What could it mean if someone stated that NATO troop deployments in Europe were dangerous?

Recently I was told a German MP was warning about NATO troop deployments in Europe. How might this be interpreted?

In the past, it was a sort of taboo topic to talk about the role and function of the NATO for the official German policy. So the question is:

Against which backdrop does someone tell you that an expansion of the NATO troop deployment in Europe would be dangerous?


Today there is a changing situation: the target of the power elite of Germany

(__also France, but the French politicians might misinterpret the intentions of the German power elite__)

is to have a European army by 2020. The objective is to achieve the ability to act in the so-called European interests. But as Germany is the European hegemon this will mean first of all on behalf of the German interests which depend on the exporting industry. Consequently, the problem is that there has been a severe export excess for long.

(__By the way, as a result of EMU design flaws and not because of a paramount competitiveness.__)

_I f_

you want to maintain this export excess,

which is an untenable situation

_f o r_

the indebtedness of other economies is constantly rising this way . . .

(__As a marging note, it should be mentioned that this problem is _the_ taboo topic of the German policy, and exactly this proves the real aggressiveness of the German power elite and their satellites in politics, journalism and social sciences, whatever the sententious speeches or statements might suggest.__)

So, if you wish to perpetuate this state of export excess on the one side and indebtedness on the other side of the medal, you need, on the one hand, to enhance your influence on those countries that you are in a union with

(__e.g. the EU or the EMU__)

in order to support your intentions, and once this has been achieved, you will be, on the other hand, in the position to expand your influence to resourceful and cheap labour countries to exploit them and/or as new export markets for your own products.

(__This is the behaviour of a junkie.
Consequently I call such an economy export junkie.__)

Well, erstwhile such politics was called imperialism and although nowadays this word is banned its content is globally thriving.

_End of Reflection_

So, again, the question is:

Against what backdrop would someone state that NATO troop deployments in Europe were dangerous?

(__Which they are, of course.__)

That there should be less NATO troops in Europe? That instead of NATO troops there should be the troops of the new European army as soon as possible

— or would the backdrop be that


could do the job of the NATO?

*  *  *

Mind you:

What was originally the job of the NATO?

If there is no more reason for its existence, it should be abolished, which would have been a good idea in the nineties, and as we know that was not done.

This is by the way a strong argument against the peaceableness of the Western world.

That means, in the nineties, we would have needed a new security architecture for Europe:

Including Russia and a construction of a federation of states of the Balkans.

(__By not even attempting to do so
, for example
, today’s Mafia state called Kosovo could establish.__)

It would have been quite possible to do so, but impossible with power elites thinking in the box of national states even though being under the umbrella of the EU, let alone the USA.

*  *  *

Well, today we have a severely confused political situation, for in the nineties the political master plan was wrongly set. That means, for my understanding, we need first and foremost to think out-of-the-box.


a) different European politics basically reconditioning the EU

(__including ECB etc.__)

, thus thinking of Europe in terms of regions instead of national states


b) even a European army:

But for what purpose?

Well, we need an army that is incapable to act against other nations but is exclusively capable to defend the territory of the EU.

For such an army, the favourite weapons of today’s executive personnel such as tanks, jet fighters, aircraft carriers, dreadnoughts are not required, and no standing army either. Today’s technological possibilities open up the installation of weapon systems which allow to defend your own territory without threatening the territory of your enemy and far more cheaply. If your enemy realises he does not stand a chance to besiege you, he will prefer to save money this way, too.

_C o n s e q u e n t l y_

, that could be a good start _not only_ for living peacefully together _but also_ for working together.

This would mean not only looking into the real societal and environmental problems and dangers but _commencing_ to solve and to eliminate them as energetically and constructively as possible.


_i s_

the right direction for the future and not some kind of new Wilhelminism— compellingly including the whole EU _for_ the German power elite alone could not make their dreams come true.

© Joachim Endemann