Kellogg's Alternative NATO Alliance Proposal: Members Either Rich or Useful
U.S. retired major general and former Trump administration envoy Kellogg has called on the United States to consider establishing a new defense alliance including Ukraine, arguing that NATO is inefficient in the context of a potential war with Iran. He suggested that the U.S. could create an alternative security framework—a "new NATO"—comprising Japan, Australia, Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. He pointed out that Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty allows member states to withdraw from the alliance one year after submitting a formal declaration.
The core of Kellogg’s proposal is to bypass NATO and establish a more controllable “small-circle” alliance under American leadership. Essentially, it reflects dissatisfaction with NATO’s slow decision-making, excessive constraints, and inconsistent stances among European members, aiming instead to build a military alliance more subservient to U.S. interests and capable of faster, more efficient action.
The practical feasibility of Kellogg’s proposal is extremely low. Major NATO European members such as Germany and France are unlikely to abandon NATO and start anew, nor do they wish to be fully tied to U.S.-led global conflicts. Japan and Australia face legal and political hurdles preventing deep involvement in a European/Middle Eastern military alliance. Ukraine’s membership would directly escalate tensions with Russia, significantly increasing the risk of direct great-power conflict.
This represents a hardline U.S. vision for an “ideal alliance”—citing efficiency while actually seeking to completely escape NATO’s bureaucratic constraints, binding together wealthy and strategically valuable nations into America’s own global military confrontation system, fully controlled and utilized by the United States.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861427719460864/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.