A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Add media Report RSS Is NATO needed anymore? (view original)
Is NATO needed anymore?
view next
Share Image
Share on Facebook Tweet Email a friend
Embed Image
✧Joshua✧ Author

As George Kennan, American diplomat and author of the concepts of “Cold War” and “containment,” prophetically wrote in the New York Times on February 5, 1997:

“….. expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era.... Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

President Clinton, who was an architect of the expansion, ignored George Kennan’s warning and subsequently created a destabilizing environment in Europe, which was further exacerbated by the Obama administration. Idealism and affinity have led to the over-extension of American commitments and resulted in financial burdens that, according to Trump, America can no longer afford.


Comment as you wish.

Reply Good karma+2 votes
Kalga Creator

It is in the interest of the USA to keep NATO, since it allows them to maintain their current hegemony at very reasonable costs. The other nations of NATO also benefits economically (in the short and medium term) from the effects that NATO has geo-politically, but by the same token limiting their future potential.

It is in the interest of rising/current regional powers (Iran, China, Russia, etc.) to see the end of NATO, for obvious reasons.

So in summary, NATO is needed from the perspective of the US and perhaps the other major members (France, UK, etc) of the alliance.

Reply Good karma+2 votes
✧Joshua✧ Author


Only five of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 28 member countries last year met the alliance goal of spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. They're leeching off of the United States who's already suffering a budget crisis. It is not in the USA's best interests if it leads to a economic meltdown due to a failure of allies to contribute their fair shares into this "mutually beneficial..." alliance. Why maintain hegemony if it leads you down the way of Rome?

"America will meet its responsibilities, but if your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to the alliance, each of your capitals needs to show its support for our common defense," - James Mattis

A 2016 breakdown, figures provided by NATO:

United States, 3.61%. (Murica, **** yeah!)
Greece, 2.38%. (Alexander would be proud)
Britain, 2.21%. (HAIL BRITANNIA!)
Estonia, 2.16%. (who?)
Poland, 2%. (for this, you'll be invaded last)
France, 1.78%.
Turkey, 1.56%. (watch your back on Thanksgiving)
Norway, 1.54%.
Lithuania, 1.49%.
Romania, 1.48%.
Latvia, 1.45%.
Portugal, 1.38%.
Bulgaria, 1.35%.
Croatia, 1.23%.
Albania, 1.21%.
Germany, 1.19%. (Der Kaiser is rolling over in his grave)
Denmark, 1.17%.
Netherlands, 1.17%.
Slovakia, 1.16%.
Italy, 1.11%.
Czech Republic, 1.04%.
Hungary, 1.01%.
Canada, 0.99%. (cucks)
Slovenia, 0.94%.
Spain, 0.91%.
Belgium, 0.85%.
Luxembourg, 0.44%.

Related: Reuters.com

Reply Good karma+2 votes
Kalga Creator

You're missing all the less tangible variables though (generally known as the big picture). The USA's ability to launch invasions like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is heavily based on the world wide logistic network of which NATO is a significant part. Many of these other countries serve as a force multiplier to the US armed force, making the whole much greater than the sum of its parts. Similar situation in Asia (in terms of containing the PRC).

The economic benefits for this global logistical network is a stable geo-political situation from which the USA can manipulate the markets to its advantage. The whole trade situation with the PRC? Arguably the USA gets the better end of the deal as PRC is stuck with ridiculous amount of pollution while the USA just have to deal with mild unemployment issues. Pretty good trade on the part of USA. (depending on the conspiracy theory, the USA back in the day manipulated markets to cause the "lost decade" of Japan and the Asian bank crash of the late 90s as spoiling moves to prevent significant economic rivals, if true, pretty slick moves).

So yes, NATO gives the USA a lot of intangible benefits, which is why countries like Russia and PRC want to see it gone/roll back/dissolve. Of course for the most part such thoughts were nothing more than merely a pipe dream... until now.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
✧Joshua✧ Author

Ironically NATO and my country's Military has next to nothing to do with China's situation or Japan's Lost decade. I say ironically because thanks to our messed up currency we almost have to be involved in a conflict on a regular basis.

Anyways, a good deal doesn't lead down the road of unending debt. The trade situation with the PRC is complicated. They own most of the USA's debt, have taken the bulk of our manufacturing industry, and are even surpassing us in areas of trade. China ships 18% of its exports to the U.S. So the Chinese need the Americans to keep buying their products.

China has begun exporting its people by setting up shop in other parts of the world. Africa for example, where China has rapidly developed its presence during the last decade. Countries like Nigeria and Angola, among others. More than 750,000 Chinese have moved to Africa. Some think the plan is to increase this to the hundreds of millions, helping to put a dent into China’s natural resource problem by tapping into Africa’s resources, while thinning the herd in the home country. Air and sea routes are increasing between China and African nations as massive deals are made for commodities, trade, labor and military cooperation. Chinese private schools, embassies and cultural centers are popping up in places like Rwanda, Nairobi and Angola. Angola even has its own “Chinatown” district.

In return, countries in Africa get a willing trade partner and assistance/weaponry for their military factions. Africa also receives the benefit of jobs and infrastructure building. Trade has increased from 5 million Yuan to 6 billion in the last decade. Africa is getting the short end of the stick tho, importing cheap Chinese goods, while exporting valuable commodities like oil and timber. 70 percent of African timber ends up in Chinese ports.

China reached out to Latin America as well, bypassing the United States as Brazil’s No. 1 trading partner. Coming in a close second to the USA in Argentina, Costa Rica, Chile, Peru and Venezuela. With that kind of reach, China is indeed a very real threat to American hegemony.

There's no real point in keeping NATO as a "logistics powerhouse" if you're surpassed in trade by another super power regardless of alliances. NATO only serves to hold the USA down at that point as a unnecessary commitment we have to pay the bill for (while already in the midst of a budget and employment crisis). If other countries actually paid their share for it I'd reconsider my position.

Reply Good karma+2 votes

How would you try to scare the Russians if there were no NATO countries hosting your troops? Look, from my own perspective NATO is an organization to put US goals into working without US paying everything for it. Current state of most armies of European countries is so sad, that even Kim can laugh with his 60's tech level stuff. Breakdown of NATO would make Europe work on army, eventually becoming very powerful, which is not really something USA wants. Another thing is, that each country has something that you don't want to be sold into any potential enemy.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
✧Joshua✧ Author

It would take Europe out of the current social state its in. NATO allowed European states to focus on social agendas rather than military management/national defense. As a result, it's contributed to the cancerous form of leftism we've seen infecting much of Europe. Without a military to take pride in, culture citizens believe is worth dying for. The state can run off into the absurd for the sake of globalization. The only thing that's been waking them out of that lately is populism thanks to the immigration crisis which has been devastating European culture.

My view is this. I'd rather have Europe as a powerful military force in it's own right. Then have a world order under the USA where the majority of the globe is cucked beyond belief. Would this create instability? Of course it would, that goes without saying. But you have to choose what your priorities are. We talk like a world order is the future, but really is it? It's basically autocracy, but with nations as subjugated citizens. Whatever the most influential decides (in this case a superpower like the USA), goes and without question for better or worse.

Take the idea of individuality, and apply it to nations so they're countries again. With rights and choices for themselves to do as they wish. Will this cause wars? Yes. Will it create a world with dire need for sensible diplomacy? Naturally. But I'd rather have that than what we have now.

I'm watching the world cultures die slowly in favor of leftist westernization. And to think many of these nations once had proud rulerships and citizens. Nowadays, most don't even lift a finger in defense of their homeland. Nihilism has taken over the public discourse. Sad state of affairs.

On the other hand I do have to admit the benefits of NATO. At least in things like opposing piracy, secure trade routes, better military cooperation between nations. As it stands tho I believe NATO itself needs to go. Either in the form of drastic reform to place more responsibility in Europe. Or ditched in favor of a entirely new approach to alliances with the world at the table.

Reply Good karma+2 votes

We think the same way, which is surprising, since you are an American and strong Europe is not in US interests.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
✧Joshua✧ Author

My politics have been changing to this view gradually after spending so much questioning. If U.S. interests become corrupted, everyone else ends up following our path and or being screwed over. I'd rather not take the world with us.

The real challenge for America is "surviving" long enough to prove the durability of it's system to others. We aren't perfect, but in the end our stability is what should be our pride and joy. Not how much power we can project over others. No one questioned Rome's might. But in the end what did her in was her own internal strife. What right does a nation have to hold such sway over the world if it can't even keep it's own ducks in order?

The real question is whoever can last the longest with the most achievements. They're the ones who will be remembered most prominently, they're the ones who will have their practices and beliefs carried over into the future. Their legacy is their greatest achievement.

Reply Good karma+2 votes

'If U.S. interests become corrupted, everyone else ends up following our path and or being screwed over. I'd rather not take the world with us.'

Too late...

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes

I don't think ANYONE is following their path to be honest... with the exception of Brussels/Berlin, but the EU is more "cute" at this point than anything else. Depending on the results of the French elections the European pursuit of a neoliberalist/cosmopolitan union could be over either very quickly, or just quickly. Hopefully a return to a classical realist thinking will ensue, based on the 1930's propositions from H. Carr, Morgenthau etc.

As for NATO. A large proportion of Europe's equipment is in a dismal state, and the wanton expenditure on gargantuan joint-projects has taken its toll. In World War II, powers struggled with assembling machinery from multiple factories, now NATO struggles with coordinating any form of standardized equipment to meet the needs of 28 individual members.
Obsessions with "high-tech" and tunnel visioned pursuits of unproven stratagems to employ on battlefields with "full-spectrum" ALS "dominance" while exorbitantly paid CO's sit in their air-conditioned containers surrounded by 28-inch 4k monitors playing war in some second-now-third-world country, has successfully neutered any future ability to conduct warfare against their neighbor... That is their purpose after all.

Further still, industrial sabotage from the US is all too common throughout NATO's history, as the US weapons export arm wipes out any potential competition to their lucrative market. From the FN-FAL, to the Eurofighter, to Airbus just recently selling off their (rather successful) electronics division to a US state-holder for no apparent reason.

For all intents and purposes NATO is completely obsolete, and it became so on the heels of 1991, where all future military operations should have been under the auspices of the UNSC (they could of at least tried committing to the cosmopolitan utopia that they preach so readily). Russia essentially tried implementing this idea with its request to join NATO, which of course would have mooted the point of NATO. It was snubbed as we all know.

Trump was ignorant on the NATO issue, as he apparently was on many of the affairs of the Deep State. It is beneficial that NATO exists, and beneficial that they contribute so little, for it isn't their security cooperation that matters, but the European Military Industrial Complex, which, in the name of Pax Americana, must not be allowed to innovate or gain competency that may threaten US arms market dominance, or, US foreign policy concerning Europe. After all, Europe NEEDS the US to protect it from those commie bastards in the East, who may pounce on poor unsuspecting Europe at any moment and steal their women and rape their horses.

Imagine if Europe gained parity with Russia, or worse, the US, all by itself? Oh, now that's a route about as dark and treacherous for US hegemony as a Eurasian silk road.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes

Well, first we have to kill the humanism. Drown it in blood of war. After that we can go back to realist thinking. And sometimes it seems to me that the welcoming of immigrants is the start of that war. Maybe I just hope so, because if it's not, this is the end of all western Europe. The rest would probably get closer relations with Russian and follow the Serbian path - remove kebab.

Europe military doesn't just lack the machines, it also lacks people. Apart from special forces pretty much all the armies are a bad joke and no country would be able to field actual army.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes
✧Joshua✧ Author

The crucial thing to remember throughout all of this. No matter who comes out on top or what changes. There is going to be an abuse of power by those who see opportunity.

Like when Qaddafi fell, and Saddam, there were chaotic agents more than willing to fill the void. The United States loses hegemony, do not expect all to be perfect. Just like before, there will be abuses, there will be things taken advantage of.

In regards to Donald Trump, I'll give him due credit of waking up a great many people along with alternative media to the deep state. Even if he fails to destroy it over the next 4 years (which lets face it, this would take more than 4 years to root out nonviolently). There is now awareness, awareness from a lot more than just any "fringe group".

As it stands NATO does need to go. How that will happen, I feel will be related to the collapse of the EU. I'm 20 years old but odds are I'm gonna have the "privilege" of witnessing a new world conflict in my lifetime. For the bankers and politicians, it's only natural. Mere mortal men are subjected to struggle every generation. Whether it's tyranny, inequality, or just plain old brutality.

Reply Good karma+3 votes

Late reply because of study hijacking my life.

I certainly don't expect to see a utopia emerge once the US jumps off its podium, but at least a much more open discussion on solving international issues. In my ideal world everyone would stay home for awhile, see where things settle. Don't get me wrong, definitely keep supporting Iraq and Syria against ISIS, but keep the footprint light. ISIS is essentially finished at this point anyway, and I feel like the US finally has at least a semblance of a plan for their own way forward (in this case using SDF to carve out a pro-West section of Syria...) which is better than throwing weapons and money at jihadis. It's still not pretty, and the Russia-coalition would kind of just prefer it if they left Syria and focused on Iraq, as they feel they have got it covered. Also, you have Erdogan who is clearly insane, but Russia seems to have enough testicle twisting power that he only oversteps sometimes.

I agree with your Donald analyse. We'll see what he can do, at the very least America's now turned a page, where that goes, well, it's probably two options of ugly and really ugly. Things have got to get worse before they get better.

NATO needs to go so as to allow Europe to decide its own defense strategy. Where people get this wild idea that a return to individualist sovereignty will result in Europe promptly going back to invading one another I don't know, but shows just how little faith they have in themselves. Pretty sad really.

As for your final point, perhaps if the powers genuinely pursue this multi-polar idea, there'll be more time to consider the current issues of government and the inherent structural problems of our "democracies" and republics. Of course, this is very much a reason as to why the powers exist in a state of constant antagonism, as it allows the people to busy themselves thinking about just how bad those bad-guys over there are, instead of focusing on making their own nation a better place. Lead by example, not by force.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Post a comment
Sign in or join with:

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.


NATO had three goals when first established.

1. Deter Soviet expansionism.
2. Prevent the revival of militarism in Europe.
3. Encourage Euro political/economic integration.

During it's period of establishment Europe was in ruins. Facing a threat from the intimidating USSR, and later from the forces of the Warsaw Pact. Given strategic and political realities, the United States emerged as the forefront defender of peace. This was until the fall of the USSR and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

If you're Donald Trump, you realize seventy years later the world has moved on. Europe is a massive economic power, with a population of 500 million.

Despite more than sufficient economies and manpower, Europe has downgraded their military capabilities. Relying on the USA for maintaining security. The vexing part, is that while Europeans are enjoying a 35-hour work week, generous benefits and extended vacations, American workers have to put in 40 to 50 hours per week to support Europe’s defense.

With the fall of the USSR, NATO's mission has changed. Without a real threat to justify their existence. NATO now works as a "Peacekeeper" against any and all perceived threats to world order. Pursuing not strategic, but "moral" goals in an attempt to promote Westernization.

The real issue with this is the violation of the verbal agreement between Secretary of State James Baker and Russian Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO launched a zealous expansion to the east. Growing from 16 countries to 28 today. A expansion that can be only seen from Moscow as a strategy to encircle Russia and turn its neighbors into hostile countries.

Source: Americanthinker.com

66 (1 today)
Embed Thumb
Add media