The Libyan War Is On Track To Be Africa's First Full-On Intracontinental War In Decades And A Test For NATO

A seagull flies in front of an oil platform in the Bouri Oilfield north of the coast of Libya. Reuters

Candace Rondeaux, World Politics Review: NATO could face its ultimate test in a growing African proxy war

* Libya's ongoing civil war has drawn in its African neighbors as well as nearby European countries, including NATO members.
* Those powers are on different sides in the conflict, and the potential for clashes between them presents a distinct challenge for NATO and for US and European security goals.

With Egypt reportedly on the brink of invading neighboring Libya, and troops from Chad said to be on their way north to join Gen. Khalifa Haftar in his fight to topple the internationally recognized government in Tripoli, what was already a complicated proxy war could soon become Africa's first full-on intracontinental war in decades.

That may not be all that is at risk, however. If Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi delivers on his promise to come to Haftar's aid, it could also result in a serious setback for two key American and European security priorities: securing the volatile Eastern Mediterranean and stabilizing the increasingly fragile NATO alliance.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The war is already happening. We are in the escalation phase. And as for NATO and its role in this conflict, the organization is going to keep its distance.

After Almost 70 Years NATO Is In Better Shape than Most People Think

Dan Runde, The Hill: The state of NATO is better than you think

Foreign ministers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will gather in Washington on April 3 and 4 to celebrate the organization’s 70th anniversary. We should celebrate that NATO has been the most successful alliance of all time, preventing a major great-power war such as World War I and World War II, during which 15 to 20 million and 62 to 78 million people died, respectively.

In the context of NATO’s success, we should review the criticisms of the organization — particularly burden-sharing.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I see NATO staying around for another few more decades.

Europe Cannot Stand Behind The U.S. When It Comes To Supporting NATO

FRONT AND CENTER: President Donald Trump jovially greeted fellow world leaders on Wednesday afternoon at the opening ceremony of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's leader's summit in Brussels

Ramon Marks, National Interest: Reality Check: NATO's Defense Budget Woes Won't Disappear

Europe cannot hide forever behind the military skirts of the United States.

Western Europe and the United States are at loggerheads over any number of issues, ranging from Iran, the Climate Accord, trade, the recognition of Jerusalem, to NATO military contributions. While the Atlantic partners share common democratic values and feed off the prosperity of one and other, fundamental geopolitical fissures are emerging that are more than surface frictions created by passing political personalities on either side of the ocean. Two crowning achievements of the post World War II era, NATO and the European Union, are experiencing real strains reflecting long developing imbalances. If these institutions are to remain effective contributors to global stability in the twenty-first century, the need for strategic adjustment is inevitable.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: NATO and Europe have changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately .... many European governments are still living in the past, expecting the U.S. to shoulder the financial burden of supporting NATO. Will this mindset change? In the short term the answer is a definite no.

Is NATO's Eastern Countries Rearming Because Of President Trump?

FRONT AND CENTER: President Donald Trump jovially greeted fellow world leaders on Wednesday afternoon at the opening ceremony of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's leader's summit in Brussels

Ott Ummelas, Bloomberg: NATO's East Is Rearming, But It's Because of Putin, Not Trump

* Eastern European members raise spending on weapons systems
* U.S. President says he added $41 billion to allied purchases

Donald Trump has taken credit for a rise in military spending by NATO states, but in the alliance’s eastern reaches, it’s his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who’s driving the rearming effort.

Last month, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thanked the U.S. President for “clearly having an impact” on defense spending by allies while Trump said his demands had added $41 billion to European and Canadian defense outlays.

But the jump in acquisitions behind the former Iron Curtain of aircraft, ships and armored vehicles began when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, well before Trump’s 2016 election victory, according to analysts including Tomas Valasek, director of Carnegie Europe in Brussels. While the median defense expenditure of NATO members is 1.36 percent of gross domestic product, below the alliance’s requirement of 2 percent, eastern members comprise seven of the 13 members that are paying above that level.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The security situation in eastern Europe was changing long before President Trump was elected, but you cannot help but feel that his election did speed up the arms buildup that is now occurring.

Is NATO's Problem Political?

Gabriel Elefteriu, Foreign Relations: NATO’s problem is political, not strategic

THE recent NATO summit that took place in Brussels on 11-12 July ended with an effusive endorsement of the Alliance by the man who many feared had come to blow it up. “Now we’re very happy”, President Trump said in his concluding press conference before adding that “the United States was not being treated fairly but now we are”, and that “I believe in NATO, I think NATO is a very important, probably the greatest ever done [sic]”. There was much more in this vein as the president extolled the “great unity, great spirit, great esprit de corps” achieved amongst the Alliance leaders during “a fantastic two days” – and the “$33 billion” extra cash he claimed to have extracted for NATO from its members.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: A thoughtful assessment/analysis on the current U.S.-EU-NATO relationship. As to what is my take. NATO was always a political-military instrument, and it has had many up and down moments throughout its history. And while there is a problem of trust between the U.S. and some NATO governments right now, I have seen this before (height of the Cold War when President Reagan was in power, how to respond to the Yugoslav civil war, etc.), and yes .... I am optimistic that these differences will be brushed aside and/or accommodated with time.

Update: I know the person who is behind this new website .... Foreign Relations. He is also someone that I highly recommend. Over the past few years I have noticed that he has an insight in European trends that are a year or two ahead of the foreign policy experts. So bookmark his site. You will not be disappointed.

Does NATO Have A Money Problem?

William D. Hartung Director, Defense One: NATO Already Vastly Outspends Russia. Its Problems Are Not About Money.

The alliance’s security issues can’t be fixed by a traditional military buildup.

President Trump’s dismissal of Russian interference in the 2016 election – choosing to believe Vladimir Putin over U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies – has rightly sparked outrage and astonishment. But we shouldn’t let Trump’s disgraceful performance in Russia overshadow the other key issues raised by his recent trip.

In particular, Trump’s tantrum over the need for NATO allies to spend more on defense deserves greater scrutiny. Whether the goal is 2 percent of GDP – the alliance’s long-stated goal – or 4 percent, a fantastic figure Trump floated as well – the real question is whether NATO or the United States need to spend more on traditionally military assets to ensure their security. Contrary to Trump’s assertions, the answer is no.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The only part of the above commentary that I agree with is his remarks on how NATO spends its money. When Germany spends over $40 billion on defense and can only field a few working fighter aircraft .... you know you have a problem. The author's focus on cyber attacks and Russian propaganda are also nothing new, and if that was the only threat, our defense budgets would be a fraction of what they are. As to the authors concerns about "combating the rise of right-wing, and in some cases neo-fascist parties; finding an equitable solution to its refugee crisis; and reforming its political and economic system to give hope to those left behind by European integration" .... these are political issues where the author has adopted the progressive view. But NATO was not established for this. NATO is a political-military alliance that was established to face foreign threats like the former Soviet Union. NATO was not established to counter the internal threats that this author fears.

Should The U.S. Defend Places Like Montenegro?

DW: NATO hits back at President Trump's Montenegro World War III remarks

NATO has been forced to reassert its collective defense clause after Donald Trump raised doubt over the US' commitment to defending Balkan partner Montenegro. The US President described Montenegrins as "very aggressive."

NATO officials on Wednesday scrambled to reassert the alliance's collective defense clause — commonly referred to as Article 5 — after US President Donald Trump appeared to suggest NATO's newest member Montenegro could instigate World War III.

A NATO official told Germany's DPA news agency that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was "unconditional and iron-clad," reaffirming that "an attack on one is an attack on all."

In a television interview Tuesday night, Trump appeared to cast doubt over the US' commitment to defending NATO partner Montenegro in the event of an attack. Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked Trump "why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack," to which the president responded "I've asked the same question."

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I have always advocated that a debate is needed on what is the purpose of NATO, the role and contribution of its members, what should be its strategic goals, and as we have learned recently .... how to respond to its own members when they make decisions that directly impact the safety of the alliance (Germany on energy and Turkey buying the S-400 defense systems to name a few recent incidents). Because lets face facts .... the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ended 27 years ago. But even though the world has changed, NATO continues to operate in the same manner as it did decades ago. Unfortunately .... as it was revealed yesterday when President Trump and Tucker Carlson decided to discuss the issue .... the foreign policy establishment and the media do not want this debate, and for good reason. They know that the mass majority of Americans do not want to send their sons and daughters to defend places like Montenegro. The never-ending wars in Afghanistan and in the Middle East has taught Americans to be very skeptical when leaders talk about defense commitments and security .... and they do not need me anymore to explain why.

More News On President Trump's Remarks On Montenegro

Trump blasts Montenegro, questions NATO mutual defense -- AFP
Trump calls out 'very aggressive' Montenegro in latest NATO jibe -- NBC
Montenegro could get aggressive and lead us into World War III: Trump's bizarre attack on a NATO ally after Fox News's Tucker Carlson asks why should 'my son go to Montenegro to defend it' -- Daily Mail
Trump: Supporting Tiny NATO Ally Montenegro Could Start WWIII -- Military.com/Stars and Stripes
Trump Ponders NATO Article 5: Montenegro 'May Get Aggressive & You're in WWIII' -- Sputnik
Trump Goes After Montenegro, a ‘Tiny Country’ With ‘Aggressive People’ -- Krishnadev Calamur, The Atlantic
Why the US is obligated to defend Montenegro -- Ryan Browne, CNN

Is NATO In A State Of Crisis?

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to hold a news conference after participating in the NATO Summit in Brussels, Belgium July 12, 2018. REUTERS/Reinhard Krause

Robin Emmott, Reuters: Trump's portrayal of NATO in crisis carries risks for alliance

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Donald Trump’s portrayal of NATO as an alliance in crisis has raised concern that the U.S. president’s nagging criticism might erode U.S. public support and risk America’s commitment to collective defense, diplomats said.

Allies emerged confused and shaken from a two-day NATO summit in which Trump harangued them over perceived under- spending on defense, accused Germany of being a prisoner to Russian energy and prompted an emergency meeting of leaders trying to contain the fallout from the unexpected tirade at one session.

NATO diplomats complained that the drama around Trump’s forthright comments had overshadowed big decisions that the allies took in areas from defense spending to new weapons and strategies to address Russia’s efforts to destabilize the West through cyber and covert attacks.

“There was a gap between the Trumpian-generated idea that there is some kind of crisis and the reality that this was one of the most substantial summits for years,” one senior NATO diplomatic source told Reuters.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: It is an alliance that was originally put together to counter the Soviet threat during the Cold War. That was then .... today the threat is long gone, and what we now have is an organization that is made up of member states who say one thing on the need to work together, but act completely different when their own personal interests are at stake. Germany's claim that Russia is a threat while signing billions in energy deals with them is just one example of this hypocricy .... I can name scores of others. So yes .... the alliance is in crisis, and it has nothing to do with President Trump. He is just stating the obvious.

Washington Needs NATO To Make Up For An Over-Extended U.S. Military. But Does Europe Get It?

Gary Schmitt, National Interest: NATO Is Hampered by America's Inability to Wage a Two-Front War

Washington needs Brussels to make up for an over-extended U.S. military. But does Europe get it?

For much of the post-World War II era, the United States believed it required a military capable of fighting and winning two major conflicts at once. In no small measure, this was a legacy of the war just fought, with action in the Pacific against Imperial Japan and in Europe against Nazi Germany. But it was also a product of the nature of the threat posed by Soviet-led communism, which seemed determined to dominate the Eurasian landmass on both its eastern and western ends, including the Middle East. The two-war standard also had the advantage of giving America a built-in surge capacity for the unexpected war that went over and above its deterrence posture in Asia and Europe—a capacity that came into good use, for example, in the First Gulf War against Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The European governments and Canada are more focused on maintaining their trade surpluses with the U.S. (or minimizing the impact of U.S. tariffs) than spending money on their defense budgets that would satisfy U.S. concerns. In short .... they do not get it, even while declaring that Russia is a threat but criticising President Trump for saying that NATO members should do more.

The Fate Of NATO Lies In Europe's Hands, Not President Trump's

Soldiers with the U.S. Army’s First Infantry Division take part in Allied Spirit VIII multinational exercises in Hohenfels, Germany, January 2018. (Private First Class Shelton Smith/US Army)

Jerry Hendrix, NRO: European Security: Who Wants It?

The Europeans must show a commitment to NATO by increasing spending and modernizing their military forces.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a source of strength for the United States and the nations of Europe, but Europe is endangering NATO’s continued existence through its own actions. If NATO is to remain an effective mutual-assistance defense force, then all the member states must step up and demonstrate their willingness and ability to bear their portion of the burden of alliance membership. Make no mistake, it is Europe’s unwillingness to do so thus far, and not the election of President Donald Trump, that has created the vacuum that invited the present reevaluation of NATO’s future. When it comes to mutual security in Europe, the question that currently haunts the continent is “How much does Europe want it?”

Read more ....

WNU editor: Jerry Hendrix is right when he says the following ....

.... So, as President Trump makes his trip to Brussels and then on to Helsinki, it would be best for European leaders to understand that the future of the alliance lies not in his hands, but theirs.

Unfortunately .... I doubt that European leaders are going to make the commitment to make that happen.

Is NATO Obsolete?

Christian Whiton, National Interest: NATO Is Obsolete

"Europe is prosperous and treats America like a patsy. Let it stand on its own."

Before President Donald Trump attempts real diplomacy with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in Helsinki on July 16, he'll first be subjected to another summit. That first summit is a gathering of leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These leaders continually assure the United States they are America's best allies, even as most contribute little to America's defense and rack up huge trade surpluses with the United States. Trump will insist on a better deal but should go farther and wind down U.S. membership in NATO.

After the alliance was established in 1949, its first secretary general, Lord Hastings Ismay, summed up its purpose concisely: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” The unofficial mission matched the time well: Western Europe’s postwar future was clouded by the prospect of a Soviet invasion, American insularity, or German militarism—all possible given the preceding decades of history.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: For years I was a staunch supporter of NATO, But now I am not sure. The problem that I have is that while NATO countries have been persistent in declaring that NATO is necessary in view of the Russian threat, they are not backing up their warnings with increased defense spending or insuring the readiness of their military. I have read to many reports like this one to make me believe otherwise .... Germany's Air Force Is Dying a Slow Death (Michael Peck, The National Interest). So .... is NATO obsolete? My answer is no for the moment, but I do see this alliance fracturing within a decade or two .... even quicker if the Ukraine crisis and war cane be solved diplomatically. Either way I would like to see a debate on this issue. If not in NATO, at least in the U.S..

Could NATO Survive If The U.S. Withdraws?

VOA: Could NATO Survive without US Support?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is seeking ways to save NATO if the United States decides to cut back on its support for the alliance.

European leaders are not sure what to expect under the new U.S. administration.

President Donald Trump has questioned the future of the 67-year-old alliance, calling it “obsolete.”

Trump accused European nations of not paying their fair share to support NATO operations. In addition, he has said the alliance has not been used effectively to fight terrorism.

On Thursday, British Prime Minister Theresa May said she believes NATO should continue guaranteeing the security of Europe. But she thinks the alliance needs to be reformed.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Of course NATO would survive without U.S. support .... but it will be a shell of its former self, and it will not be able to sustain military operations over any long period of time.

NATO's Baltic Tripwire Will Not Stop Russia

(Click on Image to Enlarge)

Daily Mail

Dianne Pfundstein Chamberlain, National Interest: NATO's Baltic Tripwire Forces Won't Stop Russia

At the recent Warsaw Summit, NATO formally announced its plan to station four battalions in the Baltics starting in early 2017 to deter Russian aggression—one each in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and an American battalion in Poland. These small forces are intended to serve as “tripwires” signaling to Russia that an attack on one of these states would result in immediate escalation to a full-blown conflict with NATO. That is, the four battalions are supposed to convince Russia that moving against one of its Baltic neighbors would not be worth the risk of a wider war with the United States and its European allies.

The NATO tripwire force will not deter Russia from advancing into the Baltics if it wishes to do so. Simply put—cheap force cannot signal high resolve. For a country as powerful and wealthy as the United States, it will cost relatively little to station a battalion in Poland. The fact that the deployment does not impose any real risk or cost on the United States and its NATO allies means that it cannot credibly signal to Russia that the alliance is sufficiently motivated to escalate the use of force to a level necessary to expel Russia from one of the Baltic states if and when deterrence fails.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: I concur. If Russia wanted to invade .... a few NATO soldiers on the border will not stop them. Fortunately .... there is really no appetite in Russia to invade and occupy the Baltics, Ukraine, and Poland .... let alone the rest of Europe. But if the impossible becomes true and Russia  invades the Baltics .... it would be to protect the Russian civilian populations who live in these countries .... and even then such an invasion would only happen if countless lives are being lost and a humanitarian crisis has reached crisis proportions.

What Is The Role Of NATO Today?

Robin Wright, New Yorker: What Does NATO Do, Anyway?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or nato, the largest and most powerful military alliance in history, is not usually fodder for election-year politicking. But in an interview with the Times earlier this week, Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump said that the United States should not automatically honor nato’s core principle of mutual defense, specifically if Russia invaded several newer members of the alliance, the three strategic Baltic states and former Soviet republics—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. In a sharp rebuke, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Thursday that the principle of mutual defense is “ironclad.” He told reporters, “There should be no mistake or miscalculation made about this country’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance.”

nato’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned, “We defend one another. . . . Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for the security of the United States.” Solidarity among allies is “a key value for nato,” he said, in a statement. Trump’s comments came under fire from fellow-Republicans, too. “Statements like these make the world more dangerous and the United States less safe,” Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, tweeted.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Donald Trump has been raising this issue during this election cycle .... and the media/pundits/ and many in Europe have condemned him for it. But as the above New Yorker post reveals .... the debate on what should be the role of NATO is starting.

NATO Struggles To Stay Credible

The Economist

Steven Erlanger, New York Times: Tested by Russia, NATO Struggles to Stay Credible

BRUSSELS — Six weeks before a critical summit meeting aimed at bolstering NATO’s deterrence against a resurgent Russia, the alliance is facing a long list of challenges. The first is to find a country to lead the last of four military units to be deployed in Poland and the three Baltic nations.

But that, analysts say, could be the least of its problems.

Security concerns are as high now as they have been since the end of the Cold War. As the immigration crisis has strained relations within the Continent, anxieties have been heightened by Russian military offensives in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and a bombing campaign in Syria that has demonstrated Moscow’s rapidly increasing capabilities. Lately, Russia has talked openly about the utility of tactical nuclear weapons.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: Talk about looking for a mission .... and failing to get even minimal support. This is not surprising .... there is no leadership .... there is especially no U.S. Presidential leadership. And lacking such high-powered leadership .... NATO will always be struggling to stay relevant and credible.

Top NATO General And NATO Sec. General Discuss How NATO Is Meeting New Threats

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Phillip Breedlove. NATO Photo

Jens Stoltenberg And Philip M. Breedlove, WSJ: How NATO Is Meeting New Threats

Our new Spearhead Force is up and running, and a 30,000-man Response Force is next.

This month more than 15,000 troops from 22 nations are taking part in Allied Shield, a series of exercises designed to test the strength and readiness of NATO and allied armed forces.

In the Baltic Sea, 50 ships and submarines and more than 50 aircraft from 17 countries are taking part in our 43rd Baltic Operations exercise. On land in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, a further 6,000 troops from 10 nations are taking part in Exercise Saber Strike. In Romania, Exercise Trident Joust is testing our ability to command our forces in the field.

We are in Poland this week to meet and see allied forces take part in Exercise Noble Jump, the first deployment of NATO’s new Very High Readiness “Spearhead Force.” This exercise brings together more than 2,000 troops from nine NATO countries, including Czech and Dutch paratroopers, German and Norwegian infantry, Polish and Lithuanian special forces, Belgian artillery, U.S. helicopters and a Hungarian civil-military cooperation unit.

WNU Editor: The training exercises are starting now .... New NATO force, thousands of other troops train in Poland, Baltic region to reassure members (AP) .... but NATO's long term problems still remain .... Nato to 'name and shame' countries which fail to meet defence budget target (The Independent).

Could A Small Estonian Town Spell the End Of NATO?

Tourism Narva

The Tiny Estonian Town That Could Spell the End Of NATO -- Michael Ben-Gad, The Week/The Conversation

Will Putin call NATO's bluff?

The Russian invasion and rapid absorption of the Crimean peninsula might seem like the spark ready to ignite a new Cold War. In fact, given the feeble Western response so far, the more likely outcome is not the division of Europe once more between NATO's Western alliance and a neo-Soviet Russia, but rather the fracturing and ultimate demise of NATO and the Western alliance itself.

Of course, no one expects the West to use military force to protect Ukrainian territory, despite the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Russia, the U.S., and the U.K. guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for its relinquishing the nuclear weapons that remained on its territory after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet even the Russians now seem surprised, indeed somewhat amused, by how disunited and weak the Western response has been. So what comes next?

Read more ....

My Comment: How Russians are treated in Estonia has always made my blood boil. My uncle's dacha is south of Saint Petersburg and a few kilometers from the Estonian border .... and there are many in that part of Russia who have family and love ones in Estoinia .... and all of them know how Russians are being are treated as second class citizens (if even then). But fear not NATO .... I am very confident in saying that Russia is not going to seize a small Estonian town to force a NATO response that would essentially be a declaration of war.

Aside The Rhetoric Few In Europe Want To Boost Defense Spending

Clockwise from lower left, President of European Union Council Herman Van Rompuy, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, France's President Francois Hollande, Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, US President Barack Obama, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barosso meet during the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague March 24, 2014. Jerry Lampen/REUTERS

Despite Crimea, Few In Europe Want To Boost Defense Spending -- Ariel Zirulnick, Christian Science Monitor

The US has repeatedly urged Europe to boost its contributions to NATO. Now concern is growing about NATO's capabilities as it faces its biggest crisis since cold war days.

When US President Barack Obama visited both NATO and European Union headquarters in Brussels yesterday, discussion of a response to Russia's moves in Ukraine was not just about the right strategy, but what NATO is even capable of today.

The Obama administration has repeatedly voiced concerns about Europe's declining contributions to NATO, criticizing its members for "subcontracting" their defense to the United States even as the US decreased its own overall commitment to NATO. But US warnings received little response; NATO was on its way out of Afghanistan, and it appeared the need for a strong military force was declining.

Read more ....

My Comment: What is the American saying? .... Money talks .... bullshit walks.

The Ukraine Crisis Is Revealing NATO's Military Decline

NATO's Military Decline -- Wall Street Journal

As Russia re-arms, the West increasingly neglects its defenses.

Vladimir Putin and his American apologists like to blame NATO's post-Cold War expansion for his territorial conquests, which ignores that the alliance refused in 2008 to let Georgia and Ukraine even begin the process of joining. Those are the two countries the Russian has since carved up, and the question now is whether Russia's expansionism will slap Western leaders out of their self-defense slumbers.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen sounded the alarm last week in a visit to Washington. "I see Crimea as an element in a greater pattern" of Russian strategy, he told an audience at the Brookings Institution. Moscow's annexation of Crimea, he said, is "a wake-up call" that "must be followed by increased European investment in defense." He might have included the U.S.

The combined GDP of NATO's 28 member states tops $30 trillion. Yet with few exceptions, most notably Poland, NATO defense expenditures have declined since the end of the Cold War. The nearby table shows the relative defense spending in 2013 for some key NATO countries as a share of GDP. Only four members—the U.S., U.K., Greece and Estonia—spent at least 2% of GDP on defense.

Read more ....

My Comment: The money was spent elsewhere .... and these policy decision are now catching up to the European politicians who made them. But what is worrisome is that Russia knows that NATO is just a shadow of it's former self .... and they are now using this advantage by doing what they want in Ukraine .... with no fear of NATO retaliation.

The Strategic Consequences Of The Euro Crisis

The Strategic Consequences Of The Euro Crisis: Cracks In NATO, New Euro Map -- Aol Defense

The Euro crisis is not simply a financial dynamic. It is the end of a period of history, the confluence of several trend lines: the unification of Germany, the end of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the expansion of NATO, the expansion of the European Union, and the creation of the single currency together constitute a unique period in modern European history.

The trend line was also defined by moving the borders of Europe eastward with the expectation that an expanded Europe would manage its own internal dynamics well and provide stability in an historically unstable region of the world.

Read more ....

My Comment: What good is a military alliance when many of it's members are too broke to sustain a viable military .... and that is the heart and essence of what Europe's debt/Euro crisis has spawn for NATO. As for everything else .... the EU as we know it will change .... with the southern nations suffering an economic depression and debt crisis that will prevent them from being serious players on the European diplomatic scene for years if not decades.