Registration was successful!
Please follow the link from the email sent to

NATO lost its purpose after the end of Cold War - VR Reader

© Сollage by RIA NovostiVR Connect
VR Connect - Sputnik International
Subscribe
On Tuesday US President Barack Obama began his European tour with high-level talks in Poland. Obama announced his decision to invest $1 billion in boosting US military presence in Eastern Europe as tensions are running high in Ukraine.

On Tuesday US President Barack Obama began his European tour with high-level talks in Poland. Obama announced his decision to invest $1 billion in boosting US military presence in Eastern Europe as tensions are running high in Ukraine. Moreover, the White House will send more military equipment to the region and rotate additional troops to "reaffirm" its commitment to NATO allies.

NATO lost its purpose after the end of Cold War - VR Reader

 

Here's what our listeners think:

Eric Norton believes that

“NATO has lost its purpose after the end of the Cold War. Rather than quietly end the organization, and you know the U.S. will NEVER give up its role in European "security," NATO has rebranded itself to be one of the world's policemen, along the lines of the U.S. and its military.

The other scary aspect is that both the U.S. and NATO are considered, at least by themselves, but they have the power to control opinion, to be able to do no wrong. Everything they do is for the "greater good." 

Michael Peck wrote:

“As an ordinary citizen, I was led to believe NATO was a defense alliance formed to wage cold war on the USSR. I wonder if Europe understood from the beginning the true purpose was expanding the reach of the biggest corporations across the world, to the detriment of domestic industries, particularly those of developing nations. There does not yet appear to be any sign that the subordinate nations in NATO understand the part for them to play is endorsement and support of Western intelligence as they destabilize, overthrow, and subdue independent governments and institute subservience to corporate rule and whatever turmoil and distress is required to that end. Does NATO membership inoculate a government against the malady that affected Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, etc.?" 

We also talked with Michael Binyon, foreign affairs writer at The Times, who expressed his opinion on exactly how reasonable a potential futher enlargement of NATO would be. Would the organization manage to move eastward in Europe, we asked. The expert believes that “It would only move to take new members if those new members clearly want to be a member of NATO and were suitable or qualified. But at the moment it doesn't look as though anybody would like to join NATO and NATO certainly has no wish to enlarge unless any members particularly request to join. I think at the moment it is absolutely clear that Ukraine neither has the wish to join nor would it be advisable for Ukraine to be a member.”

What do you think, our listeners and readers? 

Gordon DeBaker commented, saying:

“It is incredibly naive and simplistic beyond belief to think NATO exists for any other reason than as an extension of the US geopolitical presence in Europe, or that it is designed specifically as a military counter-weight to Russia. The proof of what I am saying is the massive buildup of NATO forces since the Ukraine crisis, including accelerated NATO memberships being offered without regard to whether they would be a viable addition to NATO's real mission (to restrain Russian hegemony in the region) or not.”

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала