Readers say: NATO's future between real and alleged threats. With the US distracted ...

(To David Rossi)

Does NATO have a future and - if so - which, at a time when US geostrategic interests are mainly directed to the Asia-Pacific region? In the event of a crisis in Eastern Europe or the Near East, could a Member State possibly be involved see the actual Casus Foederis envisaged by the 5 article? The loyalty of two members (Turkey and Italy) is questioned by some observers: is it really so? Finally, who is today ... the enemy, true and / or imaginary? How many questions we asked the reader! Before giving the word to you - and letting you read articles that are very high and interesting - let me write you a personal paragraph.

Nearly twenty-three years ago, a young student of political science, I heard the very regretful teacher of History of International Relations, prof. Pietro Pastorelli, remember an episode of the late forties, when Italy was offered to join the Atlantic Pact and the famous "professini" of dossettiana memory opposed, "for the love of peace", believing that Italy would have better protected the their sovereignty and security remaining neutral between the two opposing blocs, at most, constituting an alliance of European Neutrals, along with Sweden, Austria and Switzerland, while remaining without offensive forces ”. To the question: "In case the Soviets find it easy to violate Italy to achieve strategic goals, as did the Germans in 1914 and 1940, what would we do?" The response of those beautiful souls - blessed ignorance! - was that the other neutrals would have defended us ...

Now, to those who have doubts about the alliance with the Americans - yes, NATO is this: a way to force the US to go to war with and for Europeans - I ask the same question: "If not Americans, who defends us ? "Would you trust the Russians to the point of letting them install a base in Sicily, as the Ukrainians already allowed them to Sevastopol? Do you think the fat, lazy Germans would stand up to defend Europe? Considering the French capable of "making a system" and replacing NATO with something equally efficient? If yes, lucky you ...


Samuel starts from an interesting comparison. However, we would like to point out that the Holy Roman Empire was already little more than a formality, also due to the emergence of Prussia, when in the 1804 Napoleon imposed on Francis IV to lay down the crown and the scepter descending from those of Charlemagne .

Do you remember the Holy Roman Empire? It was an agglomeration of three hundred very small states, located in central Europe. With the 1648 Peace of Westphalia these states were allowed to have their own sovereignty, the possibility of making independent alliances, having their own administration and their own army as long as they did no harm to the empire. These small states, if taken individually, did not provide great military power, but agglomerations all in a single defense could stand up to France or the Ottoman Empire. So we did in the 1949 to defend ourselves from the Soviet bloc by first creating the Atlantic Pact and then NATO.

With the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the specialization of the shipowners, NATO has become a mature and professional alliance. After all, though many will deny it, we owe it to the transformation of our army into mature professionals.

But why must NATO still exist? To defend itself from all those who threaten it. Including the same NATO members. As happened in the Holy Roman Empire. If a small state tried to expand above other states, it lost its fiefdom. An example closer to us and the denial of the United States in creating a European military alliance that could undermine NATO forces per se. Let us remember that NATO is an alliance and that it could be extended to countries outside Europe as has already happened. And as perhaps it could happen for Asia-Pacific. Also obviously to increase the arms market.

Concluding NATO is useful only if it is a unity, and it can only fall due to internal unrest as happened for the Holy Roman Empire.


Sergio, reader semper fidelis, offers us one of his best analyzes: the absence of an inimicus makes the relationships between the members more blurred.

NATO has risen against a Great Bad (the Soviet Union), and thanks to this it has grown and prospered like the good hero of comics. The aim of the organization is failing, as always, in the Evil One. Identifying a new enemy in generic terrorists was a palliative, as well as brushing up the Russian enemy, but the reality, in my opinion, is that there are no obvious bases for making it all work. The Cold War bipolar scenarios and the black and white chessboard of Noi e Loro is a prerogative of the past. From chess we ended up with a Chinese player to more players and not even very clear. You no longer win by eating, but by hopping from one side to the other. This nullifies the article 5, already nebulous and difficult to apply in more transparent situations. Imagine now.

NATO has not been able to adapt to the times. European countries are increasingly unrelated; France is the first to play a strong individual military game with a German absence, an English historical minimum and various degrees of nullity or scarce depth of the others, Italy above all. Turkey, another giant Nato, do you know what game you're playing? Having said that and without going around it, a NATO as we know it no longer makes sense. A NATO where even the US can no longer be found. And to think that there would be new enemies, but they are cunning and cannot be tackled in the "old way" and above all they are not entrenched behind an iron curtain, but perfectly integrated into the social and economic fabric of every NATO country. We are at war, only we don't know we are or it's convenient to ignore it. To provoke Russia in the hope that China will be pulled behind it, is still not having great results, so either NATO goes into a cyber environment to redesign the chess and highlight the real threats, or close shop and keep the funds back for more.


Reader Caesar believes that sooner or later the US will force them to retrace their steps ...

11 hours in the morning, New York year 2030. The president of the EU, followed by a constellation of civil and military representatives of the various nations of the Old Continent, walks between Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd's "knotted revolver" and Pomodoro's "sphere with sphere", to go to the "great hall ”Of the Glass Palace, where he will meet the president of the United States to sign the final documents, which will sanction the terms of the alliance born from the ashes of the outdated NATOTAN, no longer able to meet the problems of a global multipolarity where the managing conflicts and regional tensions has put the inconclusive European democracies in front of a crossroads. The not easy path that led us to this turning point is due to what we most feared: the disinterest of the USA. The North African crisis has aligned European interests; while our bulky allies were busy making their weight felt to Asian competitors, the union of the efforts of the "small" regional powers, showed everyone, first and foremost their citizens, how advantageous it is to set aside national egoisms, embrace a wider view and thus be able to weigh heavily on the international stage in a decisive manner.

Good relations with the US, despite their opposition to the military and political fusion of the Old Continent, has led us to be its main and most important allies and, although the military leadership remains in their hands, our influence on the rest of the world powers (India, China, Russia) allows us to be considered an interlocutor of parigence .........

DRINNNN ........ DRINNNN ......... DRINNNN ....... DRINNNN ....... DRINNNN

6: 30 2019 Monday morning Wake up !! The scent of the moka pot enters the room, yesterday's radio echoes: Salvini & C. talk about flat tax, Mussolini, a citizenship income, Libya, in a never ending minestrone just dream, you go to work which is better.


The reader Cristian writes us that NATO does not have an exit door and does everything only for the sake of money: yet, in the past France has done what it felt like ... And today Turkey is allowed everything. Not all armaments are made in the USA ...

An alliance created to oppose communism and the Warsaw Treaty now that there is neither one nor the other if they invent one a day: Russia, China, Korea (Northern NdR, we believe mean) and Iran would be dangerous for our societies Western

The truth is that the American armaments industry needs money and the countries born pay the 2% (GN of the GDP, we believe the reader Cristian) who more than others: all this money is collected by the Americans since the 90 % weapons born are manufactured in the USA or under license to be of the NATO standard

We Europeans have no enemies either in Europe or outside Europe but we are looking for them to buy weapons that are of no use because no European country - including Russia - does not want a war (NdR ???).

So once you enter NATO, it doesn't come out any more (if anyone knows why?) But we must at least have the dignity to choose with whom we do business.


Reader Michele describes the difficulties of the Atlantic Alliance in finding its own raison d'être and governance ...

NATO is in crisis, having seen in the distant (issim) or 1991 the defeat of its archenemy now discovers that it has too many ... The United States after trying to make it the gendarme of the UN struggles to find new roles and yes they are limited to using it, and considering it, as a subsidiary of their armed forces, with Europe guiltily incapable.

One has the distinct impression that many of his enemies are nested inside, and if the most glaring cases, apparently, can be Turkey and Italy, in reality the new multipolar order allows everyone to carve out new ones roles and starting to gnaw bits of power here and there, I seem to see how the relatives who begin to take away the paintings and the precious while the grandmother is in bed dying.

The new cold war instead resembles one of those quarrels where the litigants make the big voice but nobody in reality is anxious to lead the hands. A war right now would not be appropriate for anyone. As for the 5 article it is sufficient to do the minimum necessary and / or impose stringent ROE and voila .. Afghanistan docet !!!

The strength of NATO is to be a political-military organization, therefore to merge the two souls of the war but its weakness is that the US wants to maintain full control by disengaging from the burdens. What is worse is that if many want the role of "viceroy" on the other no one wants (like Germany) or can (like France) take the burden of command ...

In a nutshell, NATO is very much like the Titanic, a haughty giant who meets his destiny, with crew and passengers too busy grabbing a boat to understand that something needs to be done to save the ship.


Danilo has clear ideas about the present and the future of NATO. And Moscow alone is enough and advances to unite the partners. But Turkey ...

NATO still has a future for a number of reasons: as the cases of Afghanistan and Libya have shown, the purpose of NATO is no longer just the original one of defending the Euro-Atlantic area, but operating in those theaters of low-intensity conflicts and give a semblance of legality to the military intervention that unilateral action would not have, even in the absence of a UN vote.

Second, the specter of the alleged or such Russian invasion still exists and is good play both for NATO itself and for the countries bordering on Russia (think of the desire / possibility for Poland to have an American base) or the recent deployment of troops Americans in the Baltic republics.

In the event of a crisis in Eastern Europe it is clear that the possibility of activating the 5 article of the treaty will depend on the severity of the emergency. In fact, the few times this option has occurred has happened in the event of a terrorist attack rather than inter-state conflicts.

In this regard the loyalty of Turkey and Italy cannot be considered in discussion. Turkey in fact has a considerable specific weight within the alliance (the second largest army after the United States) and depends on these for equipment and intelligence (although the S-400 affair proves the contrary). Italy instead is a full member of the Western bloc and its weapon systems and its institutions are too integrated and dependent with those of the coalition for a defection.

So who is the enemy today? Russia certainly is by virtue of the denunciation of the CFE and of the Ukrainian and Inf American developments, which had allowed some relaxation in the previous decades, but also those asymmetric situations like piracy or terrorism and anyone threatening to endanger the peace and security (including economic) of the Euro-Atlantic area.


Short and intense like a half-glass of aged Scotch whiskey: this is the flavor of the reader Giorgio's article. It leaves a pleasant aftertaste of time well spent in reading.

During the election campaign of the Republican primaries, Trump said that the United States had two clear enemies, one China and the other the European currency, the euro. he said clearly what many American politicians think without stating it publicly. The NATO problem is that many of its members are users of the single European currency and this will pose a problem for Washington that is not small, whether these nations are still to be considered allies. I would not be surprised if tomorrow an American President asked these European nations to choose between membership in NATO or the Euro. The Aachen document between France and Germany seems to herald this.

Having said this, on the military level the problem for NATO is called Turkey. No one says it clearly, but many fear a Turkish veto on the next initiative to see the NATO call. This is felt overseas and in this regard a shadow NATO formed by the USA, the United Kingdom and some former Warsaw Pact countries, Poland at the head and held together by bilateral pacts between partners is taking shape. I conclude, where is the possible strength test for NATO (Turkey permitting)? Answer: Ukraine or Moldova. The first for the known events, the second for that silent problem called Transnistria.


Antonio sends us a very anti-American article that we publish for the sake of free thought and because it is well argued, although we don't share it. Like it or not, the US WON the Cold War and from that world and world no winner has ever refrained from looting. The fact that they let China (and the other BRICS) grow up to this point raises doubts about their intentions to build a global empire. It would have been enough to put Beijing under sanctions in the 1989 or to put obstacles (for example, the price of high oil) to Russia in the early 2000 years to make the two nations eternally poor ...

NATO was endured during the period of the two blocs. Endured as we were well aware of being servants to the US service. We were exactly like the armies of the USSR satellites in the Warsaw Pact, it didn't change anything. After the fall of the Berlin wall, world geopolitics has changed. The USSR no longer exists, on the contrary it has split into many states, the Warsaw Pact has been dissolved, so why did NATO continue to exist? Where was the enemy of Europe, of the West, located?

The answer seems clear to me: nowhere, that is, only in the USA. These, powerful, wanted to continue to maintain the Atlantic Alliance only for their use and consumption. Not only that, but they extended it to the east, violating the agreements made with Gorbachev. The European governments, always linked in various ways, even not always completely legal, to the USA, have accepted the will of the now world empire. Yes, since the end of the Cold War, the US has behaved like a world empire and as such it defends its borders, its economy, its interests. As did Rome or London. Nothing transcendental, but we are the settlers and this bothers.

Our army, which for all the years of the cold war was closed in its sleepy barracks, has now suddenly become a warrior. We have soldiers everywhere, with mind-boggling expenses given our endemic budgetary constraints. The most obvious question is: what are they doing to us? The most obvious answer is: the white Ascari from the USA.

Now we have Russia that is arming itself more and more and better, China that has become a great power, we with an EU without a head or tail we continue to do US servants, accepting the sanctions they continually put against their "nations rogue ”, losing billions of euros and saving dollars, human lives and the figure of the bad aggressor to the US, if they only sent their soldiers. Instead, they also send NATO ascaris to demonstrate the democratic unity of Western political thought.

At this point, all that remains is to say: staying in NATO is against national interests. We are in the Mediterranean, we have the problem of the African coasts a few kilometers from ours, with the euro and the EU our economy has become catastrophic, we should think of ourselves more than of US interests. I would go back to Salandra's famous phrase, we need to have a little more "sacred selfishness".


Our reader, lawyer B., offers us a very critical analysis that NATO membership is our national interest. The following question is: how do you do it yourself?

Interesting and delicate subject. The crux of the matter lies in the analysis of the current scope of the Alliance to date. It is unquestionable that this alliance since its inception has not had an exclusively military role but also, and perhaps above all, a political one: starting from the Marshall Plan up to the foundation of the Alliance and then the birth of the EEC, the set of these agreements are strictly and inextricably linked.
They led Italy into the American orbit and - it is indisputable - they favored the transformation of our country that improved the living conditions of its population until the end of the last century: it would be a very complex analysis but the combination of internal and external factors, including NATO, have fostered Italian development and greater economic and social policy achievements.

Unfortunately, since the end of the Cold War, the attractiveness, the propulsive thrust of the Americanocentric vision has slowed down and, to date, is at least partly on a collision course with European interests and in particular Italians. Lucio Caracciolo on Limes starting from an analysis similar to mine concludes however that Italy and Europe are either American or they are not.

I do not agree. An alliance cannot foresee subjects but precisely allies and, the European and Italian vision must necessarily have a synthesis that, in some cases, can criticize choices and wrong visions of the ally. If this is not the case, then the problem is serious because it means that our sovereignty and European sovereignty do not exist. And, I add, that without a sovereign vision, we risk going from one master to another.

You see, as I am not willing to believe that the Crimean referendum is a true example of sovereignty, I am not even willing to believe that the facts of Maidan are a genuine popular uprising: we have all read Victoria Nuland's Commentary: "Fuck the EU ". Well, while the EU treated and concluded a mediation, the US went their own way and this is not an alliance-worthy behavior. And then, personally, I think we need to recover an autonomous and sovereign vision capable of making the European and, at least, the Italian interests weigh within the alliance because the direction that NATO has taken does not correspond to the national interest and, this , regardless of the Administration governing the USA.

The question then is: are there forces and capacities to elaborate, synthesize and weigh a European or, at least, Italian vision?

Photo: NATO