NATO is nothing more than European + Turkey member nations who seek US protection under its nuclear umbrella. Whereas, during the cold war, NATO was seen as the shield against the Soviet Union, it mutated to a force projection mechanism to curtail the expansion of radical Islam.
In either scenario, the US played a pivotal role. Europe does not have another defense command and control structure in place. It relies wholly on the US to provide the nucleus of any crisis management headquarters, rapid deployment means and sustainable logistics.
To view NATO as an entity without taking into account its symbiotic relationship with the US, is a mistake. Without the US at the helm, NATO is nothing but a bunch of squabbling neighbors who need a big brother to keep them in check.
NATO is not self sustaining, at any level of expenditure for its existence. The US primus inter pares role cannot be exaggerated nor substituted in a pinch. All told, NATO’rUS. If we stopped keeping NATO together, Europe would have no common defense or skeletal staff to execute joint/combined operations. End of the story.
“All told, NATO’rUS. If we stopped keeping NATO together, Europe would have no common defense or skeletal staff to execute joint/combined operations. End of the story.”
So whose responsibility is it for self defense? Why are we “my brother’s keeper” when the brother has all the resources necessary to defend themselves (money, the technology, arms industry). But won’t!
Further Europe has an open border for migrants so why not invaders? Maybe I now see why they don’t want to defend themselves…”hey come on in, one and all”.
Again, if Europe wishes to commit “economic, national or military suicide” why is it our responsibility to save them? How far do we go to force them to save themselves…occupation? Just saying as I am frustrated by the Europeans.
NATO is nothing more than European + Turkey member nations who seek US protection under its nuclear umbrella. Whereas, during the cold war, NATO was seen as the shield against the Soviet Union, it mutated to a force projection mechanism to curtail the expansion of radical Islam.
In either scenario, the US played a pivotal role. Europe does not have another defense command and control structure in place. It relies wholly on the US to provide the nucleus of any crisis management headquarters, rapid deployment means and sustainable logistics.
To view NATO as an entity without taking into account its symbiotic relationship with the US, is a mistake. Without the US at the helm, NATO is nothing but a bunch of squabbling neighbors who need a big brother to keep them in check.
NATO is not self sustaining, at any level of expenditure for its existence. The US primus inter pares role cannot be exaggerated nor substituted in a pinch. All told, NATO’rUS. If we stopped keeping NATO together, Europe would have no common defense or skeletal staff to execute joint/combined operations. End of the story.
“All told, NATO’rUS. If we stopped keeping NATO together, Europe would have no common defense or skeletal staff to execute joint/combined operations. End of the story.”
So whose responsibility is it for self defense? Why are we “my brother’s keeper” when the brother has all the resources necessary to defend themselves (money, the technology, arms industry). But won’t!
Further Europe has an open border for migrants so why not invaders? Maybe I now see why they don’t want to defend themselves…”hey come on in, one and all”.
Again, if Europe wishes to commit “economic, national or military suicide” why is it our responsibility to save them? How far do we go to force them to save themselves…occupation? Just saying as I am frustrated by the Europeans.