What is the basis for the continued existence of the existing US imperialist military bloc, and can it continue to be maintained?

[zqjjcw]

There is no doubt that the existing imperialist military bloc in the United States and its allies—the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—primarily includes the United States, imperialist states within the EU such as Britain, France, and Germany, etc. Undoubtedly, NATO is a military alliance controlled by imperialist United States, and the series of military actions it has launched in the past have largely been initiated and led by imperialist United States, with participation from European imperialist countries, such as the bombardment of Serbia in the late 20th century, the Gulf War, the Libyan War, the Afghanistan War, etc. However, in the recent US–Iran war, NATO’s role has been very limited; it can almost be said that the war is being fought by imperialist United States and Israel alone, and the United States did not consult EU countries much beforehand. Other NATO members, such as Britain, France, and Germany, basically did not send significant military forces to support, did not participate in air strikes, and evidently do not intend to substantially intervene in upcoming possible military actions. The role of European countries within NATO has been to provide military bases; among them, Spain, for certain political reasons, recently announced that it would prohibit the United States from using its airports and overflying its airspace. Such actions, while not capable of causing deep-rooted impact on the war itself, undermine the foundation of NATO as a military alliance.

In addition to the divisions exposed by the US–Iran war, the internal contradictions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have been manifested in many other matters. Over the past year or so, the first discrepancy appears in the Russia–Ukraine war. EU countries, aiming to further weaken imperialist Russia, demand continued or expanded aid to Ukraine, while imperialist United States, after Trump came to power, has been reducing aid to Ukraine, even going so far as to demand that Ukraine sign a treaty that would be tantamount to surrender. Secondly, at the end of last year, on the issue of Greenland, imperialist United States sought to divert attention from major domestic political events by hyping the idea of “seizing Greenland,” which led to conflicts with EU countries and even resulted in both sides sending troops to Greenland for symbolic standoffs. These divergences have become very evident in the issue of the US–Iran war, with EU imperialist countries unwilling to send troops to intervene in Iran’s war unless they can gain substantial benefits for imperialist United States alone.

In recent days, I have been thinking about what the basis is for the continued existence of the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and whether it can be maintained. Looking at the two major rivals of imperialist competition—Russia and China—the basis for NATO’s existence is highly questionable. First, with Russia mired in the Russia–Ukraine war, Russia has basically lost the ability to sustain its puppets in third-world countries, as evidenced by the toppled regimes in Syria and Venezuela and the precariousness of Iran and Cuba. Russia’s own military strength has also been greatly weakened in the war, losing even the capacity to seize Ukraine. The practical need for the United States and the EU to jointly maintain a defense alliance to expand influence over Russia has largely dissipated, as shown by the change in US policy toward Ukraine after Trump came to power. Next is China: although EU countries have tensions with “revisionist social imperialism” in the struggle for markets and colonies, this confrontation has not reached the level of antagonism between the United States and China. On the contrary, China and the EU are deeply intertwined in many areas, and in recent months leaders of the UK, France, and Germany have visited China, signing economic and trade agreements with China; there is no sign of increasing antagonism, and the EU is not likely to completely oppose China for the sake of imperialist United States. The EU and China have no reason to be completely hostile, and the EU cannot be opposed to China merely for the benefit of imperialist United States.

If so, isn’t the basis for NATO’s continued existence not truly weakened? Of course, within NATO there exists a faction that upholds the status quo. In 2023, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the president from withdrawing from NATO without authorization from both houses. Currently, in the war against Iran, only Spain has completely forbidden US aircraft from crossing its airspace and using bases. France and Italy’s widely publicized bans on US military overflights and landings are only sporadic incidents; in reality, US aircraft are daily shuttling along the route of the UK-France-Italy-Greece-Israel line, indicating that NATO has not reached the point of disintegrating in this US–Iran war. But what is the basis for the bourgeois faction that demands NATO to maintain the status quo, and will this faction be weakened in the future?

As the contradictions with revisionist China have become the main conflict in the current imperialist rivalry of the United States, can the old NATO still exist? Is there a possibility in the coming years that the military alliances of the United States and EU countries in Europe will rupture, that Europe will turn to form an autonomous military alliance, and that the United States will choose to strengthen cooperation with Pacific nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia to form a new military alliance specifically directed at revisionist China?

[vvv]

I remember that Trump previously asked NATO members to raise their defense spending, and there were talks about withdrawing troops stationed in Europe and the Americas. I wonder if the U.S. government also no longer wants to maintain it?

[typhoon]

NATO, as a military alliance, is also built on a political and economic alliance. From actions like Trump’s recent tariff battles, the contradictions between imperialist European powers and the U.S. imperialists are growing larger. Moreover, recently the U.S. focus has increasingly shifted to the Pacific, and the struggle with China has made NATO’s relevance and presence steadily decline.

[typhoon]

Was the last time NATO conducted a collective deployment perhaps during the Libyan War? Since then, joint actions have been rare.

[火眼]

NATO was established in 1949, with the purpose of forming a military alliance against the Soviet Union.

[火眼]

After the capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, it became a military alliance competing with the Soviet–Stalinist regime in Europe.

[cedar]

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established after World War II as a tool for the United States to support imperialist powers in Western Europe, united to resist the Soviet Union and communism. After World War II, Europe’s economy was severely hit, and the United States had greatly profited from the war to become the world’s number-one imperialist power. In order to extract greater economic benefits from Europe, the Marshall Plan was implemented for Europe’s major capitalist countries, and NATO existed precisely because there was such a common political and economic foundation. However, since the Soviet Union became a social-imperialism, it turned into a tool for U.S.–Soviet imperialist rivalry, and the joint anti-communist purpose disappeared. There is no fundamental class antagonism among imperialist countries. In recent years, there have been many discussions about economic “mutual benefit and win-win” between China and Western European countries, such as the China–Europe Railway Express. In January, the British Prime Minister visited China; in February, German Chancellor Merz also visited Hangzhou to “focus on economic and trade cooperation and China’s new qualitative productive forces development,” which reflects that China and European countries are seeking economic cooperation. If the original purpose of NATO’s founding was anti-communism, that purpose no longer exists; there are only economic benefits. After World War II, Western European countries also wanted to utilize the so-called aid from the United States to restore themselves quickly, and then immediately wanted to break away from U.S. control, using all conditions to develop themselves, such as cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This is imperialist rivalry. Western European countries certainly do not want the United States to reap all the benefits for nothing. If the former Soviet Union and today the CCP can bring Western European imperialist countries economic benefits, they would certainly also be opportunistic. In recent years, many imperialist countries have shown wavering stances between the United States and the CCP, with CCP media frequently reporting on friendly exchanges with France and Germany, such as strategic partnership-type relationships. For imperialist countries, there are indeed no permanent friends, only permanent interests. It seems impossible and unrealistic to directly declare NATO dissolution; after all, there are still so many economic interests to be exchanged. But if common interests disappear, then even if such alliances exist, they would only be on paper, a hollow shell. As for a new military alliance specifically targeting the CCP, it may already be quietly brewing; it’s just that the current contradictions have not yet been fully intensified, and not at the point of public disclosure. Wouldn’t Japanese Prime Minister Suo Naoko (Sanae) be waging war against the CCP on the Taiwan issue while also meeting with Trump in the United States, smiling with creased wrinkles on her face?