The treaty persists. The credibility that made the treaty operative does not. The replacement is being built — and the Europeans began the work in 2017.
America should be irrelevant to NATO. The only military threat to Europe is Russia. The EU can defeat Russia any time it wants to, FOR FREE, by releasing the frozen Russian assets in EU banks to Ukraine. It's enough money to fund at least 100,000+ Ukrainian cruise missiles, and/or other needed weapons. Game over for Putin.
EU nations aren't in a position to help defend the American homeland, and America is not needed to defend the European homeland.
This is a very naive viewpoint. In both world wars American assistance was needed to restore security in Europe. Ànd, mutually, America’s privileged position in the world was largely due to its alliance with the free European community. Without it, Europe is at risk not only from Russia or , say, Turkey but also from any internal Kaiser wannabe who would climb from under a rock seeing that the coast is clear; ànd America is a Pakistan with cowboy hats .
We will need to spend the next 25 years rebuilding the alliance.
Time to re-assess Bobr. This type of analysis is past its best before date. The U.S. may one day wish to rebuild the alliance, but since the U.S. broke the trust upon which it was founded, the U.S. has no claim or basis for reentry. Your "bankrupt a casino" leader and his followers in Congress blew everything at the blackjack table, and as it turns out "they don't have the cards." Good luck going it alone.
You aren’t wrong about the current mess, Ricardo. However I see the restoration of the alliance as both necessary and inevitable. Look at Germany with all its past - ànd now they are reliable , respected and indispensable ally
As is true of much of the commentary on this subject, you are talking about a reality now 80 years in the past. And today....
The EU is far more populous than Russia, and far richer. So there is no excuse for the EU being unable to defend itself. And it seems the EU now recognizes that, so good for them.
NATO and the Marshall Plan were great ideas after WWII. That period of history is now long over.
PS: There’s something wrong with your blog that prevents me from commenting there. FYI.
Europe is also still divided. À single moron ànd/or Putin’s puppet somewhere in Montenegro or Portugal can veto thé entire alliance to a halt. Presence of the US ( ànd Canada) in the alliance created an outside stabilization effect, like an outrigger in a canoe.
And dont forget, no EU has an army with any significant independent military experience, whether victorious or defeated, in this lifetime.
EU is not a dependent of the US ànd never was. As I pointed out, the alliance is not only mutually beneficial but mutually indispensable. Do you think 12 presidents from both parties maintained it out of noble charity? Only thé Very S.Genius ànd his deplorables think that an alliance = one side sponges off another.
This new European Army Alliance is also born to defend us from the Magas, in case anyone in Washington had forgotten that the "king-president-nurse-Jesus" has threatened the EU of invasion wars.
Nato should have quietly died after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and demise of the USSR. That it didn't was because of a strong Cold War hangover, the entrenchment of the Nato bureaucracy in Brussels, and the large seeding of US military bases throughout Europe, with their "dual-use" capability — US war-making outside Nato remits.
If all of the above is indeed a portend of a unified *European* armed force, then chucking out all the Yank bases from Iberia to the Baltics should be a top priority, and let's all of us in Europe make it official, for god's sake.
America should be irrelevant to NATO. The only military threat to Europe is Russia. The EU can defeat Russia any time it wants to, FOR FREE, by releasing the frozen Russian assets in EU banks to Ukraine. It's enough money to fund at least 100,000+ Ukrainian cruise missiles, and/or other needed weapons. Game over for Putin.
EU nations aren't in a position to help defend the American homeland, and America is not needed to defend the European homeland.
This is a very naive viewpoint. In both world wars American assistance was needed to restore security in Europe. Ànd, mutually, America’s privileged position in the world was largely due to its alliance with the free European community. Without it, Europe is at risk not only from Russia or , say, Turkey but also from any internal Kaiser wannabe who would climb from under a rock seeing that the coast is clear; ànd America is a Pakistan with cowboy hats .
We will need to spend the next 25 years rebuilding the alliance.
Time to re-assess Bobr. This type of analysis is past its best before date. The U.S. may one day wish to rebuild the alliance, but since the U.S. broke the trust upon which it was founded, the U.S. has no claim or basis for reentry. Your "bankrupt a casino" leader and his followers in Congress blew everything at the blackjack table, and as it turns out "they don't have the cards." Good luck going it alone.
You aren’t wrong about the current mess, Ricardo. However I see the restoration of the alliance as both necessary and inevitable. Look at Germany with all its past - ànd now they are reliable , respected and indispensable ally
As is true of much of the commentary on this subject, you are talking about a reality now 80 years in the past. And today....
The EU is far more populous than Russia, and far richer. So there is no excuse for the EU being unable to defend itself. And it seems the EU now recognizes that, so good for them.
NATO and the Marshall Plan were great ideas after WWII. That period of history is now long over.
PS: There’s something wrong with your blog that prevents me from commenting there. FYI.
Europe is also still divided. À single moron ànd/or Putin’s puppet somewhere in Montenegro or Portugal can veto thé entire alliance to a halt. Presence of the US ( ànd Canada) in the alliance created an outside stabilization effect, like an outrigger in a canoe.
And dont forget, no EU has an army with any significant independent military experience, whether victorious or defeated, in this lifetime.
The EU’s problems to fix.
They are more populous than Russia.
And more populous than America too.
And way richer than Russia. Please look up the numbers if you haven’t already.
America wants the EU as a friend, a partner, an ally. Not a dependent.
EU is not a dependent of the US ànd never was. As I pointed out, the alliance is not only mutually beneficial but mutually indispensable. Do you think 12 presidents from both parties maintained it out of noble charity? Only thé Very S.Genius ànd his deplorables think that an alliance = one side sponges off another.
Again, your thinking is years out of date. You keep referring to the past. It’s not the past anymore.
Consider this vision if you will.
The EU becomes a 2nd global superpower capable of defending freedom all over the planet. Game over for the gangsters.
But first, the EU must be able to defend itself.
This new European Army Alliance is also born to defend us from the Magas, in case anyone in Washington had forgotten that the "king-president-nurse-Jesus" has threatened the EU of invasion wars.
Nato should have quietly died after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and demise of the USSR. That it didn't was because of a strong Cold War hangover, the entrenchment of the Nato bureaucracy in Brussels, and the large seeding of US military bases throughout Europe, with their "dual-use" capability — US war-making outside Nato remits.
If all of the above is indeed a portend of a unified *European* armed force, then chucking out all the Yank bases from Iberia to the Baltics should be a top priority, and let's all of us in Europe make it official, for god's sake.
Regarding NATO, I am not confident in the current leadership (Mark Rutte) and actually just wrote a piece on exactly this:
https://skepticalsociopath.substack.com/p/the-emasculation-of-mark-rutte?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=wxwe9
Thank you Sir.
Excellent analysis!