\u00a9<\/em>The law of intellectual\nproperty is prohibited in any way unlawful use\/appropriation of this article,\nwith heavy civil and criminal penalties for the infringer.<\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n US View<\/strong> of NATO<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The USA and given the powerful geo-strategic area of the Pacific and Indian Ocean equally and due to China and since this area is the richest area on the planet gradually began to turn that way away from Europe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This US stance on its external and geostrategic policy did not begin under the Presidentship of Donald Trump but under the Presidentship of Barack Obama. But this policy became evident under the Presidentship of Donald Trump with the implementation of the ‘America First’ election slogan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n President Trump has a negative view of the EU by supporting the Brexit and\ncauterizing the tendency of European allies to flee from their defense and\nfinancial obligations to the Alliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Americans believe that NATO has a future if the allies can give NATO\nthe means it needs to ensure the benefits of the security it provides.\nOtherwise NATO will become obsolete. In fact, the United States considers that\nthe American taxpayer cannot have to protect those countries of the Alliance\nwho do not want to protect themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Americans are right in expressing this view, but Europeans by not\ndeliberately paying their obligations to the Alliance may do so because they want\nother more equal roles with USA within the alliance to apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The US focuses more on China and the Indian-Pacific Ocean region because\nEast Asia is the most important economic region in the world and why China is\nnow a superpower. Gradually, American policy towards Europe will increasingly\nbecome part of the general perception of whether this policy can help or\nundermine the American attitude towards China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, anything that takes place in areas of the world such as the\nMiddle East, the Black Sea in fifteen or twenty years from today will be about\nthe type and state of the Sino-American relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wrong strategy of Presidentship Trump is based, in that US competes\nwith China by keeping its distance if not a hostile attitude towards the EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n E<\/strong>U<\/strong>‘s View of NATO<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A possible approach to the wants of Europeans begins with Germany’s stance\nwhere it considers that it should be upgraded as an equal partner with the US\nwithin NATO and given that Germany itself is a global economic and political\nsuperpower and regardless that it is not allowed until today to develop\npowerful armed forces such as other forces of the West, e.g. the US, the UK and\nFrance (WWII winners). In this case, Germany would be a military, political and\neconomic superpower such as the United States and would have an equal role and\ninfluence in NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The France of Emmanuel Macron while having the political will and the\nmilitary force in relation to the other European member-states of the Alliance\nto star in the military arm does not have the economic power to develop on its\nown the EU defense with the goal through the EU common defense of making the EU\nan equal member with the US into NATO (only Germany has the economic power\namong the member-states of EU to serve this purpose).<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, this position of France and Germany in relation to the\nUSA is putting them in a very difficult position when they see that the US for\npurely geostrategic reasons allow Turkey to be virtually detached from the\nAlliance’s common line, while the other members of the Alliance should follow a\ncommon line on all issues, which a common line is largely determined by the US.\nAlliance common line not only on the Middle East issues but on the issues of\nRussia, Iran and China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, Germany, through its energy dependence on Russia, has begun to form a common line in its Foreign Policy, with France agreeing that Russia should also be involved in a new security framework under consideration for Europe, resulting in an ever closer rapprochement between the EU and Russia, gradually moving the EU away from US positions and views.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, both Germany and France, seeing Turkey to operate as\nautonomous in its behavior regarding NATO\u2019s common lines, have substantially\nresponded to any imposed common lines that the United States is trying to\nachieve in NATO. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, Turkey’s stance and its geostrategic importance forcing the US to\nallow the “autonomy” of Turkish behaviour towards the common lines\nboth of NATO and the US. This US stance will slowly and steadily\n“decompose” the Alliance by triggering a more general “guerrilla”\namong the established common lines between West-European countries which are\nmember-countries of EU and US within NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The “division” among Europeans which is causing by NATO<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The EU has shown that it can exert great political and economic influence\non Ukrainian society. But it has failed to give Ukraine’s economy that\nnecessary growth and to relieve it from the corrupt oligarchic establishment\nwhich, based on its selfish interests, is moving between Russia and the EU-US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, NATO failed to make it impossible either the annexation of Crimea from Russia or the autonomy of Russian speaking regions in Ukraine. One could, of course, say that Russian intervention in Ukraine would be even greater if NATO were not there to support Ukraine. In general terms, however, Russian intervention in Ukraine has achieved its objectives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But NATO has succeeded in drastically limiting Russian intervention in\nPoland and the Baltic countries, and today these EU member-countries enjoy the\nsecurity of their participation in NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EU’s imposed economic sanctions against Russia as a result of the\nCrimea’s annexation proves that the EU can influence developments due to its\ninternational economic size. Both France and Germany mediate as an intermediary\nlink between Ukraine and Russia to find a compromise solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Russia’s aggression in the Ukrainian issue was the fear that Russia has\nhistorically caused, which feared reappeared with the annexation of Crimea and\nforced Poland and the Baltic states to turn to the arms of NATO and the EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The current outcome of this geo-strategic turn of Poland and the Baltic\ncountries was the stifling embrace of these countries with NATO. That is why\nthe leaders of these Eastern EU member countries have sharply criticized the\ncriticism of the President of France about NATO, who said that “the\nAlliance is brain-dead”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The harsh criticism of the leaders of these Eastern EU member-countries is\nbased on the view that the US and NATO are the main guarantors of their\nterritorial integrity towards the aggression of Russia. So, until the EU has\nits own credible defense which ensures the territorial integrity of all its\nmember-countries, there will be this ‘division\u2019 among Europeans in terms of the\nperspective of what NATO means.<\/p>\n\n\n\n EU military arm as NATO’s autonomous pillar<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n EU defense spending could be more effective with goal to create all those conditions for the creation of a common European defense and common European armed forces, respectively, which together with the US armed forces would be the main two pillars of NATO. <\/p>\n\n\n\n More on how the EU armed forces can be created-organized and at the same time how will have to homogenize the European defence industry please read the analysis \u00abThe Creation of EU Defense & its Defense Forces<\/a>\u00bb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At this time, where the US is withdrawing (e.g. Syria) the vacuum is\noccupied by Russia’s armed forces, accepting Russia the political cost of\ncasualties to its soldiers, a policy that EU member-countries do not want to\nhear about for their selves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EU member countries do not want their armed forces to participate in military campaigns abroad, given the mistakes they have made in the past and the negative results they have gained by participating in regional wars. More on this topic please read the analysis \u00abThe Causes of Mistakes that brought to International Geopolitical Weakness the EU<\/a>\u00bb. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This makes the political costs for the EU prohibitively high in the event of any new engagement involving anything outside the framework of EU and NATO. The fact that US President Donald Trump has led the US to a peculiar type of isolationism does not help co-operation with the EU and “dazzes” the value of any allied guarantees within NATO. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/144px-ObamaTrump.jpg\")
<\/a>
The US Stance over NATO started to change on Presidenship of Barack Obama and became evident under the Presidenship of Donald Trump,
Photo by Air Force Staff Sgt. Sean Martin, Public Domain<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/199px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_European_Union_Military_Staff.svg_.png\")
licensed Public Domain<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/image-9.png\")
licensed Public Domain<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/170px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_NATO_School.svg_.png\")