“What the then USSR could not accomplish during the COLD WAR ERA lasting nearly four decades, Zelensky accomplished it during the last TEN MINUTES of his 45 minute meeting on 28th February, 2025 at Oval office with President Trump. Slow but certain demise of NATO has been set in motion.”- Gp Capt TP Srivastava
Is NATO revolting against Trump ?
Within 48 hours of Trump-Zelensky chaotic summit meeting at oval office, 18 European leaders collectively announced unflinching support to Ukraine in supporting its war against Russia, a stand which is diametrically opposite to that of USA, which wants the war to end quickly. European nations led by British Premier Keir Starmer on one hand have pledged to support Ukraine with war fighting machines but on the other he is ‘supposedly’ trying to establish peace between warring nations with help of France and Germany. Trump has unilaterally decided to stop further military aid to Ukraine. NATO and USA are on collision course.
Trump-Zelensky Meeting
Trump-Zelensky meeting was not only meant to bring peace but also an agreement between USA and Ukraine for supply of critical minerals by Ukraine to USA. In spite of open spat in front of rolling cameras, Zelensky has stated that Ukraine will be ready for minerals deal with USA.
Mineral deal between USA and Ukraine, if fructifies, will be of enormous strategic significance for USA. Ukraine rich critical elements deposit are absolute necessity for USA. It will also help in rebuilding Ukraine infra structure.
US (Trump) Decision on Quitting NATO
It may be recalled that Trump had told US allies that “I will not protect you from Russia” and added that USA would withdraw from NATO unless all NATO members spend at least 2% or more of their respective GDP on defence. Although his proposal was accepted but even in 2025, most NATO members have not met the goal.
In order to restrain Trump from adopting such decisions, on 19th July, 2023 US Senate admitted Kaine-Rubio amendment, which prohibits POTUS to unilaterally decide and withdraw from NATO until it is approved by 2/3rd majority, both in the house and senate.
Apprehensions on NATO Alliance
President Macron of France has been most vocal and critical about US hegemony over NATO affairs. During an interview in July, 2018 ahead of NATO London summit Macron had said;
The bloc was undergoing ‘brain death’.
His remarks were praised as ‘golden words’ by Russia. His outburst followed Donald Trump’s decision of unilateral withdrawal from Syria. Macron went on to add;
“European countries could no longer rely on America to defend NATO, both strategically and politically. We need to recognize that we have a problem. We should reassess the reality of what NATO is in light of commitment of United States. There is no coordination whatsoever of strategic decision making between USA and its NATO allies.”
Ukraine’s Concerns
Present Ukrainian President Zelensky exposed brittleness and fragility of the alliance by stating that Ukraine was suffering Russian aggression due to inappropriate political decision taken by NATO due to opposition of Ukraine NATO membership by then German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008. Both leaders were instrumental in blocking Ukraine’s entry into NATO military alliance held in Bucharest, Romania. Zelenskyy called out both former leaders for reportedly blocking Ukraine's admission to the NATO military alliance during a summit that year in Bucharest, Romania.
NATO Alliance Members Views on China-Taiwan
NATO headquarters in Brussels issued a document dealing with new strategic concept in June, 2023. NATO has described China as a challenge to alliance’s interests, security and values. It has called China as an economic and military power which maintains opacity about its strategy, intentions and military build up.
Above statement clearly reflects the paradigm shift of NATO’s view on threat perception. NATO views China as a greater threat than Russia. This issue has caused visible fissures among NATO alliance countries. While most have chosen to remain silent but French President Macron has been vocal and to the point. He said concerning the sensitive Taiwan issue: “The question we need to answer, as Europeans, is : “Is it in our interest to accelerate a crisis on Taiwan? No”. The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers of USA on this topic and take our cue from the U.S. agenda and a Chinese overreaction.”
USA has upped the ante by permanently deploying US Navy’s nuclear submarine near South Korea on the pretext of providing protection to South Korea from a possible nuclear threat from North Korea.USS Kentucky, an Ohio class submarine capable of carrying upto 32 nuclear tipped SSMs arrived at south Korea port of Busan on 18th July, 2023. Incidentally last such visit by a US nuclear submarine to South Korea was in 1980.
Timeline of NATO Expansion
· The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949 by 12 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
· In 1955, West Germany joined NATO.
· In 1990, Germany was reunified and the new German Länder in the East became part of NATO.
· In 1999, Czechia, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO.
· In 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined NATO.
· In 2009, Albania and Croatia joined NATO.
· In 2017, Montenegro joined NATO.
· In 2020, North Macedonia joined NATO.
· In 2023, Finland joined NATO.
· In 2024, Sweden joined NATO.
"At the time of German unification on 3rd October, 1990, the then US Secretary of State James Baker had made categorical assertion in presence of his Russian counterpart Eduard Shevernadze that NATO expansion will cease henceforth.”
Conclusion
Europe is unlikely to support US agenda of being ‘global policeman’. European nations will have to take care of their own security. Any escalation of hostilities with China and/or Russia will invariably effect Europe. Are the European nations ready to suffer on account of US hostility towards China and Russia, irrespective of the reasons? Emergence of dissent among main European nations with US hegemony on deciding NATO policies has made NATO alliance fragile and brittle, notwithstanding the fact that membership has increased from 12 to 32.
Concept of establishing a security alliance viz NATO was flawed from the beginning. By default the controlling entity USA was sitting across Atlantic and guaranteeing protection to Europe. All European nations, both members and non-members of original NATO of 1949 became US parasite and in the process shed their respective responsibilities to prevent and/or face a massive USSR (now Russia) onslaught by land forces led by Armour across plains of Germany and France.
Assured nuclear umbrella promised by USA against a possible misadventure by Russia is mere statement. There is no way USA can protect any nation in Europe against a Russian nuclear strike. Retaliatory second strike will not repair the trauma/damage caused. Europe has no choice but to review its security matrix and clearly enunciate as to how a Russian offensive will be challenged.
Indeed the most ‘POTENT WEAPON’ and ONLY OPTION to get rid of US hegemony will be a FRIENDLY RUSSIA. Ukraine in NATO or NATO in Ukraine is of little or no strategic value. But will Europe be able to shed the nearly 76 year old PARASITIC TENDENCY and stop look across Atlantic. No doubt that almost entire Europe is dependent on US weapons, which is unlikely to change in a hurry. Will Europe have the moral courage to acknowledge and accept that in current global turmoil, INDIAN POLICY OF REMAINING NON-ALIGNED FROM POSITION OF STRENGTH is perhaps the best policy. But Parasites might find it difficult to swallow.
NATO will exist but only on paper and in Brussels.
Last Word
Did you hear Trump's address to the Congress last evening US time morning India time ?
I sat through the entire proceedings.
Zelensky sent a letter to Trump stating ," He is ready for everything Trump says.
NATO be damned. Can we look beyond our noses?"
Comments