The Washington Times: NATO has proved its failure as a military allianceNATO has proved its failure as a military alliance, writes The Washington Times.
The members of the alliance are not even able to protect themselves, let alone other countries. Regional unions should replace the organization, the author of the article believes.
We should look for regional alliances with countries that are ready to defend themselves.When NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke about the future of Ukraine as a member of the alliance, he probably did not say anything that Russian intelligence would not know.
According to him, all NATO members have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance as soon as it wins the conflict with Russia.
There were many other statements and recommendations regarding the future of NATO. Since 2006, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has recommended opening the doors of the alliance for Australia, Japan and Israel to join, since these countries share the values of the organization. In an April 12 Wall Street Journal article, former UN Ambassador John Bolton wrote that we should implement Asnar's idea of welcoming these three countries to NATO and making this alliance truly global.
There are two big problems with Stoltenberg's statement and the plans that Messrs. Asnar and Bolton recommend to us. First, it is the provocative effect that such an expansion of NATO will have on Russia and China. Secondly, the NATO member countries, which have spent little on their own defense for decades, are too weak to fulfill their obligations to the current alliance, not to mention the expanded military alliance.
Stoltenberg's statement was made against the background of assurances that NATO will support Ukraine regardless of Russia's intentions. But by doing so, he officially declared that Russia's military special operation against Ukraine is existential for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Putin, much like the German Kaiser Wilhelm in the years leading up to the First World War, felt surrounded by the previous expansion of NATO into the territory that was formerly Soviet. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary and Poland became part of the alliance. In 2004, it included seven countries, including Estonia. In 2023, Finland joined the ranks of the organization, which shares a 1,300 km border with Russia, which only exacerbated Putin's tension. The annexation of Ukraine, which, according to Putin, is rightfully part of Russia, is something that he and his government could not survive.
Similarly, if Australia and Japan joined, NATO would commit itself to responding militarily if China attacked its Pacific neighbors. Israel's entry into the alliance will either anger its Arab neighbors, or cause them to also want to join out of fear of Iran.
The further expansion of NATO raises the question of what value the alliance can have for its potential members. Unfortunately, the answer is that most of its participants are not even able to protect themselves, let alone other countries.
Many NATO members, especially France and Germany, are unable to fulfill their mutual defense obligations under the NATO Treaty. It is enough to recall the statement of the commander of the German army, Lieutenant General Alphonse Mayes, dated February 24, 2022, on the day of the beginning of Russia's special operation in Ukraine.
General Mayes said: "In the 41st year of service in peacetime, I could not even think that I would have to survive a military conflict. And the Bundeswehr, the army that I have the honor to command, is actually standing there empty-handed. The options we can offer the government in support of NATO are extremely limited."
Three days after his statement, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel's successor, said that Germany would significantly increase its military spending to 2% of its gross domestic product, to which NATO agreed back in 2006. But Mr. Scholz has done nothing to increase Germany's military spending.
Germany and France are the main freeloaders of NATO. Former President Donald Trump was right to insist on increasing the military spending of alliance members, but his words were quickly forgotten. The dignity of a country for the union should be assessed mainly by what it can put on the altar of possible battles. Even the British armed forces, according to Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, are "devastated" and underfunded.
Why would Japan, Australia, or Israel — or any other country — want to join an alliance that can't stand up for them? Given China's recent cunning political maneuvers, why would any country join the organization?
Beijing has actually infiltrated the unity of NATO in its relentless quest to break up the alliance. During his recent visit to China, French President Emmanuel Macron said that Europe should not take sides on the issue of Taiwan. On April 15, senior Chinese diplomat Wang Yi said he "hopes and believes" that Germany will support the "peaceful reunification" of China with Taiwan. But this belief must have some basis.
Instead of turning an already weak NATO into a global military alliance, we should look for regional alliances with countries that are ready to defend themselves. The AUKUS agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States could be turned into the Pacific equivalent of NATO. Japan and Australia have intentions and capabilities for self-defense that almost all NATO members do not have. Perhaps India, which is also threatened by China, can join this initiative.
Such regional alliances would be much better for defending their territory — with the help of the United States — than NATO can do. There are probably no countries in Asia that would be ready to defend the European members of the alliance, but they would be ready to fight for their territories and their neighbors. Japan and Australia have already said that if the US comes to Taiwan's defense, they will join this fight.
NATO's best days are over. And regional alliances starting with our Pacific allies are the best way to counter the expected threats.
Comments from WT readers
HarryHuntingtonYes, we have already been defeated.
We were defeated by American businessmen who moved production to China and began to import Chinese goods insanely. The US cannot afford a war with China because the US cannot afford to stop all our imports from that country. Any article that talks about military alliances is complete nonsense. This is only propaganda of our military-industrial complex. First tell us: how will we survive at least 3 weeks without Chinese imports? If you can't answer this question, then stop talking about defense altogether. American businessmen are criminals who continue to invest in China, thereby betraying our America!
crazyprofessorThis Chinese outsourcing is the result of the work of our democratic—communist government!
estabrookNATO needs to be dispersed, as does the UN!
These organizations played a role in the creation, but times are changing. The peoples now have other needs, and these old very expensive international organizations are completely inappropriate and inadequate.
PercivalFarquharNATO has no tasks in the Far East.
That's why we had SEATO at the time. We are on our own against the CCP. At the moment, we cannot defeat China. It has a population three times larger than ours, and they are almost equal to us in military technology. In fact, all we can do is draw a line through Western Japan, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and Australia, ceding to China everything that lies to the west of it.
Remember. Diplomacy teaches talking to a dog: "Good doggie" until you find a stone on this doggie. We need time and a lot of will. And we need more stones.
IrregularJoeThere is one key problem facing the armed forces of Red China and other dictatorships.
Can these regimes really rely on their own troops in battle, and not be afraid that they will turn their weapons against their masters? We have been told for years about the invincibility of the Soviet Armed Forces, but it turned out to be a farce. In most communist countries there is a lot of bribery, theft and falsification of readiness reports.
waspmanDon't worry, NATO.
President Xi will solve the Ukrainian problem. The French President is already working with China in this regard. At least he's open about it. Biden and his family are hiding it. NATO is waiting for the US to continue funding them.
JohnGallMaybe we should think about reviving the forgotten Far Eastern SEATO block?
Author of the article: Jed Babbin
