[Salon] A Cost-Benefit Analysis of NATO Membership?

FM: John Whitbeck

As anticipated by my message of June 22 (retransmitted below), European "leaders" have today bowed their collective knee before their Lord Trump and, in the words of the arch-sycophant and embarrassing American tool Mark Rutte (www.youtube.com/watch?v=--UQ5oYfIjk), made the "historic, transformational decision" to surrender to Trump's 5% military spending ultimatum.

The pathetic current crop of European "leaders" (*) appears to be incapable of actually thinking, instead performing their roles and functions like fungible artificial "intelligence" bots programmed by the for-profit American Hate, Fear and War Industry.

However, even if current European "leaders" (*) are hopeless and mindless followers, the ludicrous outrageousness of the 5% military spending ultimatum (which would not apply to the United States) could serve as a constructive wake-up call and cause at least some European politicians aspiring to be future leaders to think about what spending priorities would actually serve the best interests of their own people and, not incidentally, their own personal electoral prospects.

Particularly after the imposition of the 5% military spending requirement, any rational cost-benefit analysis should lead most citizens of most NATO member states to conclude that the costs of NATO membership far exceed the benefits (if any) and that their interests would be best served by withdrawing from NATO, which should have ceased to exist when its reason to exist, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, ceased to exist, and, thereby, recovering their sovereignty and independence and their democratic freedom of choice as to their own national priorities, which would clearly not be identical for all 32 NATO member states.

One can envision opposition politicians arguing in future election campaigns for applying their countries' available resources to paying for matters that might actually improve the quality of life for their own people rather than to paying tribute to Lord Trump and mostly American corporate merchants of death -- and hence, as the logical consequence, for the NATO equivalent of multiple, popularly supported "Brexits".

Surely, if given a choice, many rational European citizens should, even if, as is likely, they continue to be subjected to relentless media propaganda and disinformation, find such a message and political option an attractive one.

In our world going mad, maintaining sanity requires envisioning hope for a saner world, even if that hope now seems only a faint glimmer on the horizon.

NOTE (*): Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who is capable of thinking and of prioritizing the interests of his own citizens, has earned a personal exemption from my characterization of European "leaders". While NATO's final communiqué today (www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_236705.htm) does not accord the official exemption sought by Spain and Rutte insists that all member states are bound by the new 5% military spending requirement, Sanchez has said: "We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defense investment, but we are not going to do it." By doing so, he has set a virtuous precedent.