Putin and Russia resolved that “obsolete” bit and they even managed to encourage Sweden and Finland to join NATO.
Switzerland and Austria have moved to integrate their military forces with NATO and both governments are having internal discussions about the idea of membership.
If NATO is obsolete, why did Finland and Sweden just join?
The author is entitled to his opinion, but in my opinion he is clearly wrong.
It’s obsolete, until it’s not.
You can’t prove a negative.
The absence of another world war in Europe in the last 70 years is not proof, but it’s strong evidence that NATO served it’s purpose.
There is no way to say what would have happened without it, and there is also no sure way to assume it will prevent war in the future, but all other things being equal, why would you want to find out?
I’d rather walk softly and carry a big stick, than to play lame duck and see if any foxes pounce.
The anti-NATO propaganda is starting already
Of course Russia doesn’t like NATO, it’s the only thing blocking Russia from taking over Europe!
Thus, we can expect to see more of this Russian propaganda leading up to the anniversary (April 9th)
* see tagline ...
“Some good reading and history here.”
Agreed - for the TLDR crowd, here’s your 4-word summary: Nature abhors a vacuum.
As regards the US component of NATO, the answer to why it continued after 1990 can be found in the number of general & senior field-grade officer positions held by US personnel. Taking away those billets means less opportunity to check a career development box for being part of a joint command, thus reducing promotion chances.
75 years of failure? Seems to me the NATO and UN solutions to conflict is to “divide in half”: North and South Vietname (a while ago), North and South Korea, East and West Germany, etc. This leaves both sides still PO’ed.
NATO is now akin to the old Warsaw Pact - its not really about “defense” - its about political control and promoting ideology.
If Russia entered the post-Soviet era deciding to (1) be a true democracy and (2) no longer needed to be an imperium like Czarist Russia or the Soviet Union and (3) no longer needed a “security” position against the west - in like manner of Japan after WWII - NATO might have lost its purpose. But none of those things happened.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is nothing but a contract between nations.
The Europeans have repeatedly refused to live up to their contractual obligations.
Therefore, the contract is null and void.
Period.
End of discussion.
40 years ago, I read Chronicles for a few years. Until I discovered they were an odd group that felt Monarchies were an acceptable form of government.
The editor then was Thomas Fleming (there is another Thomas Fleming who is an author and is not like the editor)
In spite of their good grasp of history, I never looked back. They have their own agenda and they at times flirt with the Left.
C’mon, man! We have to allow the Big Gov, One World boosters here on FR their freedom to champion Big Gov NATO. As we all know, Big Gov knows best and has only our best interests at heart. /s