NATO founders on shoals of irrelevance

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization really hasn't had much to do these past 25 years. But, like any organization, (and this is just Sociology 101) it's been working hard to find reasons to keep itself keeping on. In fact, they're just putting the finishing touches on a new two billion Euro HQ in Belgium, (only 100% over budget!) so you can bet there's a lot of desk jockeys hoping to enjoy their new digs at least till they hit pensionable age.

Meanwhile, actual war-type stuff on the ground has been hard to find. Ya, there was a bit of action over Yugoslavia back in Bill's "wag the dog" phase, and that victory in Afghanistan, and that other victory in Libya, but even those inclined to give every NATO/US initiative a reflexive rubber stamp have to admit none of those theatres were anywhere near the North Atlantic.

So here's a pro-war pro-NATO puff piece from the Financial Times informing us why NATO is still relevant and how it can be even more relevant.

The title seems a little ominous; I mean, what does it mean for the political leaders to be "as ready" as the soldiers? Luckily, the article spells it out for us; NATO's political leaders have to be prepared to swing into action even when "events on the ground are murky."

The background is of course the threat of a Russian invasion of Western Europe, which the Financial Times and myriad other war-promoters in Western media have been peddling  as an actual threat. Weren't the NATO gang caught flat-footed by Putin's annexation of Crimea? Perfect example of events on the ground being murky, I suppose. If we had a nimble and virile NATO political command in place, we would have gone to war with the Ruskies in March of 2014!

That "annexation" schtick has always struck me as a bit of a red herring. I'm old enough to recall two Quebec referenda, where our neighbours in Quebec were permitted to vote on whether they wanted to remain a part of Canada. Both times, the stay-in-Canada side won. So, Quebec remains in Canada and we have precedents for holding referenda on sovereignty.

So why is it "annexation" when a referendum in Crimea resulted in a 95%+ "leave Ukraine" vote?

Here's why; because the NATO gang and its tens of thousands of comfy-cosy desk pilots need a reason to live, and by God, Putin is the reason du jour!

Yup, after his "annexation" of Crimea, he's got his beady greedy eyes on the Baltics, probably Poland, maybe even France and Germany! Yes, he's the new Hitler, set to annex the whole of Europe to make Lebensraum for Ruskies!

So we in the Nations of Virtue need to buck up and arm up. Yessir, outspending the Russians 20:1 on bombs and bullets isn't gonna give us the margin of safety we need. Every NATO member state needs to ramp up military spending!

To send Putin a message... and even more important, to send Lockheed and Boeing and Raytheon and the rest of the American war profiteers further hundreds of billions of dollars!

Only then will we be able to sleep soundly.

.