Explained: Why was NATO established and its current purpose

in Deep Dives4 months ago

cold_smooth_tasty..png

In today's article, I will tell you the reasons for the establishment of NATO, its development and evolution. First, let's go back to the founding years of NATO. Before and after the Second World War.

Before the Second World War, the world states began to feel the water boiling, so to speak. Almost every country was establishing different agreements, pacts and friendships.

image.png
partition of eastern europe according to the molotov-ribbentrop pact

As a matter of fact, many pacts such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and Russia, and the Sadabat Pact between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan were being established. Of course, none of these pacts would exist after the World War II.

With the end of the 2nd World War, the Axis Powers lost and the Mainlands began to be shared by the Allied states. However, it did not go unnoticed by the other Allied states that the Soviet Union followed an increasingly expansionist and hasty policy.

image.png
With the end of the Second World War, the Soviets established puppet communist states between them and the Russian mainland.

Especially the USA noticed this expansionist attitude of the Soviets, and even Eisenhower, the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied armies at that time, was aware of this expansionist policy and, just in case, explained the situation to his staff such as Patton and Marshall in the US army.

The US-New France and Britain were beginning to seriously threaten the latest Soviet rush to enter Berlin. This concern has already been a process that extends to the Berlin Wall. In short, the two allies would soon engage in rivalry at Charlie Checkpoint, holding each other in the muzzle.

The Berlin Blockade by the Soviet Union led to the establishment of the Western European Union's Defense Organization in September 1948. NATO was established on April 4, 1949, after the Brussels agreement. In short, this was the founding mentality of NATO. This collective organization was established as a Euro-Atlantic alliance against the Soviet Union and later the Warsaw Pact.

image.png
After the soviets blocked the roads to west berlin, the usa started the berlin airflift. For 11 months, 2.3 tons of supplies were transported by planes. After 11 months, the soviets lifted the blockade of west berlin. For the United States, it was the most successful operation of the Cold War after landing on the Moon.

Let's come to the most crucial point of the article: NATO's situation after 1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reason and purpose of NATO began to be questioned. Some argue that NATO is brain dead, while others argue that NATO members should be established.

First of all, NATO is not a pure-blooded military organization as most people imagine. NATO is actually a military organization affiliated with the civilian bureaucracy. It would be ridiculous to argue that civilian-member policy will not have an impact on NATO.

image.png
It can be easily seen that the NATO countries and the years they joined NATO, the Warsaw Pact countries, which gained their freedom after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have just recently entered NATO. wikipedia

As we mentioned above, NATO is primarily a collective defense organization. In short, the threat perceptions in its establishment (Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact) are clear. The main problem of NATO after 1991 is the perception of threat/unclearness of the enemy.

Who is the threat: Russia? Iranian? Chinese? Syria?

There is no answer to the above question for NATO. While NATO allies sometimes respond to Syria in the Mediterranean, they sometimes appear in the Pacific with Non-Best NATO Allies (Japan, S. Korea, Australia) against China.

image.png

The main reason for this is that there are different threat perceptions within NATO member countries. For example, while Eastern European countries feel Russia on their backs, the USA is trying to trap China in the Pacific, or Turkey is collaborating with Russia in Syria and is facing each other in Libya, etc.

In particular, it is necessary to open this place a little more. Some countries within NATO have close relations with countries that may have a perceived threat. For example, situations such as Turkey's cooperation with Russia in Syria and France's ship sales to Russia caused murmurs within the alliance.

image.png
Yugoslavia conflict map, 1993

The problems within the alliance were not only after 2010, but also after 1991 in points such as Bosnia-Yugoslavia-Iraq. As a matter of fact, at this point, in operations such as Yugoslavia and Bosnia, the operation was generally dominated by the USA.

The cracks in this alliance may lead to the formation of small NATOs inside. Again, it is useful to take a look at PESCO in this regard. PESCO emerged as the European NATO. But PESCO is an organization with more flaws than NATO.

First of all, NATO is an organization in which the weight of the USA is high, in short, the USA has equipped the table financially. In PESCO, on the other hand, there is no country. Who will set the table financially: Germany? France? Spain? Italy? No answer.

image.png
Photo by Olivier Darbonville

Secondly, threat perceptions are different in PESCO, just as in NATO. Eastern Europe and Western Europe have very serious differences of opinion. Since the Russian threat level of Poland and Spain is not the same, it is almost impossible to establish a joint exercise/armament/training doctrine according to this threat. In the most hypothetical terms, the Polish will want drills every day, while the Spanish will want one drill per month. Poland will want aircraft tank rifles, Spain will consider army downsizing, etc.

Or let's think the other way around. What would be the answer of Poland, which is connected to the USA because of Russia, against a threat that may come against Spain in the future? These are vague but very, very important questions.

Thirdly, Europe has both a budget and personnel shortage. How possible is a European NATO with these problems? The answer is still unclear. Likewise, we have seen these budget and personnel problems, especially in the African operations of EU countries. EU countries experienced serious difficulties in terms of logistics and personnel. Again, the EU countries remained very weak against the Russian threat in Eastern Europe. The US came back from the Atlantic, and transport and logistics exercises of the Land Forces brigades were held here. Without the USA, EU countries would not have the capacity to conduct one-tenth of these exercises.

image.png
Eurofighter Typhoon, wikipedia

As the 4th, the projects jointly created by Europe are very sterile. The main reason for this is not the technical inadequacy of Europe, but the annoying bureaucracy inside. Single European projects are more successful than joint projects. It is possible to see this in Eurofighter/Rafale, Tiger/A-129.

As the 5th, Europe has the problem of lack of operation. This is not something that can be solved by making a handsome Swedish officer a cover photo. The fact that the French are disgraced by not being able to Scalp, Norway capsized zero ships, the Netherlands bombarded incorrectly are examples of this, and the funniest thing is that the EU does not have a serious stockpile in terms of weapons, although they are heavily dependent on NATO in matters such as logistics, they are constantly waving to NATO. It's more of a comedy.

image.png
Nato bases in Turkey, CRS

Finally, while it is so possible that only the USA, the UK and Turkey within NATO can underline statements such as NATO after 2019 and NATO 2030: Unity for the New Age, the constant confrontation of NATO countries with NATO is only to squeeze their own heels. In short, if NATO is without Turkey, it will lose a lot in the Atlantic, the Adriatic, the Mediterranean, the Balkans and the plains of Eastern Europe.

Sort:  


The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.