Does NATO still serve a legitimate purpose?
I just went to a lecture where one of England's own royals (Board member of multinationals, Yale, Cambridge... the list goes on and on) purposed that NATO gives Israel security guarantees to dismantel its nuclear asenal. Is NATO becoming a tool of Multinationals at American and Europes expense? Will this move just not provoke Russia?
Very well thought out answers gentleman. Thankyou
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
NATO still serves somewhat of a legitimate purpose. NATO provides the European Union with a stabilizing force that makes any offensive action against Europe less desirable, and it provides the United States with the ability to keep forces forward positioned overseas.
However, if the EU manages to get their new combined Armed Forces initiative off the ground, NATO will lose more of its legitimacy. NATO's next step, which they are actively pursuing, is changing the force from being geared against a massive invasion from a centralized threat (The former Soviet Union) to gearing it towards becoming more of a counter-terror and stablization force, which is why the NATO Joint Forces Transformation Command (Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, based in Norfolk, VA) was formed.
NATO isn't becoming a tool at American and Europe's expense. NATO is still being utilized to further the goals of both Europe and the United States, for example, stabilization in the Balkans, the war against the Taliban, and the area patrols within the Atlantic and the Med.
Unfortunately, any move that expands NATO's mission, status, or membership will provoke Russia. Only diplomacy and the guarantee that the new expanded NATO is no longer targeting Russia would soften the blow. Diplomacy, whenever people decide to actually do it, works with Russia very well. For example, the United States actually pursued diplomacy with Russia and China when we intended to withdraw from the ABM Treaty; once we explained our reasoning, and gave our assurances, and even promised them access to the ABM sites we were planning to build, both countries were satisfied and did not put up a fight against our withdrawal.
Hope this gives you some ground to start with.
- gregory_dittmanLv 71 decade ago
NATO is a joke. The EU and the United States has about the same population, yet the biggest contributor by far to NATO is the U.S.
If the EU has its way, which it will, Iraq's military (start laughing) will be BIGGER than the EU's expeditionary force of 100,000. After sending troops to the former Yugoslavia (a vacuum pit) and Afganistan, the force would be able to maybe send some guys somewhere else before they are tapped out. In no way could they defend Israel. Egypt, Turkey (not part of the EU) and Etheopia ( large Christian population country) would show up with more guys than NATO.
- 1 decade ago
I think it's hard to apply questions of legitimacy to geopolitical alliances. I cannot say whether it is legitimate, only that it is in the interest of the U.S. and arguably Europe. Like the other guy said, it allows us to use Europe as a launching pad for military operations, as well as espionage, radar sites, etc. What he missed was that it also gives us considerable influence in European affairs. In some circles, it is deemed as a way to keep Europe "in line" by contributing to a unipolar world. If you ever see a map of US bases in Europe it's hard to disagree, but keep in mind that the bases are consensual, and allow European governments to save billions in developing their own defense systems. On the other hand it has probably created a dependency. Before WW2, for thousands of years, Europe maintained the strongest militaries in the world, afterword, even UK and France couldn't manage the balkan conflict without US logistics. Russia surely is provoked, as everyone knows, but no one admits, NATOs expansion is aimed not only at containing Iran but Russia and China.