It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NATO is crumbling - who will fill the void?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:30 PM
Who or what is NATO?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is an organization for collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. NATO has 28 members: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States and last but not least, for reasons I want to explore together with you, Germany.

Libya: has NATO bitten more off than it can chew?
NATO became involved in Libya to ‘protect its citizens from Gadaffi’s regime’, which seems a far cry from its original aim of mutual defence. Libya is not a member of NATO, nor has it attacked a NATO member. But that it not the point of this thread, so please don’t go posting your judgments about the Libyan situation.

What IS relevant though is the way the Libya matter is splitting the alliance: is NATO in danger of crumbling and splitting up, leaving the Anglo-Saxon nations holding the pieces? The Daily Telegraph recently reported on how France risked splitting up Nato over the war in Libya by calling for negotiations with Colonel Gaddafi. Norway has already announced its decision to step out of the Libya ‘project’, while Italy is expressing grave concerns about continuing the mission.

One by one, the rats seem to be leaving the sinking ship. But there is one nation that seems to thrive on crisis, bringing to mind the now famous Rahm Emanuel quote : “Never let a good crisis go to waste”

Germany: playing the field
Germany is distancing itself from US/UK/French influence within NATO and has offered to act as a dependable mediator between the two factions in Libya. This would enable Germany to influence the outcome as well as profit financially from ‘rebuilding’ Libya’s institutions and security according to German Foreign Policy.
The vacuum left behind should NATO cease to function effectively looks set to be filled by the Germans.

Obama kowtowing to Germany
And it seems US President Obama is beginning to recognise this, although his motives may be rather shortsighted. As The Washington Post noticed, Obama is beginning to see a German-led Europe as America’s most effective foreign partner.

Is Germany dangerous?
The Trumpet wrote an interesting article about Obama and the Germans, quoting Winston Churchill and George Friedman of StratFor:

Winston Churchill once believed that a strong Germany was always dangerous—even if the world looked peaceful. In his book on World War i titled The World Crisis, he criticized the people who argued that a civilized Germany was no threat to the West:
They sound so very cautious and correct, these deadly words. Soft, quiet voices purring, courteous, grave, exactly measured phrases in large, peaceful rooms. But with less warning cannons had opened fire and nations had been struck down by this same Germany. … It is too foolish, too fantastic to be thought of in the 20th century. … No one would do such things. Civilization has climbed above such perils. The interdependence of nations in trade and traffic, the sense of public law, the Hague Convention, liberal principles, the Labor Party, high finance, Christian charity, common sense have rendered such nightmares impossible. Are you quite sure? It would be a pity to be wrong. Such a mistake could only be made once—once for all.

George Friedman: “Geography does not change, and therefore neither does history. The same patterns keep emerging.”

Winston Churchill warned us, and George Friedman agrees. A strong Germany is a threat. But according to the Trumpet, President Obama wants Germany to play an assertive, dominant, and even aggressive role in the world.

What do you think? Is Obama right to woo Germany into a loving partnership? Can Germany be trusted to fill the void NATO is leaving in its wake? Or should we listen to wise men like Churchill and Friedman and never let Germany rise to a position where it can assert its power over the nations again?

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:33 PM
who fill the void? I'm going with the default void fillers from the time of King David to to the present

Warlords and Crime Syndicates

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:39 PM
Not really the right forum there buddy.

NATO won't crumble, its too structured and big to fall at this point.

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by Elsek

Too big to fail - where have I heard that one before? And where did I say NATO would cease to exist? I meant becoming ineffective. Any thoughts on that?

Oh and this is my first thread, so I made a mistake but have alerted the mods, so it should soon be moved to a better place, I hope. Sorry about that!

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by Cegullah

And it looks like Germany is supplying NATO with weapons /ammunition while not "participating" in the campaign in Libya

Germany failed to insist on moral principles in Libya – Middle East expert

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Cegullah
What do you think? Is Obama right to woo Germany into a loving partnership? Can Germany be trusted to fill the void NATO is leaving in its wake? Or should we listen to wise men like Churchill and Friedman and never let Germany rise to a position where it can assert its power over the nations again?

History does repeat itself....

Germany is NOT the same as it once was pre or post WWII. Quoting Churchill although heart warming isn't really relevant at the moment. Also, I think you've already missed the boat. Germany IS already the economic powerhouse of the EU. If it weren't for Germany the EU would be hurting right now. They have been carrying the load far more than they should have. They have the highest exports and are the most economically stable country in Europe. Will NATO crumble? No, It's not going to crumble. If any external power attempts to attack any one member then they would step in together and fight.

Since you said not to discuss the Libyan issue I wont. However as you have pointed out not all members support this NATO endeavor. So each country has a right to limit or not even participate because there was no direct assault on a member. So whether the NATO mission in Libya falters in the long run shouldn't have any over all effect on the NATO structure.

If anything this whole mess should be teaching their collective holier than thou Euro butts a lesson.

# 1.) They need to spend more on and practice proper weapon systems integration.
# 2.) Step up to the plate financially and stop relying on us Big Bad Evil Americans to do their collective dirty work.

# 3.) Don't start fights (Good, Bad or Indifferent) if they don't have the stomach to last the duration when taking it to the mat.

You mentioned Obama wooing Germany. Yeah well we should. Germany is a strong country now and we have a fair relationship with them Since the end of WWII things have been for the most part stable in Germany. They absorbed the mess left over from years of neglect and backwards thinking after the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact fell apart the Wall came down and were still able to rise above it.

Hell even Russia has been wooing Germany lately. They were even going to award Russia's Putin an award on humanitarian achievements so as to foster friendship between the two countries. That was until they actually looked at his real record on the matter then that quickly flew out the window.

I'd rather have a strong Germany on our side than not...

Think about it.

edit on 16-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 05:50 PM
I agree NATO has been undercut by the not surprising refusal of Germany to join the party over Lybia. The organisation has seen stresses and strains over the years but as a vehicle of US foreign policy it was always going to survive while America stays on top. A disintegration of NATO, or more likely its tidy replacement by a purely European authority, will be a strong indicator that the USA has reached the point the UK was at following WW2, and that the USSR reached under Yeltsin. NATO was set up as an anti-Soviet alliance. As such it is looking a bit long in the tooth.
The obvious decline in US power and prestige must be leading somewhere. We can't just drift forever. Bernanke's QE3, QE4, QE5 ad nausiam, that will innevitably arrive, takes the US down the same path as ancient Rome. At some point power will be seized from the Americans. Because it has to be.
The world needs, or will soon think it needs, strong leadership. Look what we have now from our statesmen: fudge, vacillation and procrastination with a bit of criminality thrown in. I'm expecting some overnight and unnexpected (by the populations that is) fait a compli change in the international scene. This could conceivably involve the Gulf States, who have talked for years about their own local joint currency for GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) backed by gold. But any mega shifting of the tectonic plates so to speak is bound to involve the Germans.
Yes, to answer your question, I do see great risk in a German takeover. But there is no choice as they are the only ones with any money. But first Merkel must go. Margaret Thatcher feared the unification of Germany. You mention Churchill - well he referred to the 'recurrent pestilence' of German nationalism.
I don't buy this idea that all is calm and today's German is back in it's box. There is no box.

posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 02:39 PM
America needs NATO more than Europe. I hope NATO disappears as all it is is American imperialism. Look at this "missile defence shield" for example. Its the third party in America (The Pentagon) that wants it and all it is causing is bad feeling between the Russians and Europe. Its like America still wants to play the cold war game.

NATO was formed to act as a balance and protective shield from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is no more. The Berlin wall is no more Yugoslavia a country created by the cold war no longer exists. so the reason to have NATO went when these issues were resolved.

What is NATO doing in central Asia? Fighting America's "war against terrorism" in Afghanistan. Nothing to do with Europe!!

The Libyan exercise is just an internal political thing between USA and certain European countries. I wont mention any more on that.

NATO is now just American Imperialism. Crumble NATO crumble.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by Cegullah

Typical German-phobe bigot. If it wasn't for the British world war one and two wouldn't of happened. They intentionally caused both world war's to cripple Germany. And it is odd how the British along with Anglo Americans(British Americans) financed Hitler and Nazi Germany(after Hitler used the funds from the British royal family and various wealthy Anglo American's to buy his way into power).

The simple fact is that Anglo/Scott Irish peoples have a severe inferiority complex and being around German folk makes you nervous because after-all the KKK, slavery and Jim Crow are all Anglo/Scott-Irish American institutions(that lasted for hundreds of years in good and bad times) based upon how "superior" Anglophones are.

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by korathin

For your information, I am German myself.

top topics


log in