The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of Anglo and European democracies plus the Muslim nation of Turkey that was initially established after WWII to contain the Soviet Union, which dissolved on December 26, 1991. It is now 2015, and explaining why NATO exists in any capacity 24 years later is open to interpretation. In answering this question one might be tempted to look at what NATO’s own statement of purpose is—muh democracy, muh collective self-defense—but I believe that pales in comparison to looking at what NATO has been up to recently, as actions (as well as inactions) and their repercussions are far more important than any treaty parchment.
Since the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, NATO has integrated the Baltic countries and most of the former Warsaw Pact into its military apparatus, despite the fact that nations like Estonia and Bulgaria have very little to contribute to the might of the United States, Britain and France, or even to the more mid-tier European militaries like Italy or Germany, in exchange for guarantees of collective defense. For a time after the Soviet disunion, NATO maintained the sole ambition of Russian containment, though Russia was collapsing in the 1990s and more a threat to her own citizens than anyone else’s— according to demographers, millions of “surplus deaths” occurred in the Russian Federation during this period. But the last 15 years have seen a new Russia emerge. In the face of 21st century Putinist Russia, the (((neocon))) narrative has a seemingly warranted urgency to beltway cuckservatives, to contain a Russian empire that is trying to exert muscle in its traditional (and severely curtailed) sphere of influence.
The Washington-Brussels axis feels horror and indignation at Russian involvement in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, but shrugs at waging war itself in countries half a world away for abstract reasons. The Wilsonian impulse to reforge entire countries in our mold cannot be hemmed by realpolitik or tacit recognition of other states’ interests as valid for at least themselves. Russia couldn’t possibly have a stake anywhere in the world outside of Russia because that interferes with exporting democracy. Russian containment, at the surface level, sounds like a fair assessment of what NATO does in a post-Soviet world even if it is unfair to Russia and of dubious benefit to ourselves, but glosses over the effects of NATO policies, which matter far more than anything the alliance claims to do.
NATO’s most recent invoking of the alliance’s collective defense agreement was the invasion of Afghanistan in response to the September 11 Islamist attacks, which were carried out by Saudi hijackers. This had nothing to do with containing Russia and did not ‘make the world safe for democracy.’ The War in Afghanistan destabilized an already dysfunctional Islamic country and contributed to the ongoing Afro-Islamic Völkerwanderung into Europe, as a sizable number of “refugees” are reported to be Afghan.
Then there was the invasion of Iraq, which while not a NATO war per se involved the participation of NATO members (mainly the United States and Britain, with fractional contributions from other countries). The goal of the War in Iraq was to topple an Arab nationalist dictator, though he ended up replaced by an Islamic sectarian democracy. Muslims don’t like it when a Muslim of another interpretation of their religion is elected to rule them, so naturally a variety of Sunni and other tribal groups revolted against Shiite-dominated Iraq, which helped create the current migration problem, one that did not exist in a Baathist Levant. The kebab quagmire only worsened when one of the groups rebelling against Iraq 2.0, the future Islamic State, seized territory in Iraq and then Syria, which had its own civil war raging. Now the (((neocon))) goal in Syria is to topple another Arab nationalist dictator, because that worked really well in Iraq. Thanks, NATO.
If you’ve been paying attention to what happens when NATO or its members try to play community organizer and gerrymander the Middle East, it without fail results in the creation of Islamist militias and the export of hundreds of thousands of Muslims to Europe. A postmortem analysis would seem to indicate that this is actually the purpose of NATO, to act as a shield for and sponsor Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and Europe. Some Chinese historian in the 22nd century will have no problem writing that. And support for Islamic fundies is not just at the non-state level of terrorists and guerrillas. The United States works closely with the Islamic monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and “democratic” Egypt, in addition to sending them shekels so they’ll play nice with Israel. All of these countries support Islamist rebels against the de jure government of Syria and ostensibly against the Islamic State.
The synthesis of what NATO is all about in terms of de facto outcomes versus formal presentation is Turkish membership in the organization. Like the United States, Turkey supports Islamists in Syria. And like the United States, Turkey is thus opposed to Assad and to Russian airstrikes on her proxies in Syria. Turkish membership is thus the perfect merger of NATO’s anti-Russian and jihadophile tendencies. And this is exactly why the Turks shot down a Russian warplane that entered their airspace along the Turkish-Syrian border on November 24, with support from the rest of NATO afterward. Reuters reports:
"No country should ask us to apologize," Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters following a meeting with NATO's secretary general at the alliance headquarters in Brussels. "The protection of our land borders, our airspace, is not only a right, it is a duty," he said. "We apologize for committing mistakes, not for doing our duty." … Following the meeting with NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg in which he won the alliance's firm support for the right to self-defense, Davutoglu also warned that such incidents continued to be a risk as long as Russia and the U.S-led coalition bombing Islamic State in Syria worked separately.
There are a few interesting takeaways from the West’s support of Turkey against Russia, and Islamists against Arab nationalists:
- Muslim Turkey has the inalienable right to violently assault anyone who crosses her borders suspected of being dangerous. This right is backed by Western countries.
- Those same countries would never support using military force to stop Muslims from illegally crossing their borders, despite the existential threat they pose to European demography.
- NATO believes it is worth escalating tensions with Russia in order to support Islamists, which means spreading Islamic fundamentalism and destabilizing secular/nationalist Arab countries are higher priorities than peace with Russia.
- It is more important to support, sponsor and shield Turkey and Turkish clients in Syria than it is to defeat the Islamic State (which would more easily be accomplished by supporting the Syria-Russia-Iran faction than training a patchwork of unreliable Sunni guerrillas to attack everyone).
And more basically, as a White nationalist and a supporter of European nationalisms as well, it’s just offensive to be allied with the Turk. Why should we ever be obligated by treaty to defend a non-white and Muslim country that funds Islamists? From this observer’s perspective, this is what NATO is all about and what the Washington-Brussels axis believes in—spreading fundamentalist Islam.