As they say in the army, NATO “took a fart on the helmet”. The Atlantic Alliance is going through the greatest crisis in its history. The founder of the charter whose ambition was to protect “the North Atlantic”claims a territory from one of the members of the collective security pact. The shepherd dog no longer guards the sheep, who look at him like a hungry wolf. This is the end of the famous article 5 which ensured the “one for all”. In other words, the credibility of American guarantees has become uncertain, even illusory. There is no longer a transatlantic community. So what happened to lead to this disenchantment?
NATO has changed in nature since the collapse of the Soviet empire. Until 1991 – the end of the Cold War – there was a transatlantic bloc, controlled by Washington, sheltered by a protective dome, and which fed on the confrontation between East and West. From the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO’s vocation ceased to be only defensive and regional – Euratlantic -, it became offensive and global. James Baker then sets the new course and thus defines the new geostrategic vision: “Our goal now is to create a transatlantic community, stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok. » Then will come the Brzezinski doctrine, still in application: “Who rules Eurasia controls the destiny of the world. » The cap is the global hegemony of “the American hyperpower”.
European dependence is total
Brzezinski saw European integration as a tool for transforming Europe into a protectorate of the United States. In the wake of his reflections, people said until recently: Europe is a catharsis. France aims for reincarnation, Germany aims for redemption. Therefore, American strategy considers that Ukraine and Central Asia must be brought into the American sphere of influence. The risk for France is to be dragged away from its vital interests and to align its strategic positions with American desires: today Ukraine, Greenland. Tomorrow, Panama, Taiwan, etc. France must recover its sovereignty, its diplomatic and military independence. We have to get out of NATO. Indeed, the European Union remains, on a strategic level, subject to the North Atlantic Council. It is still the 51st star of the American flag. There is a constitutive defect there.
“ France must be able to speak to the world again as a power »
Designed without any source of power of its own, it has been endowed, since its foundation, with an external unifier, America. It only has borrowed power. Moreover, the Europeans took care to write, in the Treaty of Lisbon: “NATO remains, for its member states, the foundation of their collective defense and the forum for their implementation. » Furthermore, European countries have chosen vassalage: 64% of arms imports come from the United States; and they are subject to the concept of interoperability, which presupposes the compatibility of materials, modes of action, and operations. The symbiosis is based on a formidable asymmetry: it is the Americans who define the infrastructures, the technologies; European mechanical dependence is total.
This is the strategy of “the spare part”. All European weapons must be “NATO-compatible”. When we are France, when we have the second largest maritime space in the world – a unique case in Europe –, when we have an independent defense industry, when we are a “World State”that is to say a European territorial power but also an American, Indo-oceanic, peaceful one – a power which extends over half of the universe – we must above all not strengthen the global hegemony of the big neighbor across the way, but rather seek to provide a counterweight to it. France must be able to speak to the world again as a power and no longer through the mediation of the European Commission or the Secretary General of NATO.
