[ad_1]
Trump, who is notoriously opposed to any form of multilateralism, arrived at the Brussels summit with the clear intention of weakening cohesion among NATO countries, in order to reinforce the US position vis-à-vis to the divided and fearful allies. The preferred targets to be reached were the EU, Germany and France. All for reasons that have little to do with NATO, but no matter … every opportunity can be good to hit when you think you have overdue accounts (like the trade deficit with Berlin)
. two days, "The Donald" managed to seriously undermine the cohesion of the Alliance. I do not know if this has also strengthened, in the long run, the (already predominant) position of the United States. We will see it in the near future.
It is clear that the demand to spend 2 or 4% of GDP for the defense has only been instrumental and, moreover, without any real military significance, but that is another matter .
It is not said that the percentage of GDP that each nation spends on defense spending contributes to NATO's military effort. For example, what the United States spends in Korea is not directly related to NATO's military capabilities,
With respect to the "operating expenses" of the Atlantic Alliance , paid for by "joint funding" Military Budget and NATO Investment Program for Security), for the period 2016/17, only 22.14% of the United States supported it, against 14.85% for Germany, 10.63% for France, 9.85% for Great Britain, 8 41% from Italy followed by Spain at 5.78% % and Turkey at 4.39% and to a lesser extent other member countries at 0.08% of Albania.
he was of great interest or he was thinking of a Europe that really did a lot to boost military spending.
More likely that the demand that was to be abandoned unexpectedly at the bargaining table was to put the allies in difficulty and divide them into "good", "bad" and "pessimi".
Technique, the latter, already adopted (although certainly in a gentler and more diplomatic way) by George W. Bush and in common to advise him for the national security, John Bolton
The threat (real or presumed) of leaving the Alliance when member countries do not comply with its wishes, was almost bullistic, which may have media effect but it does not build confidence in a future US commitment in case of Article 5 (aggression to a NATO member state), which might concern some of the European countries that may seem less "bad" "to Trump than the Baltic states and Poland).
On April 4, 2019, the Washington Treaty (that is, the agreement between nations sharing the same ideals of democracy and freedom and feeling "friends") will turn 70 . As we know, the treaty is the founding act of NATO
After the summit that has just ended in Brussels, one wonders if NATO will come to celebrate its seventieth anniversary .
Of course, on April 4, all Alliance structures will remain standing. great celebrations in the new pharaonic (but perhaps useless) seat of the siege in Brussels and the flag with the wind rose on a blue background will continue to garnish in the wind
But all this will have a real political and military significance or Will it be only the operetta? "
There is no need to remember how the Atlantic Alliance has managed to overcome the Cold War, the management of regional and international crises and all the geostrategic changes that have taken place or characterized these 70. NATO has been able to spot change and adapt it in a timely manner.
However, the fundamental feature of this organization, which remains unique , is only one: it is an organization based on consultation and consultation among all its members, on dialogue and unanimous decisions.
These processes are they heavy? edicts that confer on the militarily and politically insignificant member an absurd veto power, but also give him the certainty that he can not be trampled by the strongest and the "tyrant" of service.
This ability to share decisions and mutual respect represents the soul and spirit of the Alliance. The permanent politico-military structure of the consultation is its brain and the well articulated and capable military command structure is its robust arm.
If the spirit of the Alliance is distorted and its soul stomp, NATO neurons and muscles could serve very little. During these two days, the spirit of consultation, dialogue and research, albeit exhausting, of the unanimous decisions that remain at the base of NATO has been trampled
Trump proved to be the strongest, we already knew it, but after the summit in Brussels, the shores of the Atlantic were further away.
The United States today has a real advantage in making NATO irrelevant?
The First Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance (Lord Ismay) said: " NATO is used to keep Russians, Americans and Germans away." "Western Europe of Russia, keeps the United States related to Europe (as it was then feared to be more interested in the Pacific) and avoids the imposition from a hegemonic power on the continent.Now, NATO has achieved these goals, which were also in the geostrategic interest of Washington
During the 'cold war', Europe was experiencing economic growth using both US nuclear protection and conventional protection.] Understand, even the United States had its strategic advantage of providing such protection – think of the importance political, economic and military of the opposing "blocs" and "zones of influence" of the two superpowers
Moreover, after the "fall of the wall", the European Allies have certainly given more . The existence of the Alliance has allowed the United States to continue to maintain military bases in Europe, now also usable to support US operations that are not relevant to NATO in Africa, in Iraq, etc.
The Allies provided men and goods (also valid for the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy) for military operations conducted under the NATO flag, but strongly desired by the United States: while the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo respond to American and European interests, say for Afghanistan.
Under the pressure of the United States, which wanted to contain as much as possible its strategic "competitor", the Alliance expanded eastward to the borders of Russia, including the United States. including the Baltic states and supports, for purely political purposes, states without any military capacity
there was no warlike resistance of Angela Merkel, the old Republicans had already been squeezed by Washington ten years ago. that the Soviets of Ukraine and Georgia would begin the process of access to NATO.
In political, if not economic, terms from 1990 to today, it was more NATO that was working for the United States than the other way around
. from a geopolitical point of view, to a possible loosening of the transatlantic link, a closer relationship of some important European countries with Russia and China could not take over. This would not be a great advantage for the United States
Trump's meeting with Putin on July 16, could lead to an extra blow to the credibility of the Alliance. Where, as many fear, Trump would be dispelled by the measures adopted by the Alliance against Russia in the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, NATO could make the figure of the foolish servant but mostly useless
. with a NATO politically made and, therefore, also militarily irrelevant? As Renzo's capons, tingling each other, that's exactly what he wants to get from Trump: think about the way he's voiced against Merkel and Conte, criticizing the ################################################################################# 39, one and praising the other in the eternal "divide and rule."
It should be noted that Europeans today can not do without NATO, not because that it is possible for them, but because they have at the moment nothing credible to replace it. 19659002] But if to keep NATO alive "with the bottle of oxygen" one must let the founding principles of the Alliance be flouted by accepting that "the neighborhood bully" [19659002] mistreats the other partners, so it is better for the more cohesive Europeans to start thinking about what to replace an Alliance to which we are all deeply connected, but which is likely to become very unlikely in the near future.
Photo: Reuters, NATO, La Presse and AP [19659002] [19659045]
[ad_2]
Source link
