NATO: An inadequate strategic concept?

"NATO: An inadequate strategic concept? "

It is not just inadequate but downright idiotic. Look at the world map and see where is the north Atlantic -- basically bordering Western Europe and North America. Yet, to fight Yankee wars of aggression, Nato countries are now in places like Afghanistan and Iraq at a time of financial difficulties. Classic but well-deserved case of imperial overstretch if you ask me.

A committee of 5 or 7 people usually works extremely well anything over 7 tends to get tied down in semantics, petty feuds or pet projects. NATO is now best describes as an overgrown committee that is unwieldy and has stooped to becoming large a policy body churning out new strategies and positions and nothing more.
NATO was never a “fighting force” in the true sense of the word and now with Afghanistan it’s shown that there are many members who are not committed to either the cause or ideals that are being propagated by the US. It became emboldened by its actions in Bosnia and then later Kosovo, but it was a strategic error to assume that its capabilities were able to be “the big boy on the block”. It seriously underestimated its worth. I recall retired Russian officers talking about the Warsaw Pact – all said that it was not worth the paper it was written on because “when push comes to shove the Russians would have to do all the heavy work” and so the same now applies for the US. The US arrogance has overestimated its capabilities and it started too many wars while the Russians regrouped and are now on their way back and the US can do nothing about it.
Lest face it the Germans are the only country in the EU that are “profitable” while the rest range from broke to dead broke. So if they side with the Russians then the rest can “whistle dixey” for all they like. The former eastern-block countries are of irrelevance in this game of chess as all rely on hand outs like beggars.
I have on many occasions said that Putin will be worshiped by the Russians because he has brought back pride to that country and the man that will get rid of NATO for good. The US incompetence is only hidden by the vast amount of money spent to cover their failures, but one they can’t is Georgia. The US gave the green light to that US stooge, Salikasvilli, to invade Ossetia and Abkhazia think that the Beijing Olympics could disguise the actions – it was supposed to be short and swift, and by the time Vlad wakes up it will be all over, except the Russians were well aware of the plans in advance and waited for the Georgians to start the war. Those superior US spy satellites could not see the Russians moving 10 000 troops to the border. It was very concerning to the US that their spy equipment did not pick this troop movement up.
If a NATO like organization is to remain in Europe and be effective then Russia has to become a major player otherwise Europe will become dismembered like in the cold war days, but this time it will be Berlin and Moscow that hold the money sack not London and Washington.
“This independent movement among NATO and non-NATO states is just more evidence that the alliance’s continued existence alone will not save it from irrelevancy.” Beautifully said!

The Germans are happy to provide Russia with technology in order to receive all of the raw materiel Germany needs in order to power its industrial machine.With the unification of Germany thanks to no Russian opposition and the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact Germany has no longer any need for NATO protection and probably looks at the military alliance as something which is irrelevant in this day and age not to mention a burden on the German taxpayer.A Russian-German economic partnership makes the most sense for Germany because now it sees the competition as one of markets(not military domination) and will for a long time be relying on Russia to sell it gas,oil and other raw materials.I have a hunch Germans see Russia as more useful for their present and future needs than NATO.

There is a number of complex issues involving NATO future.Without some sort of arrangement with Russia to participate in NATO alliance NATO have no future. It appears that fissure in alliance is already taking place.Emerging strong, prosperous Russia
is not in the best interest to Poland and Czech Republic as they see it.France and Germany would do nothing to address these two Nations paranoia in regard to Russia.USA may try to do it but because of others Global pressing problems will fall short.China and Russia will do all they can to keep Washington involve in bleeding, unwinnable wars.If START Treaty is not ratified USA will have to find resources to maintain their Global commitments without major allies other then Poland and Czech Republic.

The tone of the article depends on quite a lot of wishful thinking.

The very attitudes of the posters on this site demonstrates why those in NATO will carry on their defence in the way that has been so successful up to now.

Negative attitudes to NATO are understandable given the Kosovo 'incident', but NATO is not about the Balkans, it is about the defence of its members.

Just because NATO has involved itself in some minor conflicts does not mean that its major role of the defence of the countries in the organisation has been forgotten. NATO has been successful precisely because it has not had to fight in the defence of its members. It has been too powerful for an aggressor to succeed against it - and it will continue like that indefinitely despite the wishful thinking of many.

Yugoslavia was lucky enough to keep a relatively neutral stance during the cold war. Tito did well to walk a line between the sides - not being taken over by Stalin (which was what Stalin wanted) and getting cash from the US (which made quite a difference to the standard of living in Yugoslavia as compared with Hungary, East Germany, etc..)

Tito's line was a neutral one - and if Serbia is not up to joining the EU, neutrality is the next obvious route. Certainly hoping to be part of the Russian block is a path full of pitfalls and lacking in promise.

"NATO: An inadequate strategic concept? "

It is not just inadequate but downright idiotic. Look at the world map and see where is the north Atlantic -- basically bordering Western Europe and North America. Yet, to fight Yankee wars of aggression, Nato countries are now in places like Afghanistan and Iraq at a time of financial difficulties. Classic but well-deserved case of imperial overstretch if you ask me.

A committee of 5 or 7 people usually works extremely well anything over 7 tends to get tied down in semantics, petty feuds or pet projects. NATO is now best describes as an overgrown committee that is unwieldy and has stooped to becoming large a policy body churning out new strategies and positions and nothing more.
NATO was never a “fighting force” in the true sense of the word and now with Afghanistan it’s shown that there are many members who are not committed to either the cause or ideals that are being propagated by the US. It became emboldened by its actions in Bosnia and then later Kosovo, but it was a strategic error to assume that its capabilities were able to be “the big boy on the block”. It seriously underestimated its worth. I recall retired Russian officers talking about the Warsaw Pact – all said that it was not worth the paper it was written on because “when push comes to shove the Russians would have to do all the heavy work” and so the same now applies for the US. The US arrogance has overestimated its capabilities and it started too many wars while the Russians regrouped and are now on their way back and the US can do nothing about it.
Lest face it the Germans are the only country in the EU that are “profitable” while the rest range from broke to dead broke. So if they side with the Russians then the rest can “whistle dixey” for all they like. The former eastern-block countries are of irrelevance in this game of chess as all rely on hand outs like beggars.
I have on many occasions said that Putin will be worshiped by the Russians because he has brought back pride to that country and the man that will get rid of NATO for good. The US incompetence is only hidden by the vast amount of money spent to cover their failures, but one they can’t is Georgia. The US gave the green light to that US stooge, Salikasvilli, to invade Ossetia and Abkhazia think that the Beijing Olympics could disguise the actions – it was supposed to be short and swift, and by the time Vlad wakes up it will be all over, except the Russians were well aware of the plans in advance and waited for the Georgians to start the war. Those superior US spy satellites could not see the Russians moving 10 000 troops to the border. It was very concerning to the US that their spy equipment did not pick this troop movement up.
If a NATO like organization is to remain in Europe and be effective then Russia has to become a major player otherwise Europe will become dismembered like in the cold war days, but this time it will be Berlin and Moscow that hold the money sack not London and Washington.
“This independent movement among NATO and non-NATO states is just more evidence that the alliance’s continued existence alone will not save it from irrelevancy.” Beautifully said!

The tone of the article depends on quite a lot of wishful thinking.

The very attitudes of the posters on this site demonstrates why those in NATO will carry on their defence in the way that has been so successful up to now.

Negative attitudes to NATO are understandable given the Kosovo 'incident', but NATO is not about the Balkans, it is about the defence of its members.

Just because NATO has involved itself in some minor conflicts does not mean that its major role of the defence of the countries in the organisation has been forgotten. NATO has been successful precisely because it has not had to fight in the defence of its members. It has been too powerful for an aggressor to succeed against it - and it will continue like that indefinitely despite the wishful thinking of many.

Yugoslavia was lucky enough to keep a relatively neutral stance during the cold war. Tito did well to walk a line between the sides - not being taken over by Stalin (which was what Stalin wanted) and getting cash from the US (which made quite a difference to the standard of living in Yugoslavia as compared with Hungary, East Germany, etc..)

Tito's line was a neutral one - and if Serbia is not up to joining the EU, neutrality is the next obvious route. Certainly hoping to be part of the Russian block is a path full of pitfalls and lacking in promise.

There is a number of complex issues involving NATO future.Without some sort of arrangement with Russia to participate in NATO alliance NATO have no future. It appears that fissure in alliance is already taking place.Emerging strong, prosperous Russia
is not in the best interest to Poland and Czech Republic as they see it.France and Germany would do nothing to address these two Nations paranoia in regard to Russia.USA may try to do it but because of others Global pressing problems will fall short.China and Russia will do all they can to keep Washington involve in bleeding, unwinnable wars.If START Treaty is not ratified USA will have to find resources to maintain their Global commitments without major allies other then Poland and Czech Republic.

The Germans are happy to provide Russia with technology in order to receive all of the raw materiel Germany needs in order to power its industrial machine.With the unification of Germany thanks to no Russian opposition and the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact Germany has no longer any need for NATO protection and probably looks at the military alliance as something which is irrelevant in this day and age not to mention a burden on the German taxpayer.A Russian-German economic partnership makes the most sense for Germany because now it sees the competition as one of markets(not military domination) and will for a long time be relying on Russia to sell it gas,oil and other raw materials.I have a hunch Germans see Russia as more useful for their present and future needs than NATO.