The role of a bloated North Atlantic Treaty Organization in securing the peace seems outdated. It provides an opportunity for swells like the leaders of France, Britain and Canada to strut about dissing the U.S.A., without which, N.A.T.O. would be as able to defend Europe from itself or Russian, Chinese or illegal immigrant aggression as kittens in a wet cardboard box.
N.A.T.O. with Turkey as a member is like a bear with a foot caught in a bear trap. With President Macron it is like a rooster with one leg. Why the United States does not just keep a few good allies in it and call itself The Real N.A.T.O. I don’t know.
N.A.T.O. is a tool for letting espionage flourish and for increasing ineptness and incompetence in developing reduced tension and prosperous commercial relations and American-N.A.T.O. Russian mutual defense pacts. In all likelihood the United States would be better off with a downsized and upgraded New N.A.T.O with Russia as a full partner in a Northern Alliance and Atlantic Treaty Organization able to defend the Arctic littoral against ruthless ecosystem destroyers and other predators that will flood north with global warming reduction of quality land to the south and economic refugees fleeing basic global incompetence at managing affairs in harmony with a world ecosphere.
Bureaucrats always want to expand organizations. N.A.T.O. is a vast neo-left-wing bird like a dodo that should be downsized. European nations that want to fight one another or make their own military defense pacts should be allowed to do so. N.A.T.O. probably is a tool for proselytizing global homosexuality and left-wing and or corporatist government these days with a need for a Russian specter-threat like an Orwellian Oceania enemy as it were. It is all ripe incompetence contributing to the basic mismanagement of global political affairs. The United States, Russia and a Rearmed Japan working together militarily would be good enough for global security as a kind of police force.
Americans should look after their own interests and not be led about like blasters in a master/blaster relationship by Europeans that eye Russian real estate enviously. The U.S.A. needs only a few good allies militarily speaking, and should get rid of the dead wood of N.A.T.O. that complains more than fights and largely agitates and frets about Russian as the enemy. Russia is only a symbolic enemy because European elites and the bureaucracy that is N.A.T.O. wants it to be, and that is not in U.S. interests at all. Neither is Iran as an enemy in U.S. interests, yet that is a different problem and one that presently must remain so for sundry reasons.
Americans are mostly ignorant about history and especially so concerning Russia. Ukraine was part of Russia most of the past 1100 years and regarding Russia as an unreasonable aggressor for not wanting to relinquish it is simply stupid. Everyone has wanted to own the Ukraine the past couple of centuries at least, and Euros have always been the people that invaded Russia rather than vice versa.
Russians had communism forced on them from the top down by leftist elites with German help. The vast majority of Russian were from a peasant or semi-slave serf background not more unhappy about seeing the end of the Russian aristocracy than former slaves in the American south would have been sorry to see the Jim Crowe south leaders relocated to Antarctica. Russians are good solid people- the old world equivalent of American westerners before the decadent era, and should be in a new partnership in military and commercial affairs relationship with the U.S.A. instead of being regarded as an enemy. TO make an enemy of Russia simply to satisfy the corrupt is practically crazy and incompetent policy.
If Russia, Japan the U.S.A. and a few N.A.T.O. members were solid military allies the rest of the world would realize they weren’t going to rule the world militarily. If there was a 100,000 man international defense rapid response force that is not the U.N. or N.A.T.O. or the new U.S. Russia, Japan, Poland, Britain, Italian alliance, it could respond as needed to breakup unfair aggressive war among the not too powerful nations in conflict. That should be good enough to keep world peace and let the world leaders; especially the European smart-ass Harvard-like we-know-better-than-you leaders just go about business and commercial interests and spend whatever they want in their own defense instead of biting the hands that defend them.