The future of NATO

Bad timing

An Atlantic alliance with less ambition looks inevitable; but it should not be allowed to fade away

See article

Readers' comments




It might make you feel less guilt for holocaust by believing stuff like "rather than killing them".

However reality is a very different and more complex.

1) Two thirds of present day USA terrority lived under French and Spanish colonial rule for 2 centuries before the US acquired them. Why do you think so many American cities have French and Spanish names - Los Angeles, New Orleans etc?

Spanish & French colonial rule was not too kind to the native Indians and the Indian tribes that survived were much reduced from their original numbers when the USA acquired these former French & Spanish/Mexican terrorities.

The USA is not responsible for what happened to native Indians under 2 centuries of French & Spanish rule in California, Texas, Arizonia, New Mexico, Louisania, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota,Dakota; Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado.

So kindly take up the issue of native Indians with the French & Spanish Empires. Thanks.

2) Most of the Indians in the original US terrorities (13 New England states) died at first contact due to their lack of immunity against European diseases like small pox etc.

3) The "killing" was from both sides. Indian tribes attacked settlers moving westwards and US calvary attacked tribes that were fighting them etc. It was contest for land and resources and both sides attacked and killed. Of course the stronger side won.

4) This may come as a shock to you but in the early 17 century intermarriage between native Indians and British was quite common in the New England colonies. One of my ancestors who migrated from England to Virginia in 1786 had a Shawnee wife.

During those 200 years from 1776 to mid 19th century, there were many examples of close coperation and peaceful existence and there were also many examples of violence & attacks due to tensions caused by different cultures, ignorance, and competitiion for land and resources betwen two armed factions.

Sorry very DIFFERENT from the holocaust. Absurd to compare complex and complicated issue of human migration to a genocide perpetuted on an unarmed group of people simply for their ethnicity.

emmafinney in reply to emmafinney

Regarding mormons - Why are you so obsessed with what Smith said in 1831?

Hello mulitple wives was outlawed and has not been practised for more than 100 years.

100 years ago catholics in "some" parts of Europe were still being taught by their churches that the Jews killed baby Jesus. Anti-semitism was rampant in many catholic church teachings so are you going to judge catholics today by what their church elders did over 100 years ago? No but you are very happy to judge Mormons today by whan their church did more than a 100 years ago.

A 100 years ago, ignorance was rife among all religions. Why pick on Mormons only?

emmafinney in reply to emmafinney

"Romney should be very proud of his heritage. That also explains the somewhat pronounced."

YOu are so ignorant. The vast majority of American mormans today are the children and grandchildren of those who converted to mormonism after multiple wives was outlawed.

Mormon religion couldn't attract many converts till multiple wives was outlawed, so I don't think Romney has any Indian heritage, sorry to disappoint you.

But he is handsome dont you think ; ) His mother is French Lenore Romney (née LaFount). Not surprising as half of North America lived under French rule at one time.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Not picking on the Mormons. Trying to understand the basis of their cult/religion. On religion in general, I am against theocratic structures. I firmly believe in the seperation of religion from politics - like Britain. Thanks to Henry the Eighth!!! When religon becomes the "gospel of the state", it always results in violence - like Israel's expansionist Zionist ideology!!! In the US too, it seems that the very religious President's cause a lot of distruction - globally. Like G. Bush, a born-again alcoholic!!!

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

But it was the Quakers who were the leading figures in the abolition of slavery in the USA.

Many churches do a tremendous amount of charitable activies like helping the poor, running shelters and social work etc.

You cannot have a black and white view.


NATO bombarded Yugoslavia in 1999 for only one goal-to establish it's power at the Balkans.I am not going to get into NATO's excuses, because we all heard them and they are not valid.They decided to invade the country under false pretences,built NATO bases all over Kosovo and Metohia to establish control and be, of course, closer to Russia.They recognised the state of Kosovo,even they know that many illegal businesses are going over there- the most profitable is drugs.
If NATO was standing for what they are preaching, why they don't allow the Welsh,Basque,Irish people to separate from their countries? Why they do not recognise Cyprus after so many years?
NATO attacked many countries for their own GAIN, the same as the US with the excuse of democracy.It;s not for democracy, but money. The end.

NATO operates within a security and stability logic and seeks to maintain this within European and American key areas. It would make perfect sense for NATO to want to prevent further ethnic cleansing and bloodshed happening on Europe's South Eastern area. Not only for security reason but also moral reasons. They are human beings.

Why would NATO not want to prevent instability and violence escalating on it's doorstep?

Or no maybe you're right and it's that big bad awful oil-man who somehow controls the whole military apparatus of the largest security organisation in history and wants something which he can buy freely on the open market and has access to already.


It's time to accept the UN as the best option for the governance of our species. Humanism, not militarism.

cold turkei

Excuse me folks, I think you are missing a pretty fundamental point here. Weapons exporting countries have a responsibility to see peace and justice wherever they sell. If you tip that into the equation, all of a sudden some interesting players / weightings stick out. Consider that in light of Syria, Mr Putin. Or India, Mr Sarkozy. Or Saudi Arabia, Mr Cameron. Or Switzerland, Mr Reinfeldt; likewise Turkey, our very own Bundesrat...

Secondly countries with offshore investments and operations should be the ones paying for their security. Like China in Kabul, Kenya and Korea...

According to this calculus, Europe owes the world a greater active committment. But who is the biggest trader of them all?
All the best


Apart from America, only four of 28 members meet the alliance’s defence-spending target of 2% of GDP: Britain, France, Greece and Albania.

To my knowledge, for example, Estonia also fulfills the 2% target?


When the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO outlived its reason for existence. It should be disbanded, with its assets transferred to the European Union. Europe should be responsible for its own defense.


Having successfully kept the peace in the twentieth century, the question now is whether NATO can adapt to the challenges of the twenty-first. Afghanistan has proved that the role of the alliance is now one fundamentally different to that by which it was devised. Rather than operating as a defence mechanism in defending territorial rights it now must think more in terms of strategic attack. Its resources must now be realigned to reflect that, and it has been slow in meeting with new and emerging threats. And it must expand its vision of collective defence in order to remain relevant and effective. This means recognising the full range of threats that confront NATO members today. Yet, the recent Libyan conflict has all but opened up a two-tier structure – Germany along with others who refused to become involved over disagreements relating to what member states were meant to be doing, as opposed to Britain and France who waged a campaign that, arguably, was different to the UN mandate of “protecting civilians”. What transpired was, of course, regime change in the toppling of Gaddafi.

A central part of the upcoming debate and conference in Chicago must surely concern NATO’s involvement in conflicts outside of Europe. Pressing will be the need to determine whether there is any distinction between traditional Article V threats and those to be found outside the North Atlantic treaty area. From all counts of purposes, though, these threats are one and the same, as has clearly been shown by the decade long conflict in Afghanistan. If NATO is unable to recognise this reality and confront dangers where they arise, American interest in the alliance will surely wane. The US contributes significantly to NATO and it must now be convinced that all members are "resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security."

Now, more than six decades on since the inauguration of NATO, the threats facing the organisation’s members have changed considerably. An attack in North America or Europe by an army of an outside state is highly unlikely. Instead, the alliance must equip itself in confronting an array of more difficult challenges, ranging from terrorism and nuclear proliferation to piracy, cyber attacks and the disruption of energy supplies.

emmafinney in reply to MarkDowe

An attack on North America has been unlikely for over 65 years now. This is due to being protected by two oceans and the fact the USA is by far the greatest military power and any country that attacked the USA would be insane. This only leaves insane terrorist as any serious threat to North America.

Europe is a different matter. It has the hotspots of the world on its doorstep (unstable North Africe, Mid-east, Balkans, Russia) and when the Iranian mullahs get nukes it will be Europe that will be within their range not geographically isolated North America.

Since the EU is has GDP greater than the USA, it can easily afford to have its own defense structure without leeching on the US security umbrella. It is high time North Americans stopped footing the bill for Europe's defense thorough Nato.

Sir Prep

NATO just needs to transform into the EU's military. The US can still provide some assistance and funding but I think its high time Europe to take responsibility for their own defense. They'd also be one step closer to truly being a singular entity. Next stop one common language...


Europe contributes nothing to the security of the United States. It contributes only a minimal amount of security to US global trade.

It is much more likely that the next invasion of the US will come from the Pacific than the Atlantic.

Stefan Stackhouse

It has been over 2/3 of a century since the end of WWII, and a quarter century since the fall of the the USSR and the end of the Cold War. It is high time for the US and Canada to bid Europe a fond farewell, and to wish them good luck as they transform NATO into a trans-European collective security pact, probably integrated into the EU's governing structure. This makes perfectly good sense for everybody.

Interesting idea. What about the EU's CFSP though?
What about the role of the US in NATO? It wouldn't really be a European security pact if the bulk of its military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic capacity and capability came from a state that is not in Europe.

There would be no US role in Nato. They will simple pack their bags and leave like they did right after WW1.

The most important role the USA provides is maintaining the balance of power in Europe, a place where big powers rub against each other in close proximity and which has been the cause of centuries of warfare. It is not a mere coincidence that ever since US troops entered western Europe and STAYED, that part of Europe has enjoyed peace ever since.

Well time for Europeans to learn how to get along without the US role.

David Hadden

Europe and Canada have avoided paying their share for defense since the sixties. An economically desperate United States has every right to expect Europe to defend itself and Canada to pay more towards its own defense. Collectively, we should thank the US for carrying this vast burden for many decades; now it is time for us to take up our responsibility.

Sir Prep in reply to David Hadden

Maybe Europe, Canada and every other nation that has benefitted from the protection and security that the US has provided since WWII can pay us back...I'm thinking something along the lines of $15 trillion? lol

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to David Hadden

The USA contribution to NATO is significant - agreed. However, most of its "missions" are designed to support US foreign policy. As USA's military might declines, it will try and put a greater burden on other NATO members to "do more". Will they? I do not think so. After the military debacle in both Iraq and Afghanistan, why should Europe put its troops at risk in pursuit of US foreign policy and military objectives which have no clear direction and objective. The US is "talking" to the Taliban. What next?

Thucydides431 in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

NATO was involved in Iraq? And we are fast pulling out of the Afghan debacle by any means necessary. The only European nations that have a right to complain about Afghanistan are the ones that seriously helped at Britain. Yeah that's pretty much it with them the Canadians and Aussies helping the US. Other euro nations are placed in the safest and most secure areas of the country and are mere tokens of support at best. It's time for the death of NATO with useless European states leeching of the military spending of those willing to actually help. Perhaps a direct alliance with the UK would be more useful to the US seeing as they're the only nation capable of doing anything at all. And even the Brits with their defense cuts risk becoming mere token allies of America. While europeans cheer the decline of the US they ignore their own more imminent collapse into irrelevance.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"However, most of its "missions" are designed to support US foreign policy."

Which one's are you referring to? There have been only 3 Nato actions.

1) Balkans? that was Europe's problem - ethinic cleansing and genocide on European soil

Libya? It was Europe that had Libyan refugees washing up on Italy's shores and it was Europe that was dependent on Libyan oil in a major way.

Afghanistan? to rid the country of Al Qaeda bases - Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Madrid and London as well. France recently had a terrorist rampage by Al Aqaeda trained terrorist.

To imply Afghanistan was not in the interest of Europe is laughable.

All nato actions have been to safeguard Europe. Only ONE nation action Afghanistan was to serve US interests ( and Europe's interests)Balkans was certainly not in the US interest, neither was Libya.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Point taken - you are right on the Balkans. On Libya - I am not too sure. Europe (France and the UK) was pushing for this intervention with an active nod from the USA. Iraq and Afganistan: these are pure "neo-con" interventions - "shock and awe" - badly conceived and badly executed. The US pushed these interventions - I am not too sure whether Europe wanted them. Unfortunately, the USA's retreat (defeat?) in both cases, will create outcomes that are not in anybody's interest. The law of unintended consequences?? The key issue is: moving forward, do Cold War miliary alliances make any sense?? What will be the rationale for intervention - ending genocide (great), global oil supplies (??), helping Israel (??), protecting oil interests in Saudi Arabia (??), controlling shipping lanes in the world (??), etc. If this is the broad mandate, then NATO should include other major stake-holders like Russia, China and India. If that is the shape of things to come, then why not strengthen the powers of the UN to authorise and execute interventions in the future??

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Thucydides431

Point taken - it was Bush and Rumsfeld - and the "neo-cons". The UK and the USA have had an Anglo-Saxon alliance for decades (remember Viet Nam) - no need to sign a piece of paper. On the decline of Europe, I do not agree. The relevance of Europe will increase. You do not have to be a military super power to be relevant - look at Germany and Japan - both of them are more "relevant" than the UK. The decline of the the USA and the (rather rapid) shift to a multi-polar world will probably bring about a more stable world order. Provided that the US can handle this shift in a mature manner. Not too sure that will happen. The only Republican candidate who understood this issue (Ron Paul) hardly got any votes. Sad!!!

Thucydides431 in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

I agree that in many ways Germany and Japan are more relevant than the UK on many non-military related issues (and with Japan on some military issues as well). I still believe it is the rise of the east that will finally destroy the ridiculous euro centric view of the world certainly in relative terms if not in absolute ones as well. And a shift to a multipolar world like you suggest would do the opposite of bring stability. The world has never been more dangerous than when there is multipolarity. It breeds chaos and shifting alliances ruining any chance of continued world-wide prosperity and poverty reduction which have thrived under American backed security, both on the seas and in east Asia.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Thucydides431

Europe and Asia complement each other - culturally - and now, economically. On the future shape of the world - unipolar or multi-polar. Is is a debatable point - in terms of systemic stability. We had bi-polarity in the 1950's and 1960's - your point about shifting alliances, etc. We never have had a mutli-polar world before - it might even work!!! Economic prosperity during the past 4-5 decades. Perhaps growing nuclear multi-polarity has made war unthinkable for all concerned?? The only area where things could come to a boil very easily is the Middle East - where there is nuclear unipolarity. The rest of the world seems to be reasonably the moment!!!

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

Iraq was not an Nato campaign.

Get your facts straight.

Afghanistan had UN approval and hence had international support and it was also backed by all members of Nato. It was not a "neo-con" intervention.

Get your facts straight.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"Unfortunately, the USA's retreat (defeat?) in both cases,"

Keep up with the news. The USA defeated the sunni insurgency which was backed by Iran and has removed all troops from Iraq.
Iraq now is an imperfect democracy but far better place than the genocidal Saddam's Iraq who was busy gassing Kurds and filling mass graves which contained over 300,0000 people according to the UN figures. Of course Europeans were happily making money out of saddam and sold him over 90% of his WMD capabilitly.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"why not strengthen the powers of the UN to authorise"

What planet do you live in?

When the UN security council has dictatorships like China and Russia as its members you expect it to execute interventions?

Will China allow UN to intervene in Tibet when protests are put down brutally by Chinese forces?

The stalement in the UN which is powerless in Syria as a tyrant butchers his own people every day should have given you an inkling of what a sham the UN is.

As long as dictatorships are members of the UN security council and body, you can kiss any kind of intervention goodbye.

The UN was powerless during the Rwandan genocide.
It was powerless during the Cambodian genocide.
It was powerless when ethnic cleansing and genocide took place in the Balkans in the 1990's.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"You do not have to be a military super power to be relevant - look at Germany and Japan>"

Yup thats why Japan has been shivering at the thought of North Korea getting nukes. And that is why Japan depends on the US for its security and maintains US bases in Japan.

As for Germany if the US navy stopped protecting the major sea lanes, Germany's export economy will collapse.

Both Germany and Japan live under US protection. If military power was not important they wouldn't need all those US bases in Germany and Japan.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Afghanistan had UN approval - indeed!!! Has the UN now "approved" the US withdrawal??? What is the percentage of non-US/UK troops in Afghanistan?? Is it over 5%?? Get your facts straight - it was a "neo-con" intervention. Withdrawal (which is currently going on) is like the intervention - badly planned and badly executed. Those Afghan politicians who supported the US invasion/intervention will have to run for their lives. They are already late. As the US has been in constant talks with the Taliban - the Taliban "embassy" in Qatar was opened for this purpose.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

US bases in several countries (e.g., Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, etc., etc.). All a legacy of the Cold War. Looking forward, these bases are not needed - they are merely a provocation. There is no threat to German shipping - even if it exists, it can be handled by Europe. Germany and Japan are still treated like "defeated" powers - i.e., not allowed to arm themselves. This legacy needs to end. The North Korean nukes (even if they exist?) are not a threat to Japan - they are possibly a threat to South Korea. The creation of 2 Korea's is another unfortunate legacy of the Cold War. The other 2 "broken" countries are now unified (e.g., Germany and Viet Nam). Korea will be the next - the presence of US bases merely postpones the inevitable.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"There is no threat to German shipping - even if it exists,"

How uneducated can you be? Do you think God has been protecting the major shipping lanes from Europe to Asia to the Americas?

Freedom of navigation which you took for granted as your right is an expensive privilege provided by the US navy for over 65 years paid for by the US taxpayer. That privilege is coming to an end much sooner than you realize.

over 60 years of American generosity has produced generations of spoilt Europeans who think God has been miraculously protecting the vital sea lanes and that stability is something that just happens by magic.

"it can be handled by Europe"

Well, you need an very expensive and massive naval fleet to protect the major sea lanes.

Is Germany going to slash billions from its social programs to get a strong naval presence when it is so heavily in debt?

Is Europe going to slash billions from its social programs to get a strong navy?

Since the biggest military powers in Europe (Britain & France) couldn't even maintain a no fly zone over Libya without help from the USA, it is laughable that would be able to protect the major sea lanes.

But I hear the Chinese will protect your shipping for PRICE. Well they drive a hard bargain so Germany better start slashing billions from its social programs to pay protection money to the Chinese. The Chinese are not going to be as generous as the Americans which is someting spoilt Europeans are going to learn the hard way.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk


And when did Germany unify? When the communist dictatorship came to and end.

Kindly let us know when the communist dictatorship in Korea will come to an end. Thanks

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

Whether you like it or not Afghanistan had UN approval and Nato approval from ALL its members.

I got news for you. UN sanctioned campaigns are not "neo-Con" intervention, they are UN interventions.

Kinda similar to the UN sanctioned intervention in the Balkans. YOU do of course remember the Dutch UN peacekepers who aided the Serbs to carry out genocide in an UN safe haven. Does Sebrenica ring a bell?

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

I live on the same planet - except that I have no illusions about the superiority of any country. All countries and all people are all equally blood-thirsty - particularly countries with an "illusion of empire". That is why multi-lateral institutions (like the UN) need to be strengthened. Yes, the UN was powerless during Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. It was also powerless when napalm was being thrown on villages in Vietnam - also ethnic cleansing!!! Dictatorships versus democracies - that is currently the map of the world. It is a realty - we need to live with it. Yet, the only country which actually has used nuclear weapons, is a democracy!!!

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

I am glad to hear that the US is about to depart from the major shipping lanes. Europe will have to pay - if required. Russia is an integral part of the European economy. They will also contribute. Re China. They would also welcome this move. Like Europe, China depends on trade. Historically, they have displayed no desire to rock the boat anywhere. Look at Hong Kong!!!

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

It does not matter. Viet Nam was unified by a communist regime - i.e., when they defeated the USA. Look at Viet Nam now. A great place to live in and work in. When I was last there, US companies were standing in line to do business there. However, the Europeans and the Chinese were ahead - they had no historical baggage!!!

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

I trust that you will agree that Iraq was a "neo-con" intervention. The stated justification was "weapons of mass destruction". They (i.e., the WMD's) were never found. Incidentally, the only country with WMD's in the Middle East is Israel. We do not hear much on this issue from America's right wing?? Democracy was never a stated intention for the Iraq intervention. Europe understands Asia much better than the US. They know that interventions always fail. In England, they call it the "law of unintended consequences".

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"All countries and all people are all equally blood-thirsty"

Don't project Europe's blood thirsty history of colonialism and incessant warring between European countries onto others.

Twice in the 20th century Europe dragged half the world into its bloody conflicts. No wonder you think everybody is bloodthirsty.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"Re China. They would also welcome this move"

They most certainly will. They can make billions out of charging protection money.

Since Germany is heavily in debt I suppose it has to slash billions from its social welfare programs to pay the Chinese for protecting their shipping.

No more free protection from the USA anymore. The US navy will only be used to protect North American shipping.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"Viet Nam was unified by a communist regime"

And why wasn't Germany unified by the communist regime in East Germany. It was a great place to live, stasi following everyone, no freedom to travel etc.

See what West Germany missed by not allowing communist East Germany to conquer west Germany and unify by force like the North Vietnamese did to the South Vietnamese.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"the Europeans and the Chinese were ahead - they had no historical baggage!!!"

Vietnam was a French (European colony) and there was a French war raging in Vietnam before the USA got involved.

How come you know nothing about the French (European war) in Vietnam?

Europeans have plenty of baggage in Vietnam - colonialism, war waged by French (European forces) on Vietnamese soil.

Are you so ignorant about European colonialism? Europe has plenty of baggage pretty much everywhere in the world.

Read up on the Boxer rebellion in China. Apparently your idiotic Kaiser went crazy over there.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Glad to hear that the US Navy plans to withdraw from all the oceans of the world - except the Atlantic ocean. This will make the world a much safer place to live in. I hope that this means pulling out from the Arabian Sea as well??

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Please read up on international economics. Germany is not in debt - it has a surplus. The USA, on the other hand, has a huge fiscal and monetary deficit. The Chinese are the largest holders/owners of US Treasury bonds. They are worried about the ability of the USA to repay its debt. They are now investing in European, Middle Eastern, South American and Asian economies.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

You are missing the point. All divided countries have been unified by a historical process. The same will happen in Korea and Taiwan. By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a communist. It is merely an economic system , like capitalism. Both systems have their flaws. The European model of socialism (like Sweden and Norway) is a very good system for all countries to adopt.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

All colonialism is bad. Nobody here is supporting it. The world had very expectations about the USA. It was felt that the US always acted on higher "moral principles" than Europe. In the begining it did. Things began to change after WW2. The US starting behaving just as badly as the Europeans. Absurd military adventures in Asia, South America and the Middle East, etc. The Cold War itself, containment of Russia and China, the domino theory (Dulles), purging intellectuals (McCarthy era), etc., etc. There is a lot of sanity in American politics. However, the far right (mainly the Republican Party) still has an imperialist thought process. Bush and the neo-cons did much damage to America's international standing - and much damage to the US economy. The current government is more balanced. But, God forbid, if Santorium (or equivalent) comes to power in November, another neo-con phase is likely to begin. The capital will move from Washington to Jerusalem!!! The right wing tail will wag the US dog. It is important at this stage for liberal Americans to speak and be heard. They are the "silent majority" whose views made America a great nation!!!

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

More from the Chinese government on the money issue. They say that the service will be free - they are talking to Russia, India and Turkey to share the costs in terms of naval deployment by those countries, particularly in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific ocean and the Middle East.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"I hope that this means pulling out from the Arabian Sea as well?"

Well since it Europe depends heavily on mid-east oil, it is going to be either paying protection money to the Chinese or Iranians.


emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"The history of Viet Nam is well known."

Is this why you said Europe had no baggage in Vietnam? LOL

You still haven't answered my question - How come you know nothing about the French (European) war in vietnam?

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Of course - I am aware of the French mishap in Viet Nam. France is not the only country in Europe. The bulk of the joint ventures are going to German firms. Infrastructure projects are being built at a fast pace - German, British, Spanish, Chinese and Singapore firms are doing the bulk of the work.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk


Who the hell is he?
He lost his last election as senator by a big margin and has held no poltical office for over 5 years now because he is unelectable. He is just a idiot which the media loves to hype to write shocking headlines which sell newspapers.

In case you didn't notice he has been soundly beaten by Romney who will be the Republican nominee.

You are woefully ignorant about the history of the Republican party. The party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt was the most progressive party in America in the 19th up to the 1960's when north eastern liberals and New England aristocrats dominanted the party. It was only after southerners switched their allegiance to the Republicans that the party become more conservative. The tea party faction is despised by republicans in the north east and west.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

No need to Google. Go to Page 104 of the The Economist (print edition) - towards the end of the magazine. Go the column "Budget Deficit - % of GDP". Here are the figures for some countries:-

- Germany (-4.7%).
- USA (-7.8%).
- China (-1.8%).
- Euro Zone (-3.3%).

Suggestion: why read articles in second rate publications, when you can get up-to-date figures from The Economist - every week. I am assuming that you have a subscription???

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"Checked your point with the Chinese government. They do not plan to charge for their services"

Living in a dream world?

Germany has two choices - either build a massive powerful navy to protect German shippping or pay protection money to the Chinese. I hear the Asians drive a hard bargain.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Why do you keep assuming that Germany is the only country in Europe?? China, like Europe, is a high trade zone. They have no incentive to disrupt shipping activity. Which threat are you referring to?? Name the country.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"they are talking to Russia, India and Turkey to share the

I doubt it since China and India share a border and had very serious border clashes in the 1970's and have terrotorial disputes on their border. They don't trust each other and both are trying to become superpowers in Asia and fighting to be the Asian leader.

Turkey is too poor to share the costs. Russia is backwward third world country with a GDP that is smaller than Canada's.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Good point on the history of the party. However, Romney is also quite ignorant about the imperatives of foreign policy in an emerging multi-polar scenario. If elected, he will get the USA into looks of trouble. Ron Paul was brilliant, but got no support. Very sad.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"Have spent a few vacations in Cuba"

Having a vacation in a communist country and actually living under its rule are two different things.

Many westerners who "vactioned" in Stalin's Russia thought it was a nice place to live too while the gulags were filled with millions of people.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

You will be surprised how far the world has changed - e.g., since you might have last visited any of these places. Read up on the BRIC summit held in India last week. India and China will resolve their (relatively minor) issues very soon.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk


Pirates and I don't mean some tin pot gangs of pirates but well armed pirates. The mafia can make billions by blackmailing international shipping.

Are you aware that lawlessness and piracy and criminal gangs will thrive when there is no "police". The US navy acts as the "police" at the moment. Read up on how dangerous the sea routes are without a navy for protection.

China is not going to disrupt anything but you think it is going to be as generous as the Americans and offer free protection for German exports? LOL

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"Romney is also quite ignorant about the imperatives of foreign policy in an emerging multi-polar scenario."

I am trying very hard not to fall out of my chair laughing at the thought of Romney waging war. LOL

Romney is a mormon. Mormons never even serve in the military. The never volunteer for military service. He will be even more reluctant to get involved in military conflicts than Obama.

What Romney says in an election to get votes and what he will actually do once he is in power are very different. It is wise not to take literally what is said in an election. Politicians will say anyting to get votes.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"European socialism is an ideal model, particularly the Nordic countries."

Europe does not have socialism. It has mixed model of private enterprise and social welfare programs.

Sweden's economy is heavily dependent on private enterprise.

Hello "socialism" means no private companies, everything is owned by the government.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Most countries have deficits - even China and Russia (very small deficits). In economics, this is measured as a % of GDP. The German deficit is relatively high owing to their support for the PIGS crisis - read up on this subject. It normally stabilises at around 2-3%. At 8%, the US deficit is very high. Congress does not want to give Obama the ability to raise taxes.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"Multiple wives, no condoms or booze, revealed to a New Yorker called Smith"

Keep up with the news, multiple wives was outlawed more than a century ago.

BTW how many wives did Schroder have? Same thing.

As for the rest of it, since this is easter - how does a dead Jesus being resurrected from the grave compare to New Yorker Smith? Same thing.

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"a mixed model with high income taxes and a security net can be properly defined as a socialist welfare state"

This pretty much describes entire western world and most Asian countries, so Europe has no special unique model.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Inequality and social security net are the key words. Read up on this. Also watch Capitalism: A Love Story (Michael Moore). The economic model is totally different. For starters, education (including university) is free. There is no equivalent of the Occupy Wall Street movement, no issue about bonus payments to CEO's of failing companies, etc.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

Indeed. These Mormons seem to be somewhat over-sexed characters. On plural marriages, their "theory" was that Mormons should sleep with native Ameicans so that the children become "white and delightsome"!!! How nice - what a splendid way to treat native Americans - just sleep with them and get them pregnant!!!

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

What are you blabbering about Mormons?

Mormon chuch outlawed multiple wives more than a century ago. And the rest of what you say about mormons and native Indians is crap. Where you get this ignorant crap from?

Try living in the present. Do you want to judge all christians today by what Christians did 100 years ago? The catholic church in Germany more or less supported Hitler so does this make all catholics nazis NOW?

emmafinney in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

"For starters, education (including university) is free"

Please spare us this crap. The German school system separates children at a very young age into different kinds of schools, one for apprentice training and one for university

Germany excludes a large chunk of its population from an university education at a very young age and than goes around bragging about having a "free university" education? lol

Yup, very easy to have "free" university after excluding a large percentage of school kids at a very young age from any possibility of an university education.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

I keep telling you that Germany is not the only country in Europe!!! Why are you so obsessed with Germany?? Think about other European countries as well - e.g., France, Sweden, Norway, UK, etc.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

I was actually very impressed by the Mormons. Unlike other Americans (as you say, a 100 years ago) the Mormons believed in sleeping with the natives rather than killing them!!! A very humane (and some pleasurable) people who did not want to participate in the ethnic cleansing of native Americans. On plural marriages, Mr. Smith had the following revelation:

"[I]t is [Jesus Christ's] will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites [i.e., Native Americans], that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles." Joseph Smith revelation, 1831.

When asked to explain this issue in greater detail, Mr. Smith said the following in 1834:

"About three years after this was given [i.e., about 1834], I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives of the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation."

As an alternative form of Christianity, the Mormons appear to be a very peaceful people. In line with the Viet Nam era slogan: "make love not war". Romney should be very proud of his heritage. That also explains the somewhat pronounced cheekbones.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to emmafinney

I do not believe anybody, without checking the facts. Moore does, however, have a point of view - worth taking into account. He overstates issues - but so do people on the right wing of politics.

Josh_US Lux in reply to emmafinney

Which is about the greatest nonsense I've read on this topic. In Germany, you can enter the university track at any stage of your life, even if you've already COMPLETED the apprentice track and WORKED.

The German apprentice system makes for the probably best skilled non-academic workers in the world, blue and white collars alike, and you can even make it to top managerial positions with no more than an apprenticeship on your c.v., such as the current CEO of Deutsche Telekom.


Count me among the growing number of Americans that are prepared to leave Europe to their own devices. I will still vacation there... but there is absolutely no reason for the US to maintain naval, air, and army bases in Europe.

I am not opposed to a few, smaller installations... but we no longer need to subsidize Europe's defense.

hcollier in reply to skatkins

I quite agree. Since Europe is not being attacked with tanks and armies -- and was never likely so to be attacked since 1945 -- I cannot understand why the Americans have military bases everywhere on the planet, including Europe. Methinks it has more to do with an American desire to deter attacks on the USA, than on the need to defend other people. Americans out, and back to Kansas !


The one thing that really UNITED the NATO beyond anything and made it sustainable (well, until it existed at least) was a common enemy, the Soviet Union.

With that gone, like it or NOT, NATO IS going to fade away (US should not, cannot and will NOT fight against a billion Muslims). That's just how realpolitik works, notwithstanding the trope about "shared culture and values".


The Economist misses the point. It is not Nato that is becoming irrelevant. Europe is becoming irrelevant. Your population gets older by the day, you are not able to assimilate your migrants and your economy is less and less competitive. There is a pervasive lack of ideals among your youth. They do not want to raise kids and they do not want to work. The US has realized that and it is not their fault that you have decided to commit national suicide. But you still have a tremendous heritage of impressive achievements that can help carry you for decades in a slow decay. So, yes, Nato is becoming irrelevant but we should all look ahead. Other countries and other alliances will come and help shape the future.

skatkins in reply to DQiMTsceFh

Agreed. An emphasis on AUSNZ, Japan, S. Korea, and... cooperation with China should be the order of the day.

Leave Europe to their fine cars, wines, and cheeses... let the sun finally set on Europe.


NATO Mission in Libya is basically illegal and a war crime. Now Libya become another fail state after Iraq and Afghanistan. USA and NATO are creating one fail state after the other.

Vetinarii in reply to Tao1

The mission in Libya was an exception: it actually *was* legal (sanctioned by the UNSC), proportional and reasonable. NATO did its job there well. If you want to blame anyone for failing to rebuild the state afterwards, the Arab League would be a good target for anger: they asked for NATO's intervention, they're the appropriate (international) group to follow it up.

The Afghanistan mission is also legal, but was poorly thought out, as one would expect of a war launched just weeks after 9/11. Afghanistan was failed before NATO ever looked at it.

No Blueprint for Man

"The question is how to cope with the lack of money. Mr Rasmussen’s answer is to do more with less, using “smart defence”, pooling and sharing equipment and capabilities. In theory that could eliminate duplication in some areas, while filling gaps in others. But Libya demonstrated the practical limitations of this approach."

It would be nice for TE to elaborate on how Libya demonstrated the practical limitations of this. I would have thought there is significant room for expanding this approach to larger goals.

Kurt Lessing

Anything but Georgia. We don't need an undemocratic dictatorship that tried to start the third world war, thank you very much.

Amicus_Plato in reply to Kurt Lessing

Yes, enroll Russia, the other side in the conflict. They've got plenty of nukes and have been heavily rearming since at least 2007.

Their military exercises are certainly a lot of fun for guys like Kurt Lessing who is scared of the Georgian warfare provoking the 3rd WW. They've even pushed into simulating the nuclear attack on Poland, whatever you say being a NATO and EU member,during their excellent Zapad 2009 war game with another possible candidate to join NATO, Mr. Lukashenko unestimable democratic "Kristallrein" Belarus boss.

I'd have a lot of laugh, weren't such opinions frequent among the Western enlightened public.

emmafinney in reply to Amicus_Plato

You have to excuse Kurt, obviously he lives in a country without a free media.

How else to explain how he conveniently left out the fact Russia under a Putin is even more undemocratic. I suppose all those Russian journalists who get mysteriously murdered can be blamed on the Georgians too.

His moral compass is so warped that he is beyond help. Funny thing is after sometime he starts believing his own lies.

However his remarks serve a useful purpose. It exposes how easily Germans are brainwashed by their political and media elites.

It is not a secret that Germnany's political elites kiss Russia's butt for cheap and easy access to oil and gas. The German media follows the line.

I suppose being Russia's poodle entails demonising Russia's opponents. So sad. We would have thought Germans of all people should be wary of demonising any nation after producing Goebbels.

Kurt Lessing in reply to emmafinney

Usual American stupidity. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Saddam is an enemy of Khomeini, so he's my friend.
Bin Laden is an enemy of the Soviets, so he's my friend.
Karzai is an enemy of the Taliban, so he's my friend.
I am not a fan of Putin. I just don't believe that trading nukes with him would be an advantageous deal.
And Saakashvili's enmity towards the Russians does not make him a democrat. By the way, if you are so keen to play high noon with the Russians, wouldn't you rather have Washington calling the shots instead of Tbilissi?

emmafinney in reply to Kurt Lessing

What are you blabbering about?

The issue was your one-sided clearly morally warped view of the Georgian/Russian conflict where you conveniently left out the fact Russia under Putin is even more undemocratic than Georgia.
Funny how you felt compelled to point out the undemocratic creditionals of Saakaskvili but not Putin.

American stupidity? That is highly amusing from someone who hails from the place which produced the most stupidiest ideologies of all - nazism, fascism & communism. Clearly it takes stupid people to produce stupid ideologies. So I gather you are projecting European stupidity onto Americans?

emmafinney in reply to Kurt Lessing

"I just don't believe that trading nukes with him would be an advantageous deal."

And who has advocated trading nukes with Russia?

Oh it was just a figment of your imagination which you have now come to believe as a fact.

This is what I meant by believing your own lies ....

Jimmy Gatts

We have found an alternate, cheaper deterrent to NATO: imminent bankruptcy and massive social unrest.
No danger of the Ruskies invading us anytime soon.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

