Let me ask a simple question. It is this. What is the point of NATO now?
When Donald Trump is lashing out at all his supposed allies, and is treating them with disdain, whilst at the same time proving that he is only interested in pursuing an illegal war that even one of his most senior security advisers thinks was utterly unnecessary because no risk existed to justify it, why would anybody want to be in NATO with its US dominated strategy?
I know that it is terribly popular with Labour, Tory and Reform politicians to suggest that the Greens have got their strategy on NATO wrong, but the fact that these politicians are unanimous on this point suggests that it is they, and not the Greens, who are out of line.
So far, none of the right-wing politicians in the UK (including Labour ministers) has shown any sign of a proper awareness of the changing nature of international relations that is going on all around them, in which they do not even appear to be observers, let alone participants. The pretence is that the "special relationship" still exists, that Donald Trump's fascism changes nothing, that Israel's multiple and gross war crimes are a matter to be ignored, and that waging illegal war with massive consequences for the world is not politically relevant.
I do wonder how long this surreal bubble, based on make-believe and pretence with the deliberate aims of both misleading people in this country and of not exposing our politicians' own total inability to think strategically, will continue.
As I have already noted this morning, our media are complicit in this by failing to ask relevant questions as to what happens next in the face of the massive challenges we now face. Perhaps they do think that they have no role in any of this, or maybe it is that their paymasters are happy for the pretence to go on.
Whatever the reason, Westminster politics now appears so out of touch with reality that it is unsurprising the people are welcoming the fact that the Greens are asking questions which so obviously require answers. I'm not saying the Greens are necessarily possessed of all of such answers. But at least they are raising the issues when the rest of the Westminster bubble appears to have absented itself from the biggest political debate in decades.
We really do need a revitalised politics for people in this country, backed by a politics of care which would ask the critical questions about how this could be delivered, and a reconsideration of defence and international relations would be a key part of that. In that case, asking about NATO's relevance now should be high on the political agenda. So, too, should be a discussion of the alternatives, with a European focus essential. So, why is it taboo to say so?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“our media are complicit in this by failing to ask relevant questions”…………becuase they are an extension of the political grooming system. NATO is/was useful to the Americans. It allowed them to interfere in European politics & how the Euros “worked” (or didn’t) with Russia. This was fine provided Presidents and administrations were +/- sane and stable. The Orange-imbecile and his rabble has exposed the fiction of NATO (there were earlier suggestions: Yugoslavia break up & Iraq/Afghanistan). Oddly, the one truth that tRump came out with was that the Euros were having a free ride wrt weapons spending – which suited previous US administrations. Which leaves the open question (raised by the Greens): what next? Euro army? who commands? political structures? etc etc. Most of the infra is there (NATO HQ Bx could be repurposed, ditto SHAPE in Mons etc. Resistance to even posing the question “what next” demonstrates capture by those that do not have the best interests of either Europe or the Uk at heart.
NATO is primarily about collective defence, mostly against threats from the east. Although it’s main opponents – the USSR and the Warsaw Pact – no longer exist, there are still military threats of one sort or another – from Russia, and China, and other countries
If NATO did not exist, I would expect the EU – or perhaps another European body – to take a more active stance on collective defence without US input.
And where would that leave Canada? More vulnerable, I expect.
Why couldn’t Canada for these purposes become a European state?
In many ways I am grateful to the Orange Parrot (who is fully owned by Putin BTW) for helping to polarise NATO as it was – a misfunctioning body as far as I can discern as many of these post war orgs have simply become tools for U.S. hegemony.
There is something honest in Trump’s thuggery that has just reified the bullshit we were being fed. So I am all for new world order that treats the U.S. as it is – a dysfunctional democracy that is potentially dangerous. This means a new approach to international relations with what is after all just a billionaire oligarchy posing as a democracy. The UK is much the same but with less toys of destruction and global reach. There has to be more dissent and there has to be more independence in the future. We don’t need the U.S. to protect us or tell us what to do. ‘Time to grow up Europe and it is also time that the UK did too, throwing off the feudalistic bollocks we still live under.
I would like to see Europe set up a NATO like org concerned with European security. It should be contingent – in the short term – with dealing with Putin. But one day, Putin will die and who knows what opportunities might open up then. Europe has to be ready to cosy up to Russia one day on the basis of European values and objectives – it’s main one being peace – and not repeat the same mistakes from 1989 onwards which I think were based on corrosive U.S. culture.
As I understand it, NATO was set up to protect Europe, and the rest of the world, against the Soviet Union. The US interest included protecting Europe and Canada from the nuclear threat and preventing nuclear proliferation – something that seems to have been forgotten.
Now the US no longer seems to regard Russia as an adversary. The rest of NATO can not, now or in the foreseeable future, rely on the US to come to it’s aid. Indeed it was recently openly proposing annexing two NATO allies. And the US no longer seems to be aware of the risk of nuclear proliferation (except in Iran of course).
So, NATO is effectively defunct as of now.
Clearly a new defensive alliance is needed of European states, including the UK (which is still European despite Brexit), and Canada. But I’m not holding my breath.
You are right. For all practical purposes, NATO is defunct but only the Greens are willing to acknowledge it.
I think there are two principal reasons for not discussing NATO in front of the children. One is Trump’s simplistic view of politics: if they’re not with us they must be against us; Second is the inertia you refer to: they are desperately cloning on to the hope that post Trump everything will go back to “normal.”
I think the elephant in the room is Brexit. The leave campaign made a big issue about having a European army etc and how awful that would be. Zack can make his NATO comments because he is open about wanting to be part of the EU and the need to work more closely with our European neighbours.
Labour and the Conservatives can’t do this because they are both terrified of appearing pro Europe and the EU.
Zack’s views have been totally twisted to imply be doesn’t want to defend our country. Many Greens are also pacifists but very few would argue the need to defend ourselves in the current situation. We also need to protect ourself from a very reliable US partner. I suspect history is going to make Zack’s comments seem very wise and our MSM criticism ill judged.
The UK’s reluctance to face up to it is not just denial. It’s been a rational response to:
deep structural dependence on the US;
uncertainty about European alternatives, and
very high financial and political costs of change.
But with US commitment no longer reliable, delay has become too risky. We are now obliged to move from dependence to explicit choice.
Even though an ex – chief of the defence staff has said ‘there is no special relationship’ and this war is being run ‘by a couple of gung-ho nutters’, to the establishment as a whole the ‘special relationship’ is a religious mantra, and seems to be a signifier of our ‘great power status’, along with our permanent membership of the UN security council, and our ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent, linked to nuclear power – which no main party will question..<p>
It must have been Corbyn’s openness to discuss NATO which placed him well beyond the pale – and why George Osborne let slip that he wouldn’t get ‘security clearance’ to become PM – and the subsequent MI5/CIA/MOSSAD/Labour Together illegally funded plot to scupper him.<p>
Ed Davey’s bizarre statement this week that UK should develop it’s own ‘nuclear deterrent’ independent of the US – may be a tacit recognition in a main stream party , that NATO and its ramifications has to be discussed.
That would be a strange way of signalling the issue, but that might have been what Ed Davey meant. Did he know?
For some time now, I have thought to myself: “What happens when America becomes the enemy”.
I will play devil’s advocate on this one, because of the British psyche when it comes to defence and security issues.
The last time defence, nuclear weapons and NATO, was an election issue was in the 1980s when Michael Foot’s Labour Party proposed unilateral nuclear disarmament, but to retain NATO membership. The right wing media went to town on it, and Labour got 26% support and a thrashing by Thatcher’s Tories. Only FPTP saved them.
I suspect the Green’s will face the same onslaught at the next election, because they want unilateral nuclear disarmament, and to leave NATO.
I imagine the headlines of leaving the country defenceless.
It is, potentially, the Green’s election Achilles heel, because we do live in a world of psycho leaders, who will take advantage if it suits them. Chances are, to be part of any coalition govt next time, Labour and Lib Dems will not agree to the Greens current policy. There is no chance of that.
And if NATO were to go, in Europe it would probably be replaced by a European army alternative, an idea that has been floated around for years. Should Britain join that? As for NATO, if the Dems get back in next time, the current Trump insanity and MAGA approach should be history. The Dems and US public opinion haven’t rejected NATO. Trump has little support on this.
https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-endorse-us-commitment-nato-though-gop-support-has-dipped
The logic of independent nuclear weapons is ludicrous — the UK is heavily dependent on US support to maintain Trident. If the US doesn’t provide the expertise, parts and upgrades, it won’t work! But as a political issue the right wing media will make it an election battleground, with all the usual fearmongering that people tend to believe.
Historically, it has been so easy for the right to attack the left on the issue of defence and national security. The left have never won the argument at a general election, and that’s why we end up with the likes of current Labour.
So, what is the defence alternative? A credible one will be needed, and even then, is it possible to win that debate at an election? History says no.
Michael Foot lost because of the Falklands and nothing else. Until that happened, Thatcher was on her way out.
I accept that debating this is politically difficult, but we do also have to bear in mind what has really happened in the past.
It isn’t. But I do think it is tricky.
Our stenographers don’t do ‘tricky’. Much easier to paraphrase a press release or a twat feed……..
I suspect a GeNA (Global NATO-alternative) isn’t something that the EU could head up. We’d have issues about Veto power, who sets foreign policy, who pays for and who builds, and position of non-EU states (including UK, but also Nordic states). Is it solely defensive?
But the EU do have a lot of the intl. Coordination ability and representation – and ability to do longer term strategic thinking that seems gutted from UK and possibly others in Europe.
Other rational nations could contribute significantly (Canada, Japan, Oz, India?, NZ, RSA, Turkey? Brazil?). Who gets left out/ who’d be a risk? Is Hungary in? Poland looked shaky a few years ago. Ditto UK! I note that on this list so far, the only largely Muslim population is in Turkey. If India, why not Pakistan (ok, they leaked security details in Afghanistan, and they are unstable….). So what is the metric for inclusion? Corruption, stability, progressive values?
Moving forwards, it’s probably not NATO minus the USA, and the UN doesn’t represent many of the World’s population.
Who are the “them” – who are the significant players posing a threat (to our wellbeing, security or governance) or who behave like rogues? Russia? US? China? Israel? Tax havens? Terrorist exporters (like Saudi? UAE? US? Israel?)?
And lots who “aren’t nice” but probably aren’t a threat to our wellbeing or governance (some central African states, some in central America)?
As well as defence … GeNA would need independent solutions for all of the bodies established post WW2, that are thwarted or threatened by US/Russian belligerence.
For example, financial settlement, secure global communications and timing (remember America tapped Angela Merchal at an EU trade talk), a “world bank” (ECB not adequate). What about all the other (good) things that the UN does?
Tricky, in’it!
When was anything worth doing simple?
Hear, hear Richard
Zack’s statements about NATO (which he was making well before the USA launched its attack on Iran), are beginning to look prescient now. I can’t help thinking that rather than continuing to question the purpose of the alliance, we should now be talking openly about the urgent need to establish a European Defence Organisation.
Regards…Bob
Might British and European politicians avoid/ignore realities concerning NATO, at least in part, because of the influence of the American N. E. D. [National Endowment for Democracy]?
“While not directly bribing politicians this [N E D’s] targeted funding helps set the agenda and promotes specific ideological views on issues like democracy and foreign policy.”
“In the U. K., current laws allow foreign money and “dark money” to potentially influence elections through intermediaries on the electoral roll, a loophole the Committee on Standards in Public Life has warned about.” [AI Overview]
NATO has been defunct for three decades at least. It has always been a way for the US to control Europe, and the UK has been totally complicit and subservient. The twenty year olds chanting ‘America Out’ in the 80s are the growing wedge of 60+ in the Greens. The EU has also been explicit about ‘welcoming UK with open arms.’ The Greens are correct!