It is very interesting that with the influence of the Soviet Union, which was then hard to recover from the gigantic losses from World War II, it was immediately decided to fight precisely by military means, and not otherwise. The first members of the organization in 1949 were 12 countries: USA, Canada, Iceland, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Italy and Portugal. Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952 (First NATO expansion). In 1954, the USSR also applied for membership, as the organization officially declared itself the guarantor of peace in the Northern Hemisphere, but did not directly declare an exclusively anti-Soviet orientation. The official refusal to join the Soviet Union has actually already openly “dotted the I”, determining the position of the main adversary for NATO. In 1955, West Germany's internationally recognized documents actually allowed them to again have their own army, which has not been there since May 1945, and, almost simultaneously, the country became a new member of the military Alliance (Second NATO expansion), which is de facto under the direct control of the United States. Only after this, the USSR began to create “its own” military bloc, consisting, besides itself, of the states of Eastern Europe, which entered the “orbit of influence” of the Soviet Union after the end of World War II. The association is known as the Warsaw Pact.
Thus, in Europe, and in fact in the world, two large and already officially declaring themselves mutually antagonistic, powerful military blocs arose. The base of the confrontation, according to the statements of the parties, was then fundamentally ideological, that is, the "capitalist West" against the "socialist East." This situation was later called the Cold War. And this same “war” continued practically until the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and the “self-decay” of the entire Warsaw Pact led by it. It is noteworthy that during all this time of the East-West confrontation, NATO forces did not officially participate in any military operation. Apparently, this was because NATO, being on its own statement an exclusively defensive bloc, worked on the principle that aggression against one of the members is aggression against the whole organization, and, accordingly, no one has ever attacked any member.
It would seem, that’s all, the confrontation is over. Neither the main enemy of the West in the person of the Soviet Union, nor its military bloc, nor the ideology itself on which it was built in Europe no longer exists. The states that formed on the site of the USSR and its former allies in the "social camp" have completely integrated themselves into all the "western" international systems and organizations, and have also completely ceased to show at least some form of hostility towards their former "capitalist" opponents. Rather, on the contrary, they tried by all means to join the "capitalist" system of international trade and political relations, as if thereby recognizing its supremacy and the "victory" gained over European socialism. The very existence of an initially anti-Soviet military bloc, in such a situation, should by all laws of logic already become an absurd anachronism, but ...
For some reason, NATO has not gone anywhere, but on the contrary, from 1991 until today it has carried out several more "extensions". As a result, it now includes 29 states, including all former members of the Warsaw Pact and three that became independent, the former Soviet Baltic republics - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. By 2019, the defense spending of the bloc showed a new absolutely cosmic amount - $ 989 billion, almost a trillion! The lion's share of which (approximately 70%) is the military budget of the leader of the Alliance - the United States. At first glance - an overwhelming success! The main enemy fell without a single shot, NATO is the strongest organization on the planet, and its members are practically no longer able to threaten. But at the congress of the Alliance, dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the founding, one does not see general joy at all, nor does unity. Moreover, unlike in previous years, when the heads of state took part in such events, only foreign ministers gathered for such a serious anniversary. So what happens to the most powerful military bloc of all time?
The last, well-known and unfolding almost immediately on the eve of the anniversary, scandal is connected with Turkey’s intention to acquire S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems from the Russian Federation, giving them preference over the weaker, but more expensive American Patriot. In response to this, the United States actually began to blackmail its block ally economic sanctions, as well as the fact that they will refuse to sell the latest F-35 fighter jets to the Turks, in the amount of about a hundred pieces, in the production of which Turkey itself (!) also participates, and also threatened to deprive this country of the possibility of technical maintenance of its existing weapons such aircraft. Somewhat weird relationships between the two largest members of the military alliance, right? Turkey has the largest and most efficient army in NATO, after the USA itself.
But I will say more. This is not just a weird relationship. This is the beginning of the end of the whole organization. And if Turkey in this situation really stands under pressure from the United States and buys the S-400 no matter what, then NATO will not live to see the next round anniversary. At least in its current form and strength. And the matter is not only in Turkey, although it is with her that America and the other members of the bloc really have the most complicated relations now. And these problems did not arise today, and not because of the Russian air defense systems. Quite legitimate Turkish grievances against partners in the bloc have been accumulating for a long time. Turkish-Greek relations have in fact been a smoldering conflict for decades within the North Atlantic Alliance itself. Moreover, Greece is armed with, by the way, Russian anti-aircraft systems S-300, but the Greeks have no complaints about this. For the third decade, Turkey has been unsuccessfully “knocking on the door” of the European Union, the vast majority of whose members are its NATO partners. But the Turks in Europe under the most various pretexts are somehow not allowed in, and this does not improve the interstate atmosphere. Especially considering that both the most backward of the countries of the former Eastern Europe, such as Bulgaria and Romania, for example, the level of general development, whose military power and industrial potential are simply not comparable with today's Turkey, have become members of both NATO and the EU during this time. Turkey also has, to put it mildly, very complicated relations with the main US and EU allies in the Middle East - Israel and Saudi Arabia. And finally worsened the position of Turkey in the region, as well as relations with America in particular and NATO in general, all that began to happen right at the Turkish borders during the war in Iraq and the development of the Syrian conflict.
As a result of hostilities, literally millions of refugees poured into the country. Using for their own purposes various ethnic, political and even terrorist groups, the USA and NATO created absolute chaos in the region, which allowed the most powerful terrorist formation in the history of mankind to develop - the so-called Islamic State. By supporting and arming Kurdish units, sort of to fight the regime of the legitimate Syrian President Assad, the Americans actually came into direct conflict with the interests of Turkey, which considers the Kurdish armed independence movement terrorist, and has been waging an open struggle with it for many years, as in its territory, and in the border areas of neighboring states. After the tragic incident in which a Turkish fighter shot down a Russian Su-24.11.2015 bomber in the Syrian-Turkish border area on November 24, XNUMX, which participated in the anti-terrorist operation of the Russian air forces in Syria, Turkey, in fear of possible consequences, immediately turned to partners for support according to NATO, justifying the incident by the fact that, according to the Turks, a Russian combat aircraft invaded Turkish airspace. But the Allies reaction turned out to be extremely cold - as it turned out, no one was going to enter into conflict with Russia over Turkish problems. Erdogan at NATO headquarters was politely advised to deal with Putin about this completely independently, which he soon had to do. Moreover, in Russia, apparently, even unexpectedly for himself, the Turkish leader met clearly a much better understanding of Turkish problems and national interests, as well as the situation in the region as a whole, than his own partners in the military-political bloc. Roughly the same thing happened during the negotiations of the Turks with the top leadership of Iran. At the same time, again, both Moscow and Tehran are currently the main officially recognized opponents of Washington, and thus, as it were, of NATO as a whole. That is, in Turkish interests, there is a kind of bifurcation, which does not in any way fit into the general policy of the North Atlantic Alliance. But that is not all.
The next and completely logical “nail in the grave” of Turkish-American relations was, firstly, a serious attempt at a coup in Turkey with a plan to physically destroy the country's leadership, which, as it turned out, was led by Turkish opposition preacher Gulen, who is in the United States. Real clashes took place in the country and there were casualties. At the same time, the States, at the request of Turkey, refused to extradite the main organizer and inspirer of all these events. And it is charged with attempted coup d'etat and terrorism. Somehow, it’s not at all allied ... And secondly, the brutal murder by the Saudi secret services of the opposition Saudi journalist, an employee of the Washington Post American newspaper, Jamal Khashukji right on the territory of the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, and all this with the complete connivance of the outside American administration. In addition to all this, Turkey agreed to let the Turkish Stream through its territory a gas pipeline from Russia to Europe. This is the one that was previously called the South Stream, and was supposed to go directly to the European Union, but the United States made every conceivable effort to stop this plan. The Americans simply forced the leadership of Bulgaria, where the pipe would have to land, refuse to participate in the project. This was done exactly for the same reason that the United States is trying hard to stop Nord Stream-2 in the Baltic, that is, to force Europe, instead of Russia, to buy American liquefied gas. And the Turks took and agreed, because they saw in this gas pipeline a huge profit of their own. Directly contrary to all the Wishlist of America. And they also concluded with the Russian Federation, and not with the Americans, an agreement on the construction of a nuclear power plant, work on which is already in full swing, also forcing people to “grit their teeth” across the ocean. And the Russians here really offered the Turks so much better terms of the contract that it would be foolish to refuse.
But not only with Turkey, the NATO bloc has internal problems today. If you look at other European countries of the Alliance, then there is absolutely no unity here. This is especially noticeable when comparing the sentiments of most of the old - Western and new - Eastern European members. After the collapse of the USSR and its "socialist camp", in principle, quite rich, comfortable and, in reality, quite peace-loving, the "old" Western Europe already seemed to "finally breathe a sigh of relief", in the hope that for almost half a century the threat of conflict hanging in the air between the East and the West, whose place of action would inevitably be the European continent, it seems like it finally "resolved" by itself. And instead, in the east, a lot of work suddenly opened up for European business: new huge and thirsty goods from the West sales markets, access to cheap resources, the possibility of investment, which could be limited only by the ability and scope of imagination of the investors themselves and so on ... And all this is not somewhere in unsafe and unstable Africa or far-off and poorly understood Southeast Asia, but right here, at its borders, literally "at hand", as they say ... And West Europeans, who are capable of work, naturally, here and they began to actively develop business cooperation, simply reveling in the new economic opportunities that had fallen on them. And at the same time, “as unnecessary,” they began to gradually reduce their own expenditures on armaments, curtail military programs, reduce the size of the armed forces and equipment in them, translating all this already, so to speak, onto peaceful tracks.
But the hegemon overseas, which is part-time and the actual chief of all NATO, had plans for this organization were somewhat different. Even after the disappearance, it seemed like the main enemy, no one was going to dissolve this “defense” organization. On the contrary, immediately after the collapse of the USSR, the troops of NATO states suddenly began to participate in various armed conflicts, which in this case did not directly affect the member countries, that is, had nothing to do with their defense. The bloc, thus, under various pretexts, began to perform the purely aggressive function of the "world gendarme" under the complete dictation of the United States, and exclusively in their own interests. So in 1991, NATO troops entered Kuwait, and then into Iraq. After that, in the period from 1995 to 2004. Alliance troops constantly participated in various wars in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, as a result of completely destroying this country as a single state formation. In 2001, NATO invaded Afghanistan, in 2003 again to Iraq, in both countries the Alliance troops under the leadership of the United States are still, without achieving any positive results. In Afghanistan, a bloody civil war has been going on all this time, and the country itself during this period has become the leading global supplier of opium and heroin. Iraq practically ceased to exist as a single state, and the largest terrorist gang in the history of mankind, ISIS, arose on its territory. In 2011, an unreasonable intervention took place in Libya, which also completely destroyed statehood in this country, a bloody civil war and anarchy continue to this day. In Europe, first of all, in Western countries, the discontent of the population has been growing all this time with such a clear reformatting of the activity of the structure, which was initially created as if exclusively for their protection from a possible Soviet threat. The threat has disappeared, and the costs of hostilities somewhere far from their borders are increasing, and coffins even periodically come back from there, it’s not known where and for what fallen fellow citizens. Moreover, as a result of all this, a huge stream of refugees rushed to Europe from the countries devastated by NATO forces, creating problems for Europeans directly and literally at their place. A bloody wave of Islamic terrorism swept across Europe. But for some reason, the all-powerful North Atlantic Alliance of the citizens of their countries does not protect it, and does not even do anything to strengthen, for example, the protection of external borders. And in order to somehow explain the continued existence of a huge military bloc, it became necessary urgently to either find or invent an enemy that was adequate in strength. Well, not with refugees to fight the valiant NATO warriors? At first, Iran, officially developing its own nuclear and missile industry, was officially established as the enemy No. 1, but the military power of this country and its position in the world clearly did not correspond to the already existing “defensive” structure of the West. And after the collapse of the USSR, the only suitable candidate for the role of a strong and dangerous enemy was his successor - the Russian Federation, still a huge country that possesses nuclear weapons, but, naturally, far from being as powerful militarily as the Soviet Union once. I'm not talking about the lack of fundamental ideological antagonism, which is something everyone seems to have somehow forgotten about ...
And here, again, there is a cardinal difference in attitude to the situation between the "old" and "new" NATO members. If the overwhelming majority of Western nations still do not like and do not want to fight historically, and they are primarily interested in maintaining their own comfort and the achieved high standard of living, then in the east everything looks somewhat different. Here there are a number of quite belligerent countries, which also have some complexes of "grievances of the past", which they try to "cure" precisely by joining the NATO military bloc. The most prominent representatives of such peoples are, for example, Poland, Romania, the Baltic states. And do not be fooled by the fact that some of these countries, by world standards, have microscopic armed forces. As part of large and well-equipped foreign armies, for example, the German Waffen-SS during the Second World War, the same Baltic states have already shown themselves to be excellent soldiers, in battles precisely against the Soviet troops. They really have the untapped potential of aggression, and they are often much more willing to participate in various foreign "missions" of NATO, unlike their Western counterparts. And some financial handouts issued by the United States to its new East European satellites are perceived by them with more gratitude than in the more prosperous west. Even despite the fact that these same US handouts are ultimately used to purchase the same weapons or something else from the Americans themselves. Demanding an increase in military spending from its European partners in NATO, the United States at the same time complicates this very task, dragging them into fulfilling the terms of various “sanctions packages” directed against third countries, such as Russia, Iran or China. Along with this, expanding its own spheres of influence, and simultaneously provoking the Russian Federation militarily, the United States unleashes various armed conflicts already in the territory of the post-Soviet space or in its immediate vicinity. And an adequate and natural reaction of Russia to all this is presented to partners in the Alliance and the rest of the world as evidence of the aggressive intentions of the Russian Federation and its leadership. But here, most, again, Western Europeans already include historical memory related to the relatively recent, on a historical scale, events of the last two World Wars. And if, under the pressure of America, they gritting their teeth and causing multibillion-dollar damage to their own economies, are joining in observing various American economic sanctions imposed on Russia and other states, often under fictitious and absolutely inadequate pretexts, then they openly refuse to go on frank military provocations . There are more complex political contradictions. For example, Germany and France are participants in the "Normandy format" - a contractual platform whose goal is officially to resolve the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. The vast majority of European countries, however, are also not interested in the escalation of hostilities with absolutely unpredictable consequences right at the borders of the European Union. The United States, on the contrary, constantly provokes this conflict either with international support of the Ukrainian "Maidan" government, or with the supply of weapons, or with the introduction of its warships in the Black Sea, in close proximity to the conflict zone.
In general, the Zakoyan hegemon himself and the NATO leader in one person - the United States of America, especially after the administration of Donald Trump came to power, began to behave less and less respectfully with his European partners. Showing less sympathy for the national interests of his allies, and communicating with them more and more as vassals than with equal partners in the military bloc. And this also causes a clear negative reaction, especially among the large European states that are members of NATO. And all this at the same time against the background of the fact that the vast majority of all European countries today, despite all the propaganda hype, do not believe in the real possibility of Russian aggression on the continent. On the contrary, Europeans assess the consequences of a confrontation with their huge eastern neighbor as directly harming their own development, well-being and even security. This is a look at the need for cooperation with the Russian Federation on illegal migration, as well as the fight against international terrorism and crime. The only exception to all of the above is probably the United Kingdom, which is absolutely unquestioningly following the US “in the wake”. And there, in turn, recently there have been new ideas for expanding the bloc of countries in their full military subordination, the last of which is the inclusion of Brazil in NATO. Although it is not very clear what relation this South American state has to the North Atlantic, and to it the geographically directly related military alliance. Then you can already take in NATO and Australia with Japan, for example. Moreover, the choice of possible opponents of the Alliance, so necessary to justify its protracted existence, will already be wider - you can write in them, say, China and North Korea ...
All of the above, of course, is an extremely interesting development of events, but the result of all this, nevertheless, steadily leads to a buildup of insoluble contradictions within the largest military bloc in the world, and thereby to weakening its unity and real military power. And the USA, as the initial leading force of the Alliance, cannot and does not want at this stage to again engage in some kind of consolidation of all members. Unlike the time the Alliance began to exist, today, consisting of 29 member countries, NATO is an extremely diverse community of states with a very different level of development, economic, social, religious and political order, and even different strategic goals. The entry of new members into the bloc is due to a variety of reasons - political and even economic, of which, in fact, real security of one’s own security is far from the first place. In its structure and composition, modern NATO recalls Hitler Germany and its satellites in the early forties of the last century. It was also a rather motley structure, which externally was even a very impressive military force, based solely on the power of the Third Reich. But as soon as the latter began to have real problems, mainly in the war against the USSR on the Eastern Front, the vast majority of the so-called German allies from the Germans, at best, turned their backs, and at worst even deployed their own weapons, often from Germany itself, against her. The most striking examples of this are precisely the current members of NATO - for example, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria. And in general, it can be said that the vast majority of the “new” NATO members are such “weathercocks”, whose loyalty in a really difficult situation can hardly be expected even by the Americans themselves ...
But, probably, the most important nonsense in the existence of the NATO bloc, actually from the very beginning directed against the USSR, and now even Russia, is that in reality, militarily, to confront NATO with our country is a useless structure. And almost all of its members now understand this. Just because Russia is one of the few states on the planet that cannot be conquered or defeated by military force from outside. And in the case of such an attempt, this threatens the complete destruction of both the most possible aggressor, and life on Earth in general. Russia can be destroyed only from within. Like at one time its predecessor, the Russian Empire 100 years ago, and again the USSR another 70 years later. No one has ever defeated these empires by force, but these huge states have completely collapsed from the inside. That is, we need to be afraid, mainly, not of the NATO armies, but of “soft power” creeping towards us from the west. But, on the other hand, it is precisely on Western technocrats and pragmatists that act exclusively brute force, or at least the threat of its actual use, and with guaranteed fatal consequences for the enemy. That is why, in order to build any kind of equal dialogue with the consolidated West, we must constantly develop and improve our armed forces. And if they are strong enough and technically equipped, then this is the best guarantee that they will not have to be put into practice in a real big war. At the same time, no less attention should be paid to internal security, control over the activities of the media, NGOs, and reasonable patriotic education of young people. And also, and this is the main thing, to create such living conditions in the state that people really love their country and believe in its future. Then we will very quickly see the sunset of the North Atlantic Alliance, and the Allies, again themselves and voluntarily reach for us.