The events of the late forties of the last century (a threat to the sovereignty of Greece, Norway and Turkey; a coup in Czechoslovakia; the blockade of Berlin (West)) heated up the already difficult international situation. The only way out could be a union, which followed in the form of the Brussels Treaty (between Luxembourg, Great Britain, Belgium, France, the Netherlands). It was a kind of general defense system.
In 1949, after negotiations with Canada and the United States, another Washington treaty was signed. Now there were twelve countries in the system: Belgium, Denmark, Great Britain, Italy, Iceland, Luxembourg, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, USA, Portugal, France (which left the Alliance in 1967 due to the internal crisis). Actually, this was the creation of NATO (04/04/1949). At that time, the organization consisted of 12 countries. The creation of NATO by this time has not yet been completed. In 1952, Greece joined Turkey, in 1955 - Germany, in 1982 - Spain, in 1999 - the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, in 2004 - the whole Baltic States, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia.
The creation of NATO was to guarantee both freedom and security of the admitted members both in Europe and in North America. But what about the rest of the state? And for everyone else, the formation of NATO was to become a formidable authority, with indestructible power and unquestioned authority.
But this requires an impressive apparatus. And NATO has it. The military-political bloc, thanks to a vast territory from 28 countries, has all the necessary infrastructure and human resources. Some military experts argue that the NATO structure is clumsy and outdated.
Decide for yourself: in the organization of hundreds of departments and various committees with numerous training centers. Only in the Alliance’s apparatus there are about 12,000 people, an impressive part of whose employees a place is determined in national governments. The leadership of the highest military apparatus is mostly Americans.
The governing body (NATO Council) includes state ambassadors and permanent representatives. The Council has a clear structure of meetings: the level of ambassadors - once a week; level of foreign ministers - once every 6 months. The heads of state of the Alliance meet when necessary (as appropriate).
Guidance given to the Secretary General of the Alliance. Only here, in the upper bloc, is there real political power and only here is it allowed to make decisions regarding NATO’s strategy and tactics. For example, recall: it was the NATO Council that announced the start of the Vietnam and Korean wars ; it was given the go-ahead for the invasion of Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia; the occupation of Afghanistan was approved here. Payments for such decisions are millions of lives ...
But within its walls, NATO strictly observes democratic principles, all members are equal here, and only the majority of votes is taken into account when making decisions.
The functions of the Defense Planning Committee include security. This body, called KPO, has equal rights with the Council. It is assembled twice a year and consists of defense ministers of the countries of the Alliance. The purpose of the meetings is to assess the capabilities and forces of states that pose a threat to UN countries, develop plans for further action.
The highest military authority is the military committee (chiefs of general staffs of armies). Their competence is the infrastructure of the Alliance (bases, warehouses, airfields, communication systems). By the way, in Europe, only the American general is appointed supreme commander. In his submission - three regions: South European, North European, Central European. And this is reflected in the laws of NATO.
In addition, NATO includes a nuclear deterrence and rapid response team, military staff (international) and an economic committee.
The secretary general oversees the unit. This is the face of the Alliance in NATO’s external contacts, and the defendant, and the keynote speaker. Subordinate - a huge staff of employees (of course, international).
History has repeatedly proved: any empire (Mongolian, Roman, Soviet Union) will achieve its maximum development and will be forced to engage in numerous wars, because it will no longer be able to feed its myriad army on its own. But sooner or later it will either fall from the onslaught of other, new forces, or it will fall apart from the inability to control the bulky mechanism. The creation of NATO was the formation of an aggressive empire, infinitely hungry and infinitely thirsty, increasing capacity for new military operations. Will history prove its pattern this time?