Advertisements

NATO – western military alliance at risk

    

 

Trump isn’t wrong about everything. His attack on allies for not pitching in with fair costs for NATO is sound. After the fractious G7 meeting he tweeted: “The US pays close to the entire cost of Nato — protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on trade.’ Starting a trade war is manifestly self-defeating, but he’s right to complain about western defence costs. Only Greece, UK and Estonia fork out the mandatory 2% of GDP. France is down at 1.79%, Canada 1.29% and Germany with Europe’s largest economy and a whopping trade surplus with the USA only contributes a miserable 1.24%.  The USA contributes nearly 4% of a much larger GDP. All of which is going to make the July 10 NATO summit in Brussels even more heated than the G7. Merkel has said she is more worried about Nato and the future of the western alliance than about the prospect of American tariffs though they will threaten the German automotive industry.

NATO, 24 August 1949 11.42am Washington, is being backed into a corner this year and next with tr Pluto opposition the Mars and feeling decidedly scared and frustrated. Exactly over the July summit, tr Saturn is opposition the Nato Uranus and square Venus, so it’ll be high-tension and discouraging. At that point Trump has tr Uranus square his Mercury/Mars midpoint which Ebertin describes as ‘loss of self-control (frenzy, delirium or insanity), emotional upset, making reckless decisions. Even allowing for Ebertin’s somewhat over-melodramatic interpretations he’ll certainly be in bad mood and in verbal combat-kit.

The Nato chart then continues to a blocked Solar Arc Saturn square Pluto, exact in six months, followed by Solar Arc Saturn square Moon by late 2019 – so not in forward gear.

Trump harbours a peculiar dislike of Nato with a composite Mars, Saturn, Pluto Mercury conjunction in the relationship chart. He’ll continue to exert maximum pressure, escalating in 2020 and if (heaven forfend) he makes a second term worse in 2021/22.

The EU/Nato chart which ironically enough has an emphasised North Node in Capricorn (= looking for a father figure) is in turmoil in 2019 with tr Pluto opposition Uranus and tr Uranus opposition the composite Sun; then tr Pluto wades on to a confusing and devastating square to Neptune and a depressing square to Saturn from 2019 to 2024. Another problem for them to worry about which might even make them more amiably inclined towards the UK, whose military expertise they are shunning at present.

The Germany/Nato relationship chart is on tenterhooks this year; and even more disrupted in 2019 to mid 2020 with tr Uranus opposition the composite Sun Saturn.

The times they are a-changin’.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “NATO – western military alliance at risk

  1. If only Defence Policy was as easy as Trump made it sound! But it isn’t. Higher Defence Budget does not, necessarily, count for a better Military Prepareness. Look at what happened to Soviet Union in Afganistan: They were one of the two Military Superpowers, spending next to 15 per cent of their GPD on Military. There were 290 million Soviet Citizens in 1990, subject to conscription. Yet, they lost that War, and were bankrupt in the process.

    What can be said about the situation here is that The US Defense Spending is grossly overblown, and doesn’t go mostly to financing NATO. The 2 per cent treshhold on GPD is completely arbitrary, too. German Armed Forces are immensely better equipped and capable of holding on their own than Greek Armed Forces, not to talk about Estonians (no matter how competent and willing they are, there are 1.5 million of them). Pentagon has been begging for Sweden and Finland to join NATO, even if neither countries reach the 2 per cent treshold. But, both countries also have strategic knowledge they see beneficial for The US in the Region.

    That said, there are talks of an alternative to NATO. I think they have much to do with the changing Geoeconomics caused by Global Warming (that Pentagon seems to believe in). That might see Mediterranean loosing its’ strategic importance, as much more of the container traffic by sea could be shipped through Arctic, a much shorter route. The UK Military Leadership sees Arctic Region in Europe as a priority, while The US should be more interested in keeping in good grace with Canada.

    • Thanks Solaia

      As a phd student specializing in NATO I was happy to read your comment which addresses the 2pc myth. I love Marjorie’s posts but sometimes some things she writes need to ne corrected. The Mediterranean, maritime trade routes aside, will always be a strategic priority fro NATO members because it’s a gateway for increasing migration from Southern countries and will always be a strategic frontier for defending Europe from the South. Granted, that is not necessarily the US’s immediate interest, but for all European member allies it is. As for alternatives to NATO, ideas are being floated, but that’s normal in an open environment such as ours where there is cross fertilization between academia, civil society/ngos and the government sectors and where opinions naturally abound. But in reality NATO is not going anywhere, not for a while anyway.

Leave a Comment

Positive SSL