What is "la Raison d'Etre" of NATO?

I am sure you know I am aware of all the points you bring up.
Like everyone, I know how Sputnik and Russia feels as well as the reason for the existence of NATO
What I propose is thinking outside of the box and somehow try to convince the world how wrong we are to waste so much money, effort and energy.
My na?vet? resides in me thinking that the world can change
It is a Persomal feeling that betrays what's in my heart for the benefit of humanity.
I am sure you got that and all I wish is that more people views the situation the way I do, and it this was to happen worldwide, even if it takes a generation, so be it. We would have achieved something.

Jacques, Your concern about NATO's continuing existence has been voiced by both Trump and Putin, perhaps for different reasons, perhaps for the same reason. There have been questions raised about the value of NATO for many years as seen on a google search for "Is NATO viable?" For example:

https://autumndompke.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/nato-a-viable-organization/ and https://susanknowles.com/is-nato-a-viable-option-in-defeating-isis/ and https://www.quora.com/Is-NATO-viable-without-the-United-States.

My personal position would be that NATO's role in geopolitics is extremely important, especially given Putin's desire to expand Russia's sphere of influence and perhaps re-capture much of the old Soviet Union. Much like the common market and European Union NATO is another step toward eradicating the long history of European countries fighting each other. Under NATO, they have an opportunity to band together in common cause. Exactly what that cause should be may be debated, but for me it is to stop Russian expansion.
You say that you "may sound na?ve" and in my opinion when you speak of "trust" and talking "to the Russians and come to an agreement, the conclusion of which will be avoiding a confrontation" and that "Only scared people or scared nations will agree to it" (it being NATO's existence), you are being na?ve. You are asking the age-old question "Why can't we all just get along?"

I believe that each nation works for its own best interests and its leaders usually shape foreign policy in that direction. I say usually because some leaders shape foreign policy to leave a legacy, some to enhance their personal interests and fortunes, and some to secure land and resources needed by their country. No one works on trust and many agreements exist in the form of treaties. People are indeed scared and their governments often direct geopolitics to assuage that fear. NATO is one way of reducing fear of war, fear of cultural change, fear of oppression, etc. Russia is a huge country that has almost no ports that open to the sea. It also needs oil and wheat. Ukraine has a valuable port, oil and wheat. Russia did what was in its best interests and took over a major port by overwhelming force and is attempting to take over the government by capturing land and fostering disinformation. There is no trust between Ukraine and Russia, and NATO counties see this and react accordingly. There is no sitting down with Putin and speaking of justice, national boundaries, or past agreements, because Putin is acting in Russia's national interests.

So much for substance. Just one word on style. Your heart-felt presentation consists mostly of one sentence paragraphs, each one of which deserves some elaboration.Jack Maser

Indeed, these days NATO has been the center of conversation involving several countries of the world, mostly European ones.

A summit just took place this early December 2019 in London and, sadly as expected not many positive reactions came out of it.

I am not a politician nor a journalist. I do not claim to know more than the average individual. However, I would like to bring up a point and see if someone out there agree with my thinking.

After World War II, in 1949, European nations along with the U.S sat down to draw a plan, born from the fear of the USSR , to come up with a protection of European nations should the USSR decide to attack them.

In other words, in the eyes of everyone, the USSR was the big bad wolf always wishing to devour countries weaker than his.

For that plan to survive, it was asked that every member of this new organization participates in providing money to put in place an army, buy arms, munitions and supply men.

To make it easy for everyone to appreciate, it was understood that an attack on any member is equal to an attack on all members who will in turn come to the rescue of the member attacked.

It seems that it has worked for the last sixty years, though at time some members did not respect the payment of their share and the new president of the USA made sure he reminded them, and they obliged.

I do not know the amount of the budget of NATO but I am sure it is in the billions. I confess that this amount bothers me very much as it means adding killing material for our planet when we all know we have so many poor people who can use some of it.

That is one concern. My other point is the following: if Today Russia ( the ex USSR) is the reason we have NATO, why not to talk to the Russians and come to an agreement, the conclusion of which will be avoiding a confrontation all together. If everyone agrees that there is no plan to attack one another but rather every nation to take care of its own people, if all agree to dismantle the arms meant to attack one another, NATO will lose its raison d' être.

I understand that I am talking of TRUST, a commodity, unfortunately not very present around us. But is it not time to think out of the box? To try to solve problems differently? For, yes, we have a system in place, but we all know it is not functioning the way we wish.

I may sound naive, for everyone will tell me that Mister Poutine is a bad man that you cannot trust him etc...But I say, let's see, let's find out.

In conclusion, my point is that I see no reason for NATO to exist. Only scared people or scared nations will agree to it. Until when is the world to live under fear? Someone should stand up and tell the others what they refuse to hear.

It only takes one country to agree with me, for others to follow suit.

Which is that country?

Reader, if you have a comment, an idea, an edit, a suggestion, please tell Jacques@WisdomWhereAreYou.com