How Useless Is NATO? So Useless That Four NATO Members Would Pick Russia to Defend Them If Attacked

Russia's President Vladimir Putin attends his annual press conference in Moscow on December 19, 2013. AFP PHOTO / KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV (Photo credit should read KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP/Getty Images)

Originally appeared at Russia Insider.

In a Gallup poll, respondents from Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia and Turkey said they would pick Russia as an ally if their nations were attacked. Yes, those are all NATO members.

In the face of a “resurgent Russia” and other “emerging challenges”, NATO needs to stay agile and ready to “fight tonight,” according to Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, commander of NATO’s Allied Command Operations and supreme allied commander for Europe.

There’s one little, tiny problem though: Four NATO members would prefer Russia in the trenches next to them if a war broke out — and in Ukraine, there’s a 50-50 split between those who would choose to call Moscow over Washington in case of war. In U-K-R-A-I-N-E!

According to a new Gallup poll:

Who you gonna call? For the citizens of four NATO countries asked which military power they’d want fighting on their side if attacked, the answer was simple — Russia.


China and Russia picked each other, war-torn Ukraine and Iraq split down the middle, while those four members of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization — Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia and Turkey — plumped for Russia.

We don’t even know what to type. We’re type-less.


Vincent Law
the authorVincent Law
I have a Hatreon now! If you like my writing and want me to write more, consider supporting me there.


  • I wonder if that answer represents more a preference for Russian foreign policy over American led NATO policy, than a judgement about fighting ability. Perhaps both. Presumably every army should be ready to “fight tonight”. I’m not interested Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti’s opinion if I understand his position correctly. I would like President Trump to conduct the foreign policy he said he wanted on the campaign trail and that was going to be good relations with Russia. He did well during the campaign standing up to the Lugenpresse and the Jew led Neo-Cons looking to murder some more Arabs. The best thing for Europe, the USA and the middle east is for the US to stop harassing Russia, stop doing everything possible to make them an enemy and treat them like they treat Europe and the US. They treat both like entities they want to be partners with and have friendly relations with. This would reduce or stop the migration (or the excuse for it) of “refugees” that are slowly destroying the standard of living in Europe, it would reduce military spending and it would make the world a nicer place to live in again.

    The only people that feel they would be hurt by this policy are Israel and World Jewry, who see it as in their best interest to have every country they consider an enemy of Israel in the middle east (which is all of them) to be destroyed thru war, with millions more Arabs dead. This would also reduce Muslim hostility to the west. Just as Saddam Hussein knew the Americans made war on Iraq for the Jews when his first counter strike in 1991 was to launch Scud missiles on Israel, Muslims know the US behaves like the Jews prostitute, willing to do whatever its told.

    My preference is for friendly relations with Russia, Europe and everyone else if possible. The country and people I consider the biggest trouble makers in the world are the Jews and Israel. They were also the problem that guaranteed WW II.

    President Trump has some support from Tucker Carlson.

  • Russia has been flexing very formidable muscle for years, while also growing steadily and recovering from such a horrible recession. I don’t think anyone denies Russia’s raw militant force, and they generally support their allies as opposed to “opting out” or just using it as an excuse to swarm your country with tanks and infantry and topple your government. *cough*
    Couple that with the US’ pathetic “war” with ISIS and we look like complete asshats that have no actual use in an actual conflict beyond giving your enemies cheap guns and training and I’m surprised only 4 nations picked Russia.

    Greece I pity. The very founding fathers of civilization, now bankrupt with spirits crushed and “migrants” washing up on the beach endlessly.
    Ukraine has a large number of ethnic Russians iirc so a split doesn’t suprise me.
    Don’t get me wrong, a broad European military alliance is of huge importance for the entire continent and I greatly support that, but it would be interesting to see a European-Russian alliance.

  • I perceive NATO as still being very useful. The European nations certainly need a common defence alliance against the larger threats ie. Russia, China, UN, EU.. There should however be a re-evaluation of their common purpose.

  • The world saw Putin step in and save the Assad regime, its longtime ally. Russia backs up its allies.

    America takes out people like Gadaffi who cooperate with the United States.

    • They even pushed out Mubarak of Egypt, who had never been anything but a loyal ally – and murdered few people by MENA standards.

  • The goal of NATO hasn’t been defense against Soviet aggression since, well, since the USSR collapsed. Now, the goal isn’t to defend Turkey or Greece, the goal is to “contain” and “rollback” Russian influence, to maintain a tight grip on the military establishments of the European nations, and to prevent the UN from becoming a serious globalist power.

    In that sense, NATO is still quite effective and useful. Don’t confuse the PR for the purpose.

    • Let`s just say say that NATO from the inception had two roles: deter russians(under whatever government) and control continental europeans. Which is also one role. Anglo creation indeed!

Leave a Reply