Why NATO? Economically the US and the EU are deadly enemies!

Convincing argument!
Yet, the very chaos , according to the view which prevail, in EU and USA is, that the forces at work
to manage the chaos need the combined resources of both economies. The fact remains that the US is the biggest spender in the world for military spending, and the her deterrent absence would encourage the
Immediate destabilization of world peace. For that reason alone, a NATO as a military alliance cannot be suddenly disengaged from being a sort of policeman of the world.

Where did I hear that term before? The joint power of NATO imposes constraints upon the forces which would do Europe harm.

In addition, there are still very staunch and formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding against such fairly recent, and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany. The geopolitical map of Europe, is a fairly recent development, and East and West conflict did not totally erase from the consciousness of former belligerents, not even 2 generations old.

In addition, political expediency and rationale for Capitalism is inherently combative, even within the fabric of an individual society. It is differentiated as an acceptable social psychological element and rationale.

The events in Europe are being staged by the American CIA and its allies. More specifically Turkey.

The goal of these events is to make Europe more reliant on American power and hegemony so that when the real world war arrives the Europeans will volunteer themselves in the sacrifice of coming to the United States military aid.

It’s all an international psyop.

Who said that the United States have to be “the biggest spender in the world for military spending”?

What term do you mean? The following sentence?

Do you mean this sentence?

East Germany is now West Poland and West Russia. Middle Germany is now called “East” Germany, and that is incorrect. And there is no peace contract. So the Germany as the German Reich (Deutsches Reich) still exists. All the huge reparations and other productive an monetary payments are paid by Germans because of the existence of the German Reich. And I remember well, when the “Iron Curtain” fell and many Polish and Russian people were willing to give the German territorries back to Germany. So where are those “formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany”. I have never met such “enemies”.

These “enemies” are produced by Westerners.

No, the West-East-Conflict (Cold War) was a “fairly recent development”. The geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict was relatively similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict, but the geopolitical map of Europe during the West-East-Conflict was neither similar to the geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict nor similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict. So the development you are talking about is not “fairly recent” as you said but fairly similar to an older development.

By the enemies of Germany, I did not mean to single out Germany per se, only to use it as an example of how the major power within the organization of European states may react , albeit through Angela, to enemies, generally.

Of course these are not the old enemies of WW2 infame, but those that are exemplified by the perceived ones behind the recent Brussels bombing.
These are covert enemies, not only of Belgium, but as prescribed by the greater area of the European Union.

NATO is better positioned to be of a defensive posture, not because of the US huge military, as a willful military partner of EU, but as the asked for assistance of military co-operation by EU, due to their underfunding of their share of military spending.

The above may be arguable, but the bottom line is that military alliances are formed and retained are better equipped to fight enemies.


A defensive military alliance that attacks the rest of the world but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories is no real military alliance, at least no defensive military alliance.

You must be capable of defending yourself before you start attacking somebody, unless you want to be attacked.

NATO means US domination and US global domination and the prospect of an endless war. I am against this megalomania.

If there were an equitable or at least a democratic structure within the NATO (there is nothing except US dictatorship), then it would be a little bit possible to have a defensive alliance again (but does anybody believe that?).

The only way Europe will be free of United States influence, control, and its military is if the United States collapses or if a popular resistance in Europe is started to shake off United States hegemony.

Also Arminius, look up the CIA political assassination and perception management program within Europe called Operation Gladio.

The latter requires that the Europeans start protecting themselves - and by “protecting themselves” I only mean “defending themselves” (thus not attacking others - if possible).

I see no will to self protecting in Europe. I merely see egocentric greed, overprotected young (I mean those few who are NOT aborted) Europeans, … and so on … , thus: decadence.

Okay, I also see that there is still a huge potential, but is is not activated.


The world’s economy is collapsing including the United States and Europe. That’s prime opportunity for said minority of European resistance groups. :wink:

Remember, all revolutions start at first with a minority of the population.

To be honest, I am not the one who deeply believes in so-called “revolutions”, because they are paid, thus made by almost those who should be overthrown by this so-called “revolutions”. “Revolutions” are historical games - more or less. Having said that, I would never say that there is no upheavel possible. And you and I know that catastrophes, regardless whether they are natural or economical/political/societal catastrophes, are always possible and do cyclically occur - for sure.

So I still believe in the hopefully peaceful chance of those Europeans (also those who do not live in Europe) who are currently powerless.

Peace is an illusion. The world revolves around fight or be enslaved and die. There is no middle ground.

suppose that larger forces are at work here, historical processes not easily overthrown. The revolutions of 1848 are analyzable in terms of re-arranging systems of aristocratic rule, which for the most part were Austrian dominated in Europe. What really happened was the power transform from their hegemony , by simoltenious conceptual brackeup, of the then European Union, - The Holy Roman Empire. The Napolionic wars were again such attempt at unification, so the effort was neither unique nor new.

Power shifts, territorial claims, unreasonable actions based on singular dispositions were some of the underlying fundamentals causing the shifts, and revolutions of re-distributions of power and wealth were always cumulative results.

I am no fan of extreme forms of Capitalism, but new trade practices, new rising classes, made conflict inevoidable on the continent. However, Capitalism did flow out of the new laissez faire mentality of these rising bourgeoise , and they themselves are at the brink, in their lack of control, humanism and rationality.

They are the international Capitalistic constituency.
The protection of Capital is sacrosanct and a new revolution would not be new, but a re-affirmation of thr Russian model. The reason NATO still stands, is because, the ‘communist threat’ is still alive and well in the minds of those, who lived through it in leading positions. Putin is an example of this kind of person, and some pundits say, he would like nothing better to bring back those good old days. It had been a mere generation since the ideology of communism fell, due mostly to economic and not ideological factors, and the fall was so rapid, unexpected, that the new world wide capitalism was too vested among those power brokers who control most of the world’s military, as well.

I see an implosion most likely, and that is an event that is most likely to eclipse any kind of revolution which could be garnered.

There is some good news coming out of the Trump camp, which in principle will please people who think Eropean and Asian US military presence should be financed by more regional spending on it, and it has made me see Trump in a much better light. The nations in question, relying less on US military presence, still feeling voulnerable to foreign intervention, may see the balance of power, more in terms of their ability to build up and finance their own militaries. And that is, if they really feel threatened.

However, a military threat is often a cloak for power dominance by other nations, so that, if a negative view of mankind is taken as a social-psychological trait, then nations looked at generically, will oft exhibit such traits.

Therefore for some , military organizations are still necessary as an assurance against such UN-sorted problems.

Opinion is confusingly divided, as to whether the US is still THE major power, and many believe that the next major player is China, not the US. So varied theories, and projections floating around differ as to the ability to weigh the true intentions of what some consider a fading empire.

That minus the social homogeneity in the US, descriptions of pride do manifest within the society, but not to the degree, that more homogeneous societies exhibit. Therefore jumping to the conclusion that national pride and megamalona is at the heart of US ‘imperialism’ , sounds like a communist swan song of outmoded , reactionary rhetoric.

However, within the US military circles, there too, exist the similar wish to go back to the time during the WW2 era, when pride in the military became a national Paradigmn.

My point is, that a necessary overview and analysis of power motives have become many leveled, studied by military organizations, think tanks, and academic circles associated with military funding and research and development. Oversight by congressional committees also wield the power of other, influential points of view.

It is very difficult to take a neutral position of varied views, but it is sometimes essential to remain impartial.

I meant “peace” as the opposite of “war”. We need to have such opposite words and concepts.

Changes are also possible without catastrophes, One example is the peaceful “revolution” that led to the fall of the “Iron Curtain” and the end of the “Cold War”, the conflict between the West and the East. There was no war in Europe between May 1945 and June 1991 (when the Yugoslav war[s] started) - except terrosrism or civil wars in Northern Ireland and in the Basque region. And the said peaceful “revolution” of 1989/'90 was a change without violence but left the old violence behind it and led to a new violence in Yugoslavia. So it is possible to get change without violence, but the peaceful “revolutions” are nevertheless more the “exceptions to the rule” than the “rule” itself.

If we did not know the meaning of “peace”, then we would also not know the meaning of “war”. This is what dictators usually instrumentalize, exploit. Then “peace” means war, and “war” means peace. George Orwell described this very well by reference to the dictatorship in the Soviet Union. The Romans called the brutal captures and conquests “befriended” (loosely translated), although they had just killed most of the inhabitants of those “befriended” countries.

We need to have opposite words like “war” and “peace” for understanding, for knowledge, for philosophy, for wisdom. To not know what opposite words like „war“ and „peace“ mean means to not know what war and peace are.

Do times without war in the countries “A” and “B” mean “peace is everywhere”? No. War is often (thus: not always) exported into foreign countries. So at last it is very probable that there is war almost everywhere just because of the peace of few humans who live in peace. But does that mean that peace is an illusion? No.

How did Heraklitos (Heraclitus) know that war existed? He knew it because he also knew that peace existed. And that does not mean that his famous formula about war is false.

Naturally we humans are almost like animals, but culturally we humans are not animals. I would say the ratio is 98% (nature) versus 2% (culture). But the effects of this little 2% are vast. Look at our genome. There is only little genetic difference between humans and bonobos, but the effects of that little difference are vast. And this is not only because of nature but very much more (probably also 98%) because of culture.

The ratio between war and peace is almost like the ratio between nature and culture.

Peace does not mean “passivity” or “laziness”, although it often leads to such behaviors. Therefore it was said in former times: “War is inevitable”. But it was not meant as “peace is an illusion”.

I too believe that economic “rivalry” does not stand in the way of forming a military alliance and mutual agreements on that front.

The exact name of the “Holy Roaman Empire” was “Holy Roman Empire of German Nation”. So it was a German Empire. And since 1438 it had been ruled by the house of Habsburg, in the mean time, but merely for three years (1742-1745) by the house of Wittelsbach. It was dissolved after about 1000 years, in 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon wanted a French empire instead of the German empire. The whole Occidental history can be described as the attempts of copying the ancient Roman empire. The EU is such an attempt too. But note: The modern Europeans are especially jealous, and therefore I do not believe in the EU project as it is put into practice. The jealous neighbors of Germany are whining that “the EU is dominated by Germany”, but in reality the EU has always been dominated by Germany. So what? It is because of this jealousy and the lack of a real European solidarity that makes it so difficult to find a real political unit. It is not the Old Europe but the New Europe that lacks a real European solidarity too much. So if the economical part of the EU becomes problematic, then the total collapse will follow, because the non-economical parts of the EU will still be too weak.

And if there is no real military partnership (and that can only be a defensive alliance without an US dictatorship) between Europe and the United States anymore, then there might be one between Europe and Russia or/and between Europe and China. The best way for the Europeans is that they start protecting themselves - and by “protecting themselves” I only mean “defending themselves” (thus not attacking others - if possible). Currently I see no will to self protecting in Europe. I merely see egocentric greed, overprotected young (I mean those few who are NOT aborted) Europeans, … and so on … , thus: decadence. Okay, I also see that there is still a huge potential, but is is not activated.