© Kay Nietfeld / www.globallookpress.com
American President Donald Trump has called NATO "obsolete" in an interview with
The Times back in January. The US president's view mirrors that of generations of Americans and Europeans who've wondered at the purpose of the military alliance since the fall of the Soviet Union. In Brussels and Berlin though, the bureaucrats and vested interests scurry like frenzied jungle monkeys posturing to save a paper tiger protector.
NATO is a paper tiger, you know? But first let me clarify, for those of you reading who are too young to have heard this terms before. The term "paper tiger" comes from the Chinese phrase zhilaohu (紙老虎), which means -
"something that seems threatening but is ineffectual and unable to withstand challenge". This is the fact of the matter of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO). Since its formation in 1949 this military alliance has only proven one thing, its ineffectiveness as either a peacekeeping force - its utter uselessness for the purpose it was instituted for.
NATO nations spend 70% of the money spent on military and defense, and the organization has never won a war or deterred chaos. NATO is mostly a home for useless armchair warriors and a country club of unneeded bureaucrats.
NATO's first Secretary General, Winston Churchill's chief military assistant Lord Ismay, stated back in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Not a lot has changed in nearly seven decades, except the Germans are up and most Europeans are down. Oh, and the fact America may be "out" soon. As for Russia wanting "in", there is no convincing evidence to show Europe has anything Russia needs except gas money. Moving on, the history of NATO's military effectiveness is dubious at best, catastrophic in the worst case. Let me illustrate for you.
Comment: While the AP can claim that China risks 'exacerbating a cycle of repression,' what they don't mention is the fact that China's 'radical Islam' problem is made in the USA. Of course this is part of the strategy - foment revolutionary conditions and then blame the government for 'cracking down' on the problem.
In an interesting development Al Jazeera reports that top Communist officials are now drawing comparisons with Trump to justify their approach: