Has NATO lost its significance?

[A.V.]

Recently NATO celebrated 60 years of its existence on the 3-4 th of april.Has it lost its significance in the present era particularly in the recent events in afganistan or it will continue to be a powerful organization into the future decades too ?

your views and poll.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

NATO never had challengers, now one is appearing the SCO.

 

[EnlightenedMonk]

Will have some significant power in the coming years as well... but, definitely the power is waning with the emergence of new global conglomerates and consortiums...

 

[Singh]

NATO still has a powerful say, but with an increasing multi-polar world, NATO has to be broken down into smaller regional focussed organization with region leader, and a seperate larger organization with perhaps US as the boss.
An example to illustrate my point
A subchapter of South East Asia can exist with Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand as members, US, India, Australia as observers and this subchapter's rep can be appointed as an observer to NATO ?

 

[Yusuf]

NATO is powerful as it was when it wax founded and with France returning back to the fold it has got a boost. There is no one to challenge it's power. But the question that needs to be asked post Cold War is, is NATO as an organization relevant? Is it required? The only thing it's involved in right now is the WOT reluctantly probably as it's largely a US war in it's hunt for OBL.
It's involvement in the Balkans was a disaster.
Besides today more than it ever was is a tool dominated by US.
On paper it's powerful both economically and militarily, but it does not have any relavance
in the present world order.

 

[Vinod2070]

NATO never had challengers, now one is appearing the SCO.

Warsaw pact for the duration of the cold war?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Warsaw pact for the duration of the cold war?

true Vinod but Warsaw pact was spearheaded more by one Nation Russia, the SCO would be a more serious challenge since Russia and China and others are involved, and both are now in a much better economic position, but Warsaw pact for it's time served it's purpose for the soviet union. After the collapse of Russia one of the first things USA did was get Poland on USA's side.

 

[Singh]

Russia will never help China in a war and vice versa.. both have fought bitter wars (over Siberia), have tensions over copying of military tech etc. etc.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Russia will never help China in a war and vice versa.. both have fought bitter wars (over Siberia), have tensions over copying of military tech etc. etc.

I think Russia is trying to keep China in the Russian camp rather than lose them to USA?

 

[SATISH]

Well NATO concept, Warsaw and SCO all seems to me like a gang war concept. I dont think it is relevant in modern day insurgency warfare. But it can also be seen as countries getting together to solve a common problem faced by them.

 

[EnlightenedMonk]

I doubt China would ever goto the US for anything more than trade... he'll not get any weapons out of Uncle Sam... and, Uncle Sam would most certainly not support any of his ambitions with respect to Arunachal Pradesh, Taiwan, Siberia etc.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

so far China has been able to play both sides of each other well for their maximum gain.

 

[Pintu]

LETHALFORCE , I think though Russia, is expressing its interest keeping China on its own side, but its sceptical about China's intention in the future of Asia, and moreover in defence side , it had some bitter relations with China as a customer to their products, as China simply copy their products to sell overseas(developing countries) and also for their bitter memory of China as a neighbour.

Regards

 

[Pintu]

so far China has been able to play both sides of each other well for their maximum gain.

I agree with you on this point China has been successful till now playing both SCO and NATO.

 

[Soham]

While I wouldn't call NATO a dead organization, Its relevance though reduced, is enough to justify its existence.
Good for Europe, as individually they might be technological strongholds, but they don't possess the manpower to hold against an invasion by an enemy with greater numbers.
United, they present a formidable force, especially with the rejoining of the French.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

LETHALFORCE , I think though Russia, is expressing its interest keeping China on its own side, but its sceptical about China's intention in the future of Asia, and moreover in defence side , it had some bitter relations with China as a customer to their products, as China simply copy their products to sell overseas(developing countries) and also for their bitter memory of China as a neighbour.

Regards

true Pintu but like most large nations you do what you need for the current situation and with NATO encirlement they rather be on good terms with the Chinese than to have Chinese support NATO, even if it is just on paper. Both nations have also worked jointly in UNSC voting.

 

[Vinod2070]

true Vinod but Warsaw pact was spearheaded more by one Nation Russia, the SCO would be a more serious challenge since Russia and China and others are involved, and both are now in a much better economic position, but Warsaw pact for it's time served it's purpose for the soviet union. After the collapse of Russia one of the first things USA did was get Poland on USA's side.

Well I am not so sure. The NATO- Warsaw pact groupings were openly opposed to each other and had massive deployments alll over Europe. The Warsaw pact was actually much stronger in conventional forces. It was estimated that they could roll over the whole of Europe in a matter of weeks! It was just the nuclear deterrent that prevented war.

SCO is not openly confrontational with the USA AFAIK. Both Russia and China see their relationship with the USA as more important than with each other. It is more about protecting their backyard from intrusion than fighting with NATO or USA. I may be wrong in this but this is what I understand as of now.

 

[Pintu]

true Pintu but like most large nations you do what you need for the current situation

I agree with you on this point, though we have bitter memories with China and a burning border dispute with them, the Chinese for their own interest wanted to project that they are interested to have better relation with us, though their hawkish elements come out with rhetoric, and also PLA comes out with border violations.

Both Russia and China see their relationship with the USA as more important than with each other.

I agree with Vinodji on this point.


Regards

 

[Yusuf]

NATO is today as relavant as the UN that is not at all

 

[Soham]

^^^

Nah. Wouldn't disgrace NATO by comparing it to the UN. Atleast they have got the job done, and still pack a powerful military punch. Russia is re-emerging, and if they decide to do another-Georgia, NATO will serve as a powerful deterrent.