NATO’s original logic was clear. The Soviet Union was its nemesis. Western Europe needed American protection. Washington wanted a presence in Europe to contain the communist bogeyman. It was a defensive alliance limited to Western Europe.

When the USSR disappeared, NATO justified its existence by finding new ‘enemies’. It expanded eastwards and subsequently sought an alliance against China. ‘Inventing’ new enemies to justify existence reflects incoherence.

Expanding eastwards and muscling up against the biggest nuclear power in the world was stupid. When the Russia-Ukraine conflict inevitably erupted, Europe suffered the consequences - soaring energy prices, industrial outflow and waves of refugees.

A NATO directed at China reflects Western strategic incoherence. If the military alliance is already fracturing, how could launching an alliance against China at the other side of the world unify it?

NATO's attempt to wield military power, primarily through America, to ‘manage’ global affairs is a recipe for endless wars. Look at recent history.

Moreover, the Iran war has sharpened doubts about the US role in NATO. Europe rightly refused to get involved. The failure to defeat Iran has exposed America’s limitations. Cheap missiles and drones have changed warfare.

‘Forever wars’ have also destroyed the US appetite for overseas intervention. The US economy has become over-dependent on armaments production financed by unsustainable debt. It now exceeds $39 trillion. Interest payments alone surpass its defence budget. This is not about ideology. It is about arithmetic.

The forces pulling NATO apart are the result of unresolved debates about its role that have evolved since the end of the USSR. What exactly is it for?

This is a key question for Britain. Our military was designed with global reach in a different age when we were a global power. We should be looking to defend our island, not get involved in military interventions around the world orchestrated by America. The idea of using NATO to export the ‘western’ political and economic model is a recipe for conflict. Yet again we invent enemies.

Trump treats Britain as a servant and insists our interests are the same as his. They are not. It is time to separate. We need to ally with regional partners but maintain independence. Europe is not homogenous and is as unpredictable as the USA. And the European Union is a dog’s dinner that we need economically but should avoid politically.

The rampant hatred of Russia to justify increased expenditure on defence is not a strategy. It is based on hyping fear and warmongering. The recent election result in Hungary manifests this and increases the risk of conflict.

Britain’s sovereignty revolves around developing independent sustainable energy supplies, manufacturing, trade and agriculture. A defence strategy should be about protecting these.

The failure of the current NATO alliance is manifested in the commissioning of expensive aircraft carriers meant to project global reach rather than defending our country and its people. We need air defence, missiles and drones and a navy designed to protect coastal waters – not aircraft carriers to patrol the globe.