Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Militare, Problemi militari, Unione Europea

Nato. Obiettivi, ruolo e finanziamenti odierni. Una realtà mutata.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-04-03.

NATO_affiliations_in_Europe.svg

Sulla Nato, sul suo ruolo e sui suoi finanziamenti stanno circolando una quantità impressionante di notizie inesatte e fuorvianti.

Molte sono messe in giro ad arte, molte invece sono semplicemente il frutto di ignoranza, colpevole in quanto sanabile leggendosi i trattati: e spesso più la fonte dimostra la sua non conoscenza del problema, maggiore è la sicurezza con cui parla.

*

Questo è il testo fondamentale dell’Alleanza, cui devono sommarsi i successivi.

The North Atlantic Treaty. Washington D.C. – 4 April 1949

*

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Croatia 01 Apr. 2009

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Albania 01 Apr. 2009

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Slovenia 26 Mar. 2003

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Slovak Republic 26 Mar. 2003

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Romania 26 Mar. 2003

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Lithuania 26 Mar. 2003

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Latvia 26 Mar. 2003

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Estonia 26 Mar. 2003

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria 26 Mar. 2003

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Poland 16 Dec. 1997

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Hungary 16 Dec. 1997

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Czech Republic 16 Dec. 1997

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Spain 10 Dec. 1981

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Federal Republic of Germany 23 Oct. 1954

Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey 22 Oct. 1951

*

Questo articolo sarebbe difficilmente comprensibile senza la loro previa lettura.

* * * * * * *

«The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty»

*

«Art. 1. The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.»

*

«Art. 2. The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.»

*

«Art. 4. The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.»

*

«Art. 5. The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. ….»

*

«Art. 10. The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession»

* * * * * * *

Il cuore del trattato è l’art. 5, che stabilisce come un attacco ad un singolo stato membro sia considerato essere un attacco a tutta la Alleanza.

La Nato definisce anche molto chiaramente la ripartizione delle spese.

«Member countries make direct and indirect contributions to the costs of running NATO and implementing its policies and activities. »

*

«Indirect – or national – contributions are the largest and come, for instance, when a member volunteers equipment or troops to a military operation and bears the costs of the decision to do so.»

*

«Direct contributions are made to finance requirements of the Alliance that serve the interests of all 28 members – and are not the responsibility of any single member – such as NATO-wide air defence or command and control systems.»

*

Dall’ultimo bilancio pubblicato si evince come le spese dirette assommino a circa 746 milioni di euro.

Ma, come prima riportato, queste sono quasi esclusivamente spese organizzative, non militari.

Circa le spese militari indirette, nel 2016 gli Stati Uniti hanno speso 596 bn$, il Regno Unito 55.5, la Germania 36.4, l’Italia 23.8.

Tranne il Regno Unito, che dispone di una modesta forza nucleare, la Nato fa conto su tutta la forza atomica dei soli Stati Uniti. Si comprendono in essa le bombe in senso stretto, i vettori terrestri, aerei e navali, sottomarini inclusi, nonché tutto il sistema di telecomunicazioni di terra e satellitare. Senza armi atomiche la Nato non avrebbe senso. Ma nel contempo, senza esercito la Nato sarebbe solo un inutile giocattolo.

Gli Stati Uniti devolvono circa 400 miliardi Usd all’armamento atomico, ossia due volte circa la somma totale impiegata per le proprie forze armate da tutti gli altri paesi membri della Nato, Regno Unito escluso.

Nel converso, le forze armate dei paesi Nato, Stati Uniti esclusi, sono fatiscenti.

Consideriamo soltanto la Germania, a mo’ di esempio.

Al 5 agosto 2015 il suo esercito aveva in forza 61,219 soldati, come riporta il Die Stärke der Streitkräfte, organico sceso a 60,431 militari a tutto il 28 febbraio 2017, sempre come riportato dal Die Stärke der Streitkräfte. Le sue forze corazzate dispongono in tutto di 225 (duecentoventicinque) carri armati Leopard 2.

Solo per paragone, l’esercito russo dispone di 15,500 carri armati, quasi tutti più moderni del Leopard 2. Il suo organico comprende 395,000 militari, dei quali 190,000 coscritti. Ma nell’esercito russo il servizio di leva ha breve durata ed è caratterizzato da frequenti richiami per addestramento: la forza totale mobilizzabile supera il milione e mezzo di uomini.

*

Il Presidente Trump constata che:

– l’onere per il mantenimento e la tenuta in manutenzione del’arsenale atomico costa circa 400 miliardi ed è a totale carico degli Usa, anche se tutti i paesi aderenti la Nato ne usufruiscono.

– che il livello operativo delle forze armate europee è virtualmente nullo, specie poi se paragonato a quello russo.

Di conseguenza vuole che:

– gli alleati si facciano carico pro quota delle spese per l’arsenale atomico;

– adeguino gli organici, gli armamenti e l’addestramento delle forze armate:

– investano in spese militari anche loro il 6% del loro pil, così come stanno facendo gli americani.

A questo punto il problema è semplicissimo.

I paesi membri dell’Unione Europea sembrerebbero avere una voglia nulla di sottostare alle esigenze americane e dimostrano un gran desiderio si svolgere un loro propria politica estera, ma nel contempo dimostrano una estrema ritrosia ad investire alcunché nelle forze armate.

La conseguenza è ovvia: gli Stati Uniti richiedono un cambiamento di rotta. Se ciò non avvenisse, sarebbe molto verosimile che non intendessero correre il rischio di una guerra atomica lobale, che li lascerebbe distrutti, per difendere la realtà geografica europea. In altri termini, la Nato resterebbe soltanto un nome privo di significati politici e militari.

E, si tenga ben presente, l’Unione Europea ha dei vicini che non vedono l’ora di poterle far pagare i conti, con tutti gli interessi maturati, trattandola per come essa li ha trattati.


Il Presidente Trump, esattamente come il Presidente Putin, sa benissimo come la Germania entro quindici anni sarà spopolata dagli autoctoni e tramutata in un enclave islamico, indifendibile dal punto di vista americano e facilissima preda per la Russia.

Per quale motivo correre il rischio di un conflitto nucleare per la Germania?

Tanto alla fine i russi dovranno occupare un’Europa spopolata degli autoctonini per impedire che diventi un nuovo focolaio islamico.


*

Nota 1.

Nella sua recente conferenza stampa, la ministressa tedesca alla difesa, Frau Ursula von der Leyen, ha semplicemente scambiato le spese militari dirette con quelle indirette. Basta guardarla in faccia, nell’allegata fotografia, per capire che mente.

Nota 2.

Attenzione! Molti mutamenti sono in corso. Per la prima volta in settanta anni gli Stati Uniti stanno andando ad un G20, o riunioni internazionali analoghe designate con altro nome, non schierati con l’Europa, ma contro di essa, eccezion fatta per il Regno Unito. Sono invece alleati con la Cina, l’India e l’Arabia Saudita. Sarebbe cosa da meditarsi a lungo.


Reuters. 2017-03-21. Tillerson no-show at NATO renews European disquiet about Trump

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s decision to miss his first meeting with NATO foreign ministers has unsettled European allies who fear the no-show reopens questions about President Donald Trump’s commitment to the alliance.

Reuters exclusively reported on Monday that Tillerson would stay at home to attend Trump’s expected April 6-7 talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Florida, skipping the April 5-6 NATO talks. U.S. officials also said Tillerson would visit Russia later in April.

“No matter how you spin it, this is unfortunate symbolism,” said one senior European diplomat, adding that it undid the work of Trump’s defense minister and vice president, who visited NATO headquarters in Brussels in February to provide reassurances after Trump’s criticism of the alliance.

During his campaign and on the eve of taking office, Trump called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization “obsolete”, although he has since said he strongly supports the alliance.

Some allies, particularly in the former Soviet bloc, are acutely sensitive to any sign of waning U.S. interest in their defense as they deal with a more assertive Russia.

Concerns that Trump is too close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom the West has sought to isolate for annexing Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, made Tillerson’s expected visit to Brussels all the more pressing, European allies said.

Tillerson worked with Russia’s government for years as a top executive at Exxon Mobil, and has questioned sanctions against Moscow that he said could harm U.S. businesses.

“We needed to hear his vision for the alliance,” said a diplomat due to attend the April ministerial.

RARE NO-SHOW

NATO’s quarterly meetings are closed-door sessions over about two days in which governments discuss security strategies and approve top secret documents designed to guide the nuclear-armed alliance in areas ranging from training in Afghanistan to defenses against Iranian missiles.

Given the U.S. role as the de facto head of the alliance, it is rare for the United States’ top diplomat to miss a NATO meeting. The last time was during the Iraq war in 2003, when Colin Powell was forced to cancel at the last moment.

A NATO official in Brussels said it was “up to allies to decide at what level they are represented” and referred further questions to the U.S. State Department.

U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Tom Shannon, who served under President Barack Obama and who has stayed on under Trump, is expected to represent the United States at the NATO meeting next month, two diplomats said.

Trump himself is expected in Brussels for a NATO summit in May, although the date is still under discussion.

A senior French diplomat said the U.S. State Department still seemed to be in a state of transition.

“We still don’t see the role of the State Department in the new U.S. administration. Tillerson has been discreet and a great number of posts have not been filled so the modus operandi is still in limbo,” the French diplomat said.

Several other diplomats said they were unhappy that Tillerson had not offered to hold a NATO meeting in Washington later this week, given that 26 alliance foreign ministers and Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg would be there for a meeting of the coalition against the Islamic State militant group.

The U.S. State Department spokeswoman said Tillerson would not have a separate, NATO-focused meeting with the 26 ministers but that they would meet in the counter-Islamic State talks.

Annunci
Messo il tag: