Reasons "NATO no longer works"
The US bloc is hastening the West's decline. For more information, read the full article on RT.com.
TroibNews 
The US bloc is hastening the decline of the West
Throughout history, numerous military alliances have formed, yet none exhibit such a pronounced imbalance as NATO. When considering the security of the bloc’s most powerful nation, the capabilities of other members are practically insignificant.
The advent of nuclear weapons has allowed powers with substantial atomic arsenals to view coalition partners as an option rather than a necessity. This fundamentally shapes the dynamics of any alliance they lead.
NATO, which recently commemorated its 75th anniversary at a Washington summit, was established for two primary reasons. The first was to prevent substantial internal political shifts in member states and curb the spread of communism in Western Europe and Turkey. After the Cold War, membership was perceived as a safeguard for the new governments in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Ukrainian nationalists saw joining NATO as the best means to deprive the country’s Russian-speaking population of self-determination.
Secondly, NATO aimed to transform Western European countries into an American outpost in the event of a direct confrontation with the USSR. Infrastructure was established, and procedures for deploying American forces in Europe were set up for this purpose.
NATO has largely succeeded in both these areas. This was particularly true when America and its allies were appealing to developing countries seeking to resolve their socio-economic issues by integrating into the global market economy. The West offered investment and technology in exchange for distancing from its strategic adversary in Moscow.
This highly cohesive and well-armed military bloc now finds itself on the incorrect side of history. Domestic issues in many of its major states stem from the global desire to build independent wealth and power. Henry Kissinger noted that the rise of China was far more significant than the unification of Germany and the end of the Cold War. Following China’s example, India, while dependent on Western investment and technology, remains defiant towards the US. Additionally, the West faces pressure from a dozen other countries with populations far exceeding those of North America and Western Europe.
The ill-advised expansion of NATO's control has led to complex challenges in the absence of mass mobilization. To balance the situation, NATO elites may have to impoverish their citizens for an extended period. Some bloc members, like the UK, are moving swiftly in this direction, while others, such as Germany and France, struggle to adapt to this new reality.
The elites’ inability to resolve fundamental economic issues may itself incite real war hysteria, as seen in Finland, which never found a way to thrive post-Cold War.
Until these goals are met, the West’s response to its challenges will consist of maneuvering both militarily and diplomatically, as well as domestically. However, there is a lack of resources for the former and a dearth of innovative ideas for the latter.
Shifting priorities in economic and social structures towards the military might partially revive the industrial sector and create jobs. Yet, success is uncertain, as this would require a comprehensive overhaul of the income distribution system.
For now, the West retains the resources to continue its current trajectory. However, the duration of this stability is uncertain amid mounting external pressures. The situation is further complicated by the fact that NATO countries must address these issues under the guidance of leaders deemed unsuitable for the task, which many observers consider the main threat emerging from the West.
This article was originally published by Profile.ru, translated and edited by the RT team.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
Throughout history, numerous military alliances have formed, yet none exhibit such a pronounced imbalance as NATO. When considering the security of the bloc’s most powerful nation, the capabilities of other members are practically insignificant.
The advent of nuclear weapons has allowed powers with substantial atomic arsenals to view coalition partners as an option rather than a necessity. This fundamentally shapes the dynamics of any alliance they lead.
NATO, which recently commemorated its 75th anniversary at a Washington summit, was established for two primary reasons. The first was to prevent substantial internal political shifts in member states and curb the spread of communism in Western Europe and Turkey. After the Cold War, membership was perceived as a safeguard for the new governments in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Ukrainian nationalists saw joining NATO as the best means to deprive the country’s Russian-speaking population of self-determination.
Secondly, NATO aimed to transform Western European countries into an American outpost in the event of a direct confrontation with the USSR. Infrastructure was established, and procedures for deploying American forces in Europe were set up for this purpose.
NATO has largely succeeded in both these areas. This was particularly true when America and its allies were appealing to developing countries seeking to resolve their socio-economic issues by integrating into the global market economy. The West offered investment and technology in exchange for distancing from its strategic adversary in Moscow.
This highly cohesive and well-armed military bloc now finds itself on the incorrect side of history. Domestic issues in many of its major states stem from the global desire to build independent wealth and power. Henry Kissinger noted that the rise of China was far more significant than the unification of Germany and the end of the Cold War. Following China’s example, India, while dependent on Western investment and technology, remains defiant towards the US. Additionally, the West faces pressure from a dozen other countries with populations far exceeding those of North America and Western Europe.
The ill-advised expansion of NATO's control has led to complex challenges in the absence of mass mobilization. To balance the situation, NATO elites may have to impoverish their citizens for an extended period. Some bloc members, like the UK, are moving swiftly in this direction, while others, such as Germany and France, struggle to adapt to this new reality.
The elites’ inability to resolve fundamental economic issues may itself incite real war hysteria, as seen in Finland, which never found a way to thrive post-Cold War.
Until these goals are met, the West’s response to its challenges will consist of maneuvering both militarily and diplomatically, as well as domestically. However, there is a lack of resources for the former and a dearth of innovative ideas for the latter.
Shifting priorities in economic and social structures towards the military might partially revive the industrial sector and create jobs. Yet, success is uncertain, as this would require a comprehensive overhaul of the income distribution system.
For now, the West retains the resources to continue its current trajectory. However, the duration of this stability is uncertain amid mounting external pressures. The situation is further complicated by the fact that NATO countries must address these issues under the guidance of leaders deemed unsuitable for the task, which many observers consider the main threat emerging from the West.
This article was originally published by Profile.ru, translated and edited by the RT team.
Camille Lefevre contributed to this report for TROIB News
