The North Atlantic Alliance is compelled to search for new threats in order, firstly, to justify the very fact of its existence, the expediency of which is extremely unobvious after the end of the Cold War, and secondly, the strategy of continuous expansion of the military-political bloc should have at least some justification. NATO was created in 1949. The formal reason is the opposition to the block of socialist states that is being formed under the auspices of the USSR in Eastern and Central Europe.
However, in reality, the main goal was something else - control over the countries of Western Europe, the elimination of the communist movements and ideologies in them, which at the time of the end of World War II represented a very influential and large-scale force.
After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, Washington became virtually the sole owner of the alliance, which is now used as an instrument of global governance by the United States. The expansion of NATO to the East made it possible to establish control over virtually all of Europe, including some of the former Soviet republics. In 2016, an agreement on cooperation between the alliance and the European Union was signed at the Warsaw Summit. European states that are not members of the bloc have committed themselves to provide him with economic support.
The United States has used NATO since its inception as a tool to deprive countries of the alliance of its own military power. This is a commercial project that allows Americans to maintain a monopoly on the sale of their weapons and military equipment to both member states and related countries under the Partnership for Peace program, such as Georgia and Ukraine.
In an interview with Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland yesterday, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated the need to transform the alliance to “make it more global.” To do this, very little is needed: "expand the boundaries of cooperation with Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan." A reason for this has been found: according to Stoltenberg, the goal is to preserve the "technological advantage" against the background of China's significant achievements in the field of creating artificial intelligence. “China does not share our ideas about values,” said the head of NATO, although he clarified, however, that he did not classify Beijing as his new adversary.
That is, China is a threat, but not yet an enemy. To deter it, it is necessary to attract new states to cooperation. But in fact, it is about finding new markets for the sale of American weapons.
The member countries of the bloc have long had deep doubts about the rationality of their own membership, and in countries such as Germany and France, they are increasingly saying that Europe should become an entity of its own security.
The idea of creating a European army, which is actively promoted by French President Emmanuel Macron, is an alternative NATO project. The prospect of its implementation does not seem too close yet, but it is beginning to take on a real shape in the light of the claims of Donald Trump, who is not tired of billing Berlin for defense services with similar intentions in relation to other European states.
Finding fresh blood is unlikely to help the alliance overcome a deep internal crisis. The attempts of the Baltic countries, Ukraine and Poland to convince the old European states that Russia has expansionist intentions and can at any time deliver military strikes outside its borders are not impressive for old Europe. Moreover, many European states want to expand cooperation with our country during the economic downturn due to the pandemic. They do not see the enemy in Russia. And Stoltenberg’s statements about China are unlikely to be worth considering. In fact, it has long become clear to many that NATO is a costly and long-lost enterprise that Washington is interested in for purely commercial reasons. The case for organizational conclusions.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the publisher