"Well, if the NATO countries don't make more of their troops usable and don't get the equipment to get them fast where the action is, then the organisation will suffer and will increasingly become irrelevant"
About this Quote
Irrelevance is the nuclear word here, and Lord Robertson drops it with a diplomat's calm as a strategic threat. He is not merely asking NATO members to spend more; he is warning that the alliance's legitimacy depends on performance, not pedigree. In a post-Cold War world where the Soviet tank columns are gone, NATO can no longer live off its old narrative of deterrence-by-existence. It has to prove it can move, fight, and finish.
The phrasing is telling: "usable" troops, equipment that can get them "fast where the action is". This is the technocratic language of readiness, but it carries a moral judgment. Many NATO militaries look impressive on paper yet are hollowed out by caveats, underfunding, and political vetoes over deployment. Robertson is pointing at the gap between national forces designed for domestic reassurance and an alliance designed for expeditionary crisis response. The subtext is a rebuke: if you want the prestige and protection of NATO, you have to pay the practical costs of being deployable.
Context matters. Robertson, as former NATO Secretary General, was speaking in the era when Afghanistan and the Balkans reframed NATO from a static shield into a mobile tool. Those operations exposed a harsh imbalance: the U.S. could project power quickly; many European allies could not, or would not. His warning is also aimed at Washington: if allies remain militarily sluggish, American leaders will treat NATO as a ceremonial club rather than a serious instrument.
The genius of the line is its bureaucratic restraint. No melodrama, just a quiet ultimatum: adapt to modern war, or become a museum piece.
The phrasing is telling: "usable" troops, equipment that can get them "fast where the action is". This is the technocratic language of readiness, but it carries a moral judgment. Many NATO militaries look impressive on paper yet are hollowed out by caveats, underfunding, and political vetoes over deployment. Robertson is pointing at the gap between national forces designed for domestic reassurance and an alliance designed for expeditionary crisis response. The subtext is a rebuke: if you want the prestige and protection of NATO, you have to pay the practical costs of being deployable.
Context matters. Robertson, as former NATO Secretary General, was speaking in the era when Afghanistan and the Balkans reframed NATO from a static shield into a mobile tool. Those operations exposed a harsh imbalance: the U.S. could project power quickly; many European allies could not, or would not. His warning is also aimed at Washington: if allies remain militarily sluggish, American leaders will treat NATO as a ceremonial club rather than a serious instrument.
The genius of the line is its bureaucratic restraint. No melodrama, just a quiet ultimatum: adapt to modern war, or become a museum piece.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Lord
Add to List

