It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is NATO?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Since there seems to be an ever enlarging group of people discussing NATO in relation to the events in Ukraine and Russia, here is some basic info to help those understand it.

What is NATO?
* - The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called the [North] Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949.

What is NATO's purpose?
* - The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

Current Members of NATO - 28 Full Members
  • Albania - 2009
  • Belgium - 1949
  • Bulgaria - 2004
  • Canada - 1949
  • Croatia - 2009
  • Czech Republic - 1999
  • Denmark - 1949
  • Estonia - 2004
  • France - 1949
  • Germany - 1955
  • Greece - 1952
  • Hungary - 1999
  • Iceland - 1949
  • Italy - 1949
  • Latvia - 2004
  • Lithuania - 2004
  • Luxembourg - 1949
  • Netherlands - 1949
  • Norway - 1949
  • Poland - 1999
  • Portugal - 1949
  • Romania - 2004
  • Slovakia - 2004
  • Slovenia - 2004
  • Spain - 1982
  • Turkey - 1952
  • The United Kingdom - 1949
  • The United States - 1949


NATO Structure
* - NATO Council
* - NATO Parliamentary Assembly
* - NATO Military

NATO Political Body - North Atlantic Council - Represents the 28 full members.
* - Secretary General: Anders Fogh Rasmussen

* - Each nation is equal regardless of size / strength / economy and get a vote.
* - NATO action requires unanimous agreement.
* - Any member can issue a veto, resulting in the end of the proposal being voted on.

** - This is the area Russia wanted special status on when they were invited to join NATO. They felt larger countries should be allowed to ignore the smaller countries and should have there vote weigh more. This was rejected by NATO - **

NATO Parliamentary Assembly
* - The body that sets broad strategic goals for NATO is the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO-PA) which meets at the Annual Session, and one other during the year, and is the organ that directly interacts with the parliamentary structures of the national governments of the member states which appoint Permanent Members, or ambassadors to NATO. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is made up of legislators from the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance as well as thirteen associate members.

NATO Military Forces
* - Headquarters - Brussels, Belgium
* - Command Structure - Integrated among member nations.
* - NATO has very limited military units. When NATO agrees on an action member nations contribute their forces. Its close to how the UN operates when it deals with a breach of peace / peacekeeping operations. Member nations volunteer their military forces to the situation.
* - Members' defense spending is supposed to amount to 2% of GDP.

NATO Philosophy
* - POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

* - MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.

NATO CHARTER
Recently we have heard about countries invoking certain articles of the NATO Charter. Here are the more common terms we have heard;

* - Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Examples:
*- Turkey invoked article 4 recently with regards to the problems in Syria.
* - Poland invoked article 4 recently with regards to the problems in Ukraine.

* - Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Example:
* - The United States invoked article 5 with regards to 9/11. Some NATO countries sent surveillance aircraft to the US to assist / relieve US assets so they could be deployed.

Article 6
* - Spells out specifically what territory is covered under the NATO treaty. Europe and North America along with French territories in Africa. It does NOT apply outside those areas.

NATO Partnerships
* - Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) - The EAPC consists of all NATO Member countries and partner countries.
* - NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue - Seven countries of the Mediterranean region.
* - Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) - Four countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
* - Partners across the globe - In addition to its formal partnerships, NATO cooperates with a range of countries which are not part of these structures. Often referred to as “Partners across the globe”, these countries develop cooperation with NATO in areas of mutual interest, including emerging security challenges, and some contribute actively to NATO operations either militarily or in some other way.
* - International Organizations - In addition to its partnerships with countries, NATO cooperates with a range of international organizations:

* - United Nations (UN) - www.un.org...
* - European Union (EU) - europa.eu...
* - Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe - www.osce.org...


SOURCES
* - NATO Homepage
* - PDF Document NATO Checklist - Overview at a glance
* - NATO - Russia Relations
* - NATO - Ukraine Relations
* - NATO CHARTER
* - NATO Partnerships
* - United Nations Charter



edit on 31-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
NATO and the EU are a direct result of problem, reaction, solution warfare in an attempt to centralize power for money interest. Namely WW2.
edit on 31-8-2014 by CallYourBluff because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
You don't suppose NATO could be a ready made market for sales of the weapons they deem standardized do you?
I wonder who supplies the bulk of NATO gear?
Getting any particular piece of kit standardized for NATO must be very profitable indeed.....just asking...



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: stirling




Getting any particular piece of kit standardized for NATO must be very profitable indeed.....just asking...


I don't think it works that way. Countries may buy from other countries, but gear is not standardized among all members. Different guns, planes, tanks, trucks, etc. for each country. Some countries that cannot produce a certain armament probably buy from someone who does. Eurofighter parts is produced in various countries. Ammo may be standardized but it is produced by each country.

V



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
NATO is an international gang that uses the threat of nuclear devastation to impose and maintain a global economic order.

Not an exclusive knock on NATO, however. The Warsaw Pact folks (back in the day) had the same thing going. Today, it's BRICS. Tomorrow it will be some other acronym.

It's basically West Side v. East Side with nuclear weapons. All the treaties and other forms of legalese are simply ways to formalize the arrangement and present the illusion of legitimacy.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
NATO is unique in that it is not just a collective defense pact but, also has a military command structure.

The US has two other collective defense pacts that have the attack on one is an attack all doctrine.

The Rio Pact with the US, Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Domincan Republic, El Salvador, Guatamala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad&Tobago, and Uraguay.

The Manila Pact with the US, Austalia, New Zealand, Phillipines, Thailand, France and the UK.

The Manila Pact at one time had a similar set up as a military organization like NATO called SEATO but, that never really worked and was disolved although the treaty remains in force. Among both those collective defense treaties you will see joint exrcises and meeting but, they have no over all military integration, standards or command system. That is unique to NATO alone. And pretty amazing when you consider the diverse make up of the 28 nations that make up NATO.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What is is what has been described above here in response to your question.

What it will be before long, as the terroristic Muslims keep acting up, is the UN's army more correctly called the New World Order police force. SEATO will probably be morphed into it as will other lesser agreements among like-minded nations. Given that the SILIS thinks they can defeat the whole world, the world will have to oblige with their own views on the matter with resolution.

The job as world police force was formerly held by the self-appointed US, more or less, in its entirety, but that has changed as the US has about worn itself out with the job. It is time for others to pull their respective weight.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
NATO is an international gang that uses the threat of nuclear devastation to impose and maintain a global economic order.

This is untrue. NATO has never used the threat of nuclear weapons to force anything.




originally posted by: NthOther
Not an exclusive knock on NATO, however. The Warsaw Pact folks (back in the day) had the same thing going. Today, it's BRICS. Tomorrow it will be some other acronym.

They had the warsaw pact. They have nothing today. BRICS is NOT a military alliance.

Since there seems to be confusion of what BRICS is -
hATS - Whats is Brics



originally posted by: NthOther
It's basically West Side v. East Side with nuclear weapons. All the treaties and other forms of legalese are simply ways to formalize the arrangement and present the illusion of legitimacy.

Russia is the only country, not to mention the pro Russians on this site, to invoke the use of nuclear weapons. The west / US / EU nor NATO have used it in conversation.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

The UN does NOT have an army.

As for world police I agree to an extent. One would think countries could behave themselves and not need others to tell them no. The problem with the world police and the US backing out of it is only a few countries could replace it.

Russia and China are 2.


edit on 31-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Touche. Have they ever started waving plutonium at each other, "We're gonna nuke you if you don't do what we say!"?

No (well... usually not). But the threat is implied.

BRICS is not a military alliance, but it is spearheaded by heavily nuclear-armed countries. That alliance can go hot at any moment.

This is kind of what I'm talking about with all the "technical definitions" and legalese. It all confuses the issue.

How do these guys operate? Like gangs (or mafia, maybe?). It's pretty simple when you look at it for what it is, not as someone else has defined it.


edit on 8/31/14 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

Touche. Have they ever started waving plutonium at each other, "We're gonna nuke you if you don't do what we say!"?

No (well... usually not). But the threat is implied.


Again no its not.




originally posted by: NthOther
BRICS is not a military alliance, but it is spearheaded by heavily nuclear-armed countries. That alliance can go hot at any moment.


Brics has nothing to do with Russia, China or India have nuclear weapons. The simple fact you invoked that they have nukes tends to lead readers to the point that Russia uses its nukes as if it were a thug demanding those around them to do what they want or else.

Also, again, its not a military alliance. BRICS cant "go nuclear" because BRICS is NOT a military alliance. I think you meant to say Russia or China could go nuclear.



originally posted by: NthOther
This is kind of what I'm talking about with all the "technical definitions" and legalese. It all confuses the issue.

Suggesting BRICS can go nuclear is what confuses the issues.




originally posted by: NthOther
How do these guys operate? Like gangs (or mafia, maybe?). It's pretty simple when you look at it for what it is, not as someone else has defined it.



NATO has never invaded a nation that refused to join / do what they want.
Russia cant make that claim.

NATO has not used the threat of nuclear weapons to get what they want.
Russia cant make that claim.

NATO did not occupy East Europe for 50 years after WWII.
Russia cant make that claim.

NATO did not invade Ukraine.
Russia cant make that claim.

Its looks perfectly clear that Russia is the thug, not NATO.
edit on 31-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you have an issue with Russia? Did Russia do anything to you? Are you an Ukrainian and you're scared #less? What? Whats wrong with Russia?



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I don't understand the point of arguing what is worse, NATO or Russia, so I'm not partaking in it...

but regarding the statements you've made about NATO, I want to add this:

NATO (or NATO members and their intelligence communities) did invade, occupy, and interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, and violated (or ignored) international law on various occasions.

So I'm not sure NATO are the "good guys".



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
NATO has always appeared to be nothing more than an extension of the US military, doing the bidding of the US to give the impression of legitimacy of International military conquest for US gain.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Britguy
NATO has always appeared to be nothing more than an extension of the US military, doing the bidding of the US to give the impression of legitimacy of International military conquest for US gain.


Anything to support this false claim?



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ColCurious

The same thing that occurred in the warsaw pact?
The same thing Russia is doing in Ukraine.

If you don't want to get into who is worse then why did you post what you did?



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: FraternitasSaturni
a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you have an issue with Russia? Did Russia do anything to you? Are you an Ukrainian and you're scared #less? What? Whats wrong with Russia?


Speaking the truth about Russia does not make anti- Russian.

Russia invaded Ukraine and is lying to the world about it.

I am a US citizen living in the US, as my profile denotes.

Russia wants to behave like the USSR and thinks former SSR's should bow down to them. The cold war is over. The USSR lost. Russia is not the USSR. Putin is nothing more than an arrogant hack who thinks is something more than he is.

Putin should stick to the shirtless photos and the fake fishing trips. It would be safer for Russia if he did.

Does that answer your questions or do I need to dumb it down more?



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What is NATO?

This quote came to mind. . . .

“We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.”

― Konstantin Jireček

And I think that about sums up NATO, in my humble opinion.



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Britguy
NATO has always appeared to be nothing more than an extension of the US military, doing the bidding of the US to give the impression of legitimacy of International military conquest for US gain.


Anything to support this false claim?


Years of observation of reality, not press soundbites, political talking heads or internet descriptions of what NATO is or what it's role may be.



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Britguy

Ah.. opinion.. fair enough.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join