Mutual Defense.

Donald Trump's recent trip to Europe to meet with European leaders on the future of NATO brought up some very important questions. Like "What does the world's future look like?" It was made clear several years ago that the Ukraine would have no part of NATO, even after submitting to a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP).

What are the requirements of the MAP?

There are 5 points.

"1) A willingness to settle international, ethnic, or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of the armed forces.
2) An ability to contribute to the organization's defense and missions.

3) Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership.

4) Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it.

5) Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation."

This process began under Leonid Kuchma after the Ukraine first applied in 1998. For some odd reason, they decided to back out under elected president Viktor Yanukovych and his election in 2010. This, fortuitously enough for Russia, leaves the Ukraine ripe for the picking. Article 5 cannot be invoked for a non-member nation. Am I questioning Yanukovych's intentions here? Quite possibly.

One would think that with all this talk of "collusion with Russia" that we might be able to reap tangible benefits from actually colluding with Russia on the world stage. NATO membership here would guarantee a nation's safety from Russian overtures/force, but precious little else.

Moving forward, our attention should take a decisive shift toward China and the Indian/Pacific. They are the longer-term headache.

(Who seems to be in Russia's crosshairs, by the way?
- The Ukraine
-Kazakhstan
- Azerbaijan)

NATO's  article 5 has been invoked only once, and that was after the 9/11 attacks.
So realistically, moving forward, a NATO equivalent of the Indian/Pacific seems to be what we really need, as well as "incidents at sea" agreements. What are these? These nifty arrangements are meant to keep any conflict from becoming a conflagration on a wider, much more destructive scale. As far as the possibility of invoking article 5 in the future, cyber attacks of sufficient magnitude may be a trigger for invocation.

What about the future of NATO and the EU?
According to Daniel, Germany and France will leave the Eurozone to pursue a linked monetary union of their own making. When will this happen? As soon as France and Germany realize that they are better off together, and as citizens begin to demand action to be taken on these grounds. When a tipping point is reached, and the tangible benefits outweigh the perceived political risks of pursuing such a union.

What about Russia and Iran?

When do I see that relationship reaching its expiration date? The conflict with Iran, after they are essentially bombed into the stone age. That said, I believe Russia needs to step in and fill some gaps in Syria. Maintaining a naval base does not come close to satisfying the actual requirements on the ground in Syria and the future of the nation. Russia needs to explain to Iran that they "have it from here." Any pending peacekeeping arrangement needs to keep this in mind.

An alliance in the Indian/Pacific modeled after NATO may prove to be useful in navigating the tricky, hazardous situation developing in the South China Sea.

A strong American posture is necessary in the South China Sea, with a renewed focus on securing the shipping lanes found there. A fearless, watchful presence is of paramount importance in maintaining the security of the region and the freedom to navigate these waters.