Is NATO so powerful as it claims?

Is NATO so powerful as it claims?

The question is about how united NATO would be in the real situation? Donald Trump has brought one thing in the relationship with NATO to the front of the great publicity, and that is that the USA would not necessarily support its allies. The problem is that NATO is the defense union, and if the military actions would start in Europe, the attack would be claimed to began by the European NATO country.

Nuclear weapons are a very powerful tool in international conflict. The problem is that some people would claim, that NATO is only the shield for the USA, which has a too dominating role in that military union. The thing is that Russia would support the opinions, that NATO is gone, and the USA must go back over the Atlantic ocean, and the fights would be done in the European territory.

And the other thing is that there are many people in Europe, who would notice, that the USA collects the data from the European actors and private citizens. The thing is that Europe is addicted to the military satellites of the USA, and the role of intelligence has been claimed to be very little, in things like tracking the troops of the opponent.

That kind of cooperation along with the electronic surveillance in the cooperation of UKUSA (1) are things, that would be wanted to quit by the Russians and certain political actors. And the reason, why Russia is claimed to support Trump is that this man would be wanted to disband the NSA and other intelligence agencies. And this is why the so-called Panama-leak has been done(2). The idea was to affect the leaders of Europe, that they will stop the UKUSA and disband NATO. For those people, the UKUSA is a synonym for "Echelon" (3) the NSA global surveillance network.

Those people argue that this kind of military unions is connecting European countries to the conflicts, which can be avoided by staying neutral. And if somebody would disagree, that thing means that the "real leaders" must not tolerate any kind of criticism. For those people, criticism is only a negative thing. And people should just follow their leaders.

One of the things, what pleases some people in Russia is the military forces. People claim that liberalism is caused by the back reaction and nations want moral and militarism. The democracy is too soft for those defensors of militaristic and authoritarian governments. But then we must remember that democracy is not the same thing with liberalism. When we are thinking of the cases where democratic governments started to persecute minorities, we find many cases in history.

In many South American states, the democratic government has been started to systematically persecute minorities, and the same things have been made in South Africa and Australia. During the Apartheid the South African government was democratic, but it was democracy only for white people. Black people were persecuted systematically.

And Australia closed Aboriginals to the concentration camps, but otherwise, the government was democratic. Those examples show, how the democratic government can start things, what is not acceptable. Also in many European countries, gypsies and other minorities have been isolated more or less by official permission.

So that kind of thing is embarrassing when we are looking at the history. The thing is that Russia would benefit the Internet very effectively in its information operations makes that kind of actions more effective than ever before.

(1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

(2)

https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/

(3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON