What has Nato achieved?

[RSS News]

World leaders are heading to Strasbourg to attend a Nato summit. What has the alliance achieved in 60 years?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Dimentio]

World leaders are heading to Strasbourg to attend a Nato summit. What has the alliance achieved in 60 years?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

NATO to my mind could not be defined as a military alliance. Rather, it is a formal military structure for "The Hegemon + vassals".

The main reason for NATO I think is rather than to ensure Europe´s military security from external threats, to ensure US hegemony in western Eurasia and to ensure Europe's - or rather the European bourgeoisie's - security from potential internal threats (like socialist revolutions, neonazi revolutions, islamist revolutions, civil collapse, separatism, whatever). Without NATO in western Europe, I think the European capitalist class would have some troubles keeping their hegemony.

In Europe, unlike the US, people are not generally firm ideological believers in capitalism, but rather accept it as the lesser evil (most likely due to the history of European class struggle). I think that most European peoples would have no qualms ditching capitalism.

[Bitter Ashes]

The only thing I can think of is the START programs and I'm not even sure if they were actualy all that worthwhile seeing as though the precense nuclear missiles have probably actualy prevented large scale war.

[Dimentio]

The only thing I can think of is the START programs and I'm not even sure if they were actualy all that worthwhile seeing as though the precense nuclear missiles have probably actualy prevented large scale war.

NATO also fimped the Serbs in 1995 and 1999, and the Taleban in 2001.

[Psy]

NATO to my mind could not be defined as a military alliance. Rather, it is a formal military structure for "The Hegemon + vassals".

The main reason for NATO I think is rather than to ensure Europe´s military security from external threats, to ensure US hegemony in western Eurasia and to ensure Europe's - or rather the European bourgeoisie's - security from potential internal threats (like socialist revolutions, neonazi revolutions, islamist revolutions, civil collapse, separatism, whatever). Without NATO in western Europe, I think the European capitalist class would have some troubles keeping their hegemony.

Yet NATO expansion eastward has caused major splits among the military leadership in European due many military leaders in Europe seeing challenging the Russian military as suicide due the large number of nuclear weapons Russia has. If NATO ever went to war with Russia most of Europe would become a moon scape as Russia's main battle plan for fighting NATO is relying heavily on tactical nuclear weapons, even in the Georgia conflict Russia deployed tactical nuclear missile launchers in the event NATO intervened (which is a big reason why NATO didn't).

[Dimentio]

Yet NATO expansion eastward has caused major splits among the military leadership in European due many military leaders in Europe seeing challenging the Russian military as suicide due the large number of nuclear weapons Russia has. If NATO ever went to war with Russia most of Europe would become a moon scape as Russia's main battle plan for fighting NATO is relying heavily on tactical nuclear weapons, even in the Georgia conflict Russia deployed tactical nuclear missile launchers in the event NATO intervened (which is a big reason why NATO didn't).

Yes, but no European power has left NATO. That must mean that the European elites has something to gain from it.

[Jack]

It helped capitalism reign over state capitalism.

[punisa]

NATO also fimped the Serbs in 1995 and 1999

That's a rather hard decision to judge in terms is it good or bad.
The aggression and the air raids were horrible to watch, but then again in those days Serbia had a scary nationalist leadership that stood behind mass genocides.
Perhaps if there was no NATO intervention, there would be many lives lost.
Hard to judge...

[Dimentio]

That's a rather hard decision to judge in terms is it good or bad.
The aggression and the air raids were horrible to watch, but then again in those days Serbia had a scary nationalist leadership that stood behind mass genocides.
Perhaps if there was no NATO intervention, there would be many lives lost.
Hard to judge...

Yes, I am in agreement there. I did not imply that it was beneficient or not.

While I am against occupations and imperialist oppression, I do not belong to the "everything's-fault-is-USA"-crowd. I do not think revolutionary movements should take sides between two right-wing sides whom are in war. But oppose the wars.