us all. They have to keep a ‘criminal power’ of some kind, even if that means intervening in the leadership of countries not wanting our system of political choice. Democracy to choose not to be part of the Western globalist view on life is unacceptable to NATO.

    Why don’t they make Presidents and leaders handsome and articulate anymore, the way this guy was.?

    And today the atitude we hear of.

    The US takes the lions share of profit, but, it is spread about here and there. Again paid for by the ‘tax payer.’ As are many self perpetuating agencies we blindly fund through our taxes. Is it worth saving? What has ti done for all these years since WWII?

    This guy talks about it from another point of view.

  20. avatar

    Actually Nato’s main contributor are the USA and it’s main target is Putin. What Trump told Merkel &co. is that EU leaders expect USA to help the most while the rest of EU gets it’s gas from Russia.
    The EU made a lot of false promises to countries surrounding Russia like Poland Hungary Ukraine etc. just so Russia borders are depleted from buffer countries like the ones mentioned above.& place arms aimed at Russia in these Countries.
    Thank God Trump came into power or world war3 would have already started.
    Clintons,Obama & Merkel all want war with Russia through NATO

  21. avatar

    NO. .
    Nato are the aggressors.

    • avatar

      Bev – Ukraine? Georgia?

    • avatar

      Tragically the coup in Ukraine was a joint USA /NATO instigation. Georgia was invaded by the NATO block too.

    • avatar

      Dan – Yougoslavia? A bit nearer…

  22. avatar

    NATO is our civilisation protector. It doesn’t matter if, hopefully, Europe will build its own defense system, NATO is our alliance with friends sharing same values, friends we need and cherish.

    • avatar

      Octavian – friends threatening each other with war? What kind of friendship is that?

    • avatar

      Παυλος – are you suggesting that someone in Europe, USA or Canada threatens us ? Or Russia is expanding again?

    • avatar

      Octavian – Turkey is threatening with war Greece since 1986 and as far as I know Turkey is a prominent member of NATO
      Not to mention the fact that actually Turkish troops fought against Greek ones during the Turkish invasion to Cyprus (1974) also known as operation ” Attila “

    • avatar

      Παυλος you won’t like it – because you’re greek but .. turkey didn’t invade. it honoured its treaty obligation as required under international law when the greek sponsored terror group led a coup on the island. Personally i don’t like Turkey – they are going to be the primary source of the coming darkness .. but i don’t like inaccurate s**t either

    • avatar

      Ryan no worries 😊i known the ” coronels reign ” did terribly things at Greece in the begging and Cyprus in the end and they are responsible for what followed
      And typically yes Turkey had a legal excuse to act but if you see what followed after is obvious that they trying to annex the northern part of the island so it wasn’t really for defending the sovereignty of Cyprus..more like securing their piece of the pie..

  23. avatar

    Let’s first EE become united snd then will see about european army..

  24. avatar

    Without NATO forces Russia will not hesitate to invade some countries in Europe but every one must put in their share of money for it’s upkeep

    • avatar
      Maia Alexandrova

      Why would Russia invade you, if there was no NATO??? NATO is an obstacle to a closer and mutually more beneficial economic and cultural co-operation between EU and Russia, i.e. an obstacle to peace. Why should EU be an eternal enemy of Russia? It is not a matter of upholding European principles because aggressive dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Israel are being propped up by European countries and USA. You cannot excuse your actions towards one country with some supposed principles, but then ignore those same principles when it comes to relations with another country. This means there are no genuine reasons for the hostile attitude towards Russia in the first place, so no need for NATO, no need for additional problems around the world. NATO and USA have invaded more countries than anyone else in the world and only Hitler has killed more people than them.

  25. avatar

    It is for USA to decide.Nobody is asking EU.

  26. avatar

    The EU spends a looping 342b in military which is more then China and Russia. That’s a respectable army for a democratic bloc who uses military for defensive purposes only. Eliminating nato would mean Europe will have the freedom to carve out its own policies and not providing the US with its aggressive military policy with the tools to cause wars in our turf. That means less refugees, more collaboration among neighbours and less war

    • avatar

      EU is peace, they said, EU doesn’t need an army and NATO should die!

    • avatar

      Rémi every bloc needs to be able to defend itself

  27. avatar

    Without NATO, Europe will become the second Soviet Union in no time , can anyone of who disagree just think about the huge interest of Russia in Europe ? Can anyone imagine how weak the European countries individually right now , they didn’t heal ever from WW2, that’s why they still need the contribution of USA and Turkey which both are not members in EU and have no direct benefits like other members
    For those who worship Russia ,no worries just leave the EU and join the uprising of the new Soviet Union ,but don’t interface the decision of others who refuse to surrender to an old dictatorship system that once broke by not even a real war but a simple cold war not colder as its weather
    Stop breaking your continent , before it’s too late

  28. avatar

    Which of the NATO member states has ever actually invoked and benefitted from it’s common defense clause?

    Answer: The USA, dragging member states into a conflict in Afghanistan.

    It did serve Europe well during the cold war, but now the USA has lost its way, and cannot be trusted with Russia, then Europe should realize it is no longer a reliable partner. For this reason NATO is impaired, a tremendous victory for Vladimir Putin.

  29. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    Many seem very enthusiastic and happy to commit & send their (dwindling) offspring’s to serve in a future grand EU army? There appears to be a growing militarization of the EU happening under our eyes!

    These are not VR war games played on IT gadgets!

    Let’s “think” & create a theory by assuming that all 28-1= 27 Member states are exposed to a three pronged militarization drive by “undemocratic forces”- all for the sake of peace and unity- instigated by:

    • Academics from the “European University Institute’s” & its “analytical arm” – = DE.

    • Its sister think tank referred as “Friends of Europe” & others (“Friends of corporatism & elites” or “Foes of Europe’s” people?)

    • A disproportionate influence of the Brussels industrial arms lobbying group- who together influence and/or actually develop EU politics. (re: neo- fascism= EUism)

    A “true & proper EU army” can only be created- “step by step”- once all 27 members have finally “given up” (without a binding referendum?) all remaining competences = sovereignty- and morph into one EU national state!

    Neither a NATO Alliance nor “the EU starter army” of 25 members called the PESCO Pact will/can remain.

    Will Brussels dream finally come true & when? It seems it is mainly driven by the Council’s inner circle & questionable politicians (sciatica sufferer JCJ & his friend Asselborn who in another fury used some political noble words: “merde alors”) both from the dwarf & medieval Duchy of Luxembourg.
    A 580k population “city”- not bigger than any bigger European town! Very scary!

    The practical effect is:

    • the abdication & closing of all 27 national parliaments

    • to be replaced by one new parliament in Brussels

    • no more national representation in any global institution (e.g. the UN general assembly etc) by any former sovereign European States since the 27 States will shrink & dwarf to one member only

    • Europe will loose 26 votes in all UN & other global institutions & be politically and “democratically” disadvantaged

    • the necessity to cancel & redraft all international and national treaties will probably be the biggest nightmare to hit Europe this century- nothing compared to Brexit!

    • The energies, time, neglect, money & disruptions spent to achieve a singular political EU state will probably be negative for its economy and cause voters resentment throughout the EU.

    * One has seen nothing yet! The need to be subjected to binding referendums!

    All participating Europeans with their proud history will finally be able to say good bye to their National States who become history (peacefully?) & probably called USE.

    It all started very promising & harmless with “economic reason & peace”- remember?

    Has EU scheming gone too far? Is that the one & only option the majority of EU voter’s wish or will accept for their future?

    I’ll guess- many will not!

    • avatar

      An independent EU joint-force for self-defense is a must for the security of all EU member states. This is not militarization. By joining a military alliance NATO, EU has in fact militarized itself and drawing into unnecessary military campaign for the America to become great again. Now the US has be imagining that China is going to take over its hegemony and Russia is joining China acting against the US. By keeping NATO membership, EU would be drawn into war with China and Russia. Even more dangerous is that NATO member Turkey has joined Russia and Iran in Syria battlefield. The US has been preventing Syria to achieve peace. We have seen that both France and UK had joined the US to launch missiles Syria for it had used chemical weapon. But the allegation has not yet proved. It is highly dangerous for EU to remain in NATO.If we do not want EU be drawn into military conflict with Russia, US, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey in Syria or even worse fighting war with Russia, China, North Korea and the US in East Asia…. If we don’t want EU to be militarized, don’t want refugees, don’t want war and death of EU people, the first thing and most wise decision is to withdraw from NATO. Besides, it is just ridiculous to maintain NATO membership if the US can fight a trade war indiscriminately with its NATO allies and stage military coup in a NATO member state, Turkey.

    • avatar
      EU Reform- Proactive

      Hi Jthk, thank you, but I beg to differ- in principle! Why?

      Come voting day we may all choose the political party nearest to our- but very limited- choice to influence the EU’s direction- however most “insignificantly”!

      No single political party I am aware of in the EU offers in their written “agenda” besides a lot of talk (blah blah & arguments) a section making it crystal clear how the EU supranational integration should- will- or must end eventually. USE= with the resultant loss of our TOTAL sovereignty by all.

      For me the importance of the “Council of Europe’ (Treaty of London 1949)- to strive for peaceful coexistence & economic cooperation & values between all 47 Member qualifies as higher priority than the EU’s endeavor by a handful (28) of powerful “renegades” to create a European Super State=USE!

      The last national referendums- concerning the “EEC/EU directions”- were held when voters were asked: to join or not to join- in order to form an united economic block- not an European Super State! Forgotten?

      What is/was the main objective of that body?

      “The objective is to ensure the (“EEC/EC/EU’s 6-28 members growing or shrinking) sustainable and steady development. It means balanced economic growth and stable prices. The European Union seeks to create a competitive market economy which takes into account people’s well-being and social needs”

      What’s that got to do with NATO, an EU Army, the US, Trump, Brexit or the weather in Monaco etc?

      No political organization has ever peacefully deprived its Member States of as much sovereignty as has the European Union- step by step- (JCJ) without the consent of its voters- all by stealth. Heard of carpetbaggers?

      All “themes” we are given to deliberate on this forum are only diversions to solidify or confuse everybody as to our final “destination”.

      This aim is crystal clear for politician who drive “pan Europeanism” to the letter- like Guy Verhofstadt, (his book “Verenigde Staten van Europa”), Viviane Reding, Matteo Renzi, Martin Schulz, Juncker etc.

      There should be another referendum in future with two choices (like in the 1970) namely: a USE- yes or no! The rest of all deliberations is (actually) a waste of time!

      “Politics produces nothing; it’s all about who decides who gets what at whose expense”

  30. avatar
    Tarquin Farquhar

    I think Russia does a good job putting wedges between it and ALL NATO nations.

  31. avatar

    During the Cold War superpower confrontation, NATO was to gather strength for collective security. The problem is the bi-polar world has ended. The US has become the single military super power but unfortunately declining. The US has become very sensitive to its own downfall and ready to wage war even use nuclear weapon to defend its hegemony. The US has indiscriminately waged the trade war against its alliance and supporting opposition to overthrow its ally, Erdoğan’s government. The US does not need EU to supports its hegemony. By staying in the NATO, EU can only be used to justify US hostility. EU should withdraw its membership from the NATO, whether NATO worth saving should be the problem of non-EU member states, which has nothing to do with EU. EU better thinks of saving the UN and prepare when isolationism has forced US to quit also UN membership.

    • avatar
      EU Reform- Proactive

      “…… need to learn the lessons of the past……” just the recent past…….:

      Or already forgotten? It was 11-09-2001 the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda killed- gruesomely- 2,996 people- demolishing the WTC.

      “The NATO council declared that the terrorist attacks on the United States were an attack on all NATO nations that satisfied Article 5 of the NATO charter. This marked the first invocation of Article 5, which had been written during the Cold War with an attack by the Soviet Union in mind.”

      What would have happened if the 337m high Europaturm, in Frankfurt/Germany would have been blown up? Call Frontex, the fire brigade & 911?

  32. avatar

    When the US has decided to loosen nuclear weapons constraints and develop more ‘usable’ warheads now, NATO has no reason to exist. EU better seek collective protection from the international society of states and join effort to preventing the US from destroying the whole world. Forming alliance with a nuclear warmanger state disgraces EU.

  33. avatar

    When the Washington Treaty was signed to “reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments”, when the US has been denying such purposes and even quit membership of a no. of UN committees such as the Human Rights and environmental protection, making use of NATO for its unique American interest, the organization should dissolve. Members have all their justifications and rights to withdraw its membership for peace and survival of the UN.

  34. avatar

    How we Russians are suppose to restore the might of the Motherland with all these NATO troops around us, you see when we Russians like and admire some country we “invite” it to the family, we are not an evil empire (but we like to think that we are) we have a specific vision for the future, we think that compatable nations must unite to achieve greatness, small countries doesn’t do much, only when they are incorporated in the Motherland we are capable to achieve new great things (like sending a man to space), and we are sorry that we fucked up with building comunism, we will try again soon

  35. avatar
    Taco Smit

    NATO was originally a defence pact against the Soviet Union, although this may have caused the cold war. Since 1999 the USA and the NATO allies have provoked many illegal wars (without UNO backing). When the cold war ended and the Warszawa pact was deactivated, it was promised not to expand the NATO to former Soviet territory! As we know this promise has not been kept and NATO is more and more encircling Russia. I am astonished how the retaking of Crimea is seen as Russian aggression, but the putsch to overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian government by CIA USA, NATO and Ukrainian Neo Nazis intervention is not seen as aggression at all?
    Should Russia allow the port of the Black Sea fleet with nuclear arms fall in the hands of such a dangerous illegal government?
    When will we Europeans ever wake up to realize that our interests are more towards good ties with Russia than to the war mongering USA? It is time that all European countries get rid of American troops and bases on their soil and to quit the NATO. The NATO is an instrument to legitimize the imperial ambitions of the USA to play the worlds bully with endless illegal wars, which if not stopped, may end in a global catastrophe which may mean the end of the world as we know it.
    In this time where so many countries have nuclear capabilities, does it not sound logical to start friendly relations with all countries instead of seeing only nails because we have the hammer?
    If after 75 years you still feel grateful to the USA for winning the second World War then inform yourself on the sacrifices and blood the Soviet Union gave for winning that war!
    If you still see the USA as our benefactor and the Russians as our enemies, I guess it is time to consult a psychiatrist!

  36. avatar

    Saving? – Not unless they manage to start a war with Russia on EU soil.
    Only vilifying Russia is not enough
    They have managed to pull back EU from overtaking USA markets, making walls by seeding confrontations with Russia / China. Enough is enough. End NATO and put our resources elsewhere.

  37. avatar

    Without USA as the guaranteer for military backup, is it really working anyway?
    If the other countries in NATO can’t really trust that USA will back them up or even condemn their enemies action, NATO is effectively dead as an organisation…

  38. avatar

    NATO became obsolete after The collapse of The Soviet Union. Anything else is just mumbo jumbo

  39. avatar

    Totally obsolete. Can’t even resolve dispute among members…..

  40. avatar

    No. Corrupt and useless. Spinless to boot.

  41. avatar

    Absolutely yes.
    Europe is facing numerous threats..territorial from rússia. ..cyber & economic from china…terrorism from islamic fundamentalists….these need a unified western alliance, the EU has proven incapable of providing this & refuses to look outside it’s arbitrary protectionist interests.

  42. avatar

    NATO had a role in defending its members, but it has now gone beyond that goal to occupying and helping to occupy non-member nations.

  43. avatar

    N.A.T.O is an extortion racket.

  44. avatar

    We all know what the T stands for now…

  45. avatar

    The only military alliance in the world .. a remnant of WW2… Europeans use it for “protection” at the expense and benefit at the same time of USA.. Expense because they pay too much to protect us (while we should be able to do it on our own) and benefit because their arms industries make billions out of arms sales in NATO member states.. So who gains? Western (US & European) arms industries.. Why keep it, while a pact among European countries could alone deter any potential threat-who would attack anyway a united Europe with its own streamlined defense mechanism? I’m sure many American elites are fed up with their European counterparts’ lack of support and decisive action in war campaigns they decided to engage so the whole thing is a shambles. If Greece needs to buy billions of worth or arms from US and Western Europe in order to protect itself from Turkey, an ally of itself then that speaks of how effective this alliance is.. Be done with it… Time to grow up Europe!

  46. avatar

    As long as Europe doesn’t have an own army, it will depend of the USA. The USA spies on Europeans the same way as Russia and China does.

  47. avatar

    It’s obsolete. Europe needs an own army, chaired by the stongest European military, France

  48. avatar

    With Turkey in it it’s a joke for NATO to exist

  49. avatar

    Depends on whether Trump is reelected.

  50. avatar

    Definitive answer can only be given after the next US elections.

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.