NATO’s new hymn sounds like total surrender

NATO’s new hymn sounds like total surrender


norman lebrecht

January 07, 2018

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation adopted an official hymn last week.

It was composed a Luxembourg bandmaster (must be Luxembourg’s turn for something) and it sounds like a spinster’s dirge for a dead rabbit.

Listen here.

No offence to spinsters or rabbits, but is this meant to protect us from Russian threats?




  • Pianofortissimo says:

    Horrible. What NATO needs is something like this:

    • Olassus says:

      What NATO needs is a history lesson: Belarus and Ukraine are Russia’s back yard, culturally inseparable. No NATO weapon deliveries there, please!

      • Alex Davies says:

        That’s something of an oversimplification in the case of Ukraine. The western part of Ukraine is often considered, not without justification, to be properly a part of central Europe. Much of the western part of Ukraine is predominantly Ukrainian Greek Catholic and aligns itself politically and culturally with the West. Indeed, much of the territory of the current Ukrainian state (and much of eastern Europe and the Baltic) was historically Polish/Polish-Lithuanian, with parts of western Ukraine remaining part of Polish territory until the end of the Second World War. Belarus is a comparatively straightforward case, but in the case of Ukraine we have to recognise the fact that a significant part of the population (especially, but by no means exclusively, in the west of the country) would like to see Ukraine aligned more closely with the West through membership of NATO and the EU.

        • John Borstlap says:

          As far as I know, all that is true. The eastern part of the Ukraine has a population which feels strongly related, economically and culturally, to Russia, and its industries have strong ties with Russia. As I remember, some polls done some years ago clearly showed that the people in the east themselves want to be part of Russia rather than the West. And why not give them their right of self-determination?

          • Erwin says:

            It’s “Ukraine”, not “The Ukraine”.
            A terrribly divided country with a huge corruption problem. It needs (economic) reforms badly before even starting to flirt with a NATO or EU membership.

        • Olassus says:

          Still, 57% of Western Ukraine is Eastern Orthodox, which looks to Moscow. The area has been referred to as Little Russia since as early as the 14th century. The Ukrainian language is mutually intelligible with Russian. And the Russian bear probably sees a red red red line at the Slovak border.

          Time will tell whether any promised weapon deliveries can be made without a war starting.

  • brian says:

    Given the puppetry in the geo-political ordering of this body, perhaps Gounod’s famous march (to which Mr. Hitchcock said “Good evening” on TV) might be appropriate.

  • John Borstlap says:

    But it’s meant to be pre-emptive of any energetic initiative: Russian generals hearing this, will suddenly feel their prowess sinking and their soul overcome by Russian melancholy and Rachmaninoff.

  • Anon says:

    NATO, that US tool to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the US in Europe, should go to hell. It is these days in effect more dangerous than good to world peace.

    • John Borstlap says:

      Nonsense. It is Russia that is threatening the West and not the other way around. The Russian regime feels threatened not by NATO in itself but by what the West represents: democracy, human rights, civil society, accountability of the government. We know why that is.

      • Anon says:

        Nonsense yourself, not what happened since the fall of the iron curtain. Russia is reacting, not acting. You drank the US propaganda koolaid

        • Salty Dog says:

          Russia is “reacting” in eastern Ukraine and Crimea? Interesting definition of the term…

          • Anon says:

            Yes, but you don’t know what happened apparently. Start googling “Nuland” and “fuck Europe” for a start. Maybe throw in George Soros too in your studies. Quick, you have lots to catch up with.

      • Pete says:

        Here’s a fact:

        There are no Russian Missiles on the US border, but there are plenty of US missiles right up on Russias Border. As well as tanks and troops and fighter jets. Soemthing the US media ignores and makes no analysis of for political reasons.

        Oh anyway,

        Back to listening to and playing music. Maybe that will prevent a pointless and unnecessary nuclear war with Russia started by the Neo-McCarthyists?


        • John Borstlap says:

          Another fact: after the implosion of the Soviet Union, Russia did not want to join the West and develop into a normal country – i.e. with democracy and human rights and freedom. The Western politicians, in their arrogant ignorance of Russian deep history and what 70 years of collective trauma means, alienated the new regimes, thoroughly disappointed mr Putin, and unintentionally offered reasons for suspicion and aggression. Since then, Russia has reverted to cold war politics and internal soviet manners, trying to undermine W-Europe by financially supporting the rightwing parties (Le Penn, Wilders, etc.) so that the EU will fall apart, is meddling in Western elections, is killing critics of the regime also abroad with the most ruthless means imaginable – i.e. the West may have been stupid, but the Russian regime had no reason to become hostile and paranoid again. The reason that there are Western missiles at Russian borders is due to the fact (another one) that Russia borders on Europe, and not on the USA, a purely geographical given. Western support of democratic movements in autocratic countries is always portrayed as undermining interventions and indeed they are, where regimes are undemocratic, inhuman, and exploitative.

    • almaviva says:

      Like any Russian trolls, of course you’d like to see NATO go to hell. And then clap like a trained seal as rasPutin marches into the Baltics or any country he so desires. I’m sure you’ll find a pretext.

      • Anon says:

        I would like to see the US to stop trying to divide and conquer Europe for their own global hegemony agenda. NATO is in these days a hindrance to European collaboration and prosperity more than a security guarantee. And the troll is you.

  • Salty Dog says:

    This is well and truly symbolic of the New Europe: serene, peaceful, passive; most certainly not martial! (Leave that to the Yanks…)

  • Rachelle Goldberg says:

    I feel the need for a NATOVision Competition!!!

  • Marg says:

    It says NATO adopted its “official hymn”. If thats what its supposed to be, thats what it sounds like. Why would you want a hymn to sound like a military march? If you want a hymn, sounds like thats what youve got.

  • Robert Holmén says:

    What were people wanting, “NATO Uber Alles?”

    A NATO fight song?

    NATO’s stated goal is to keep the peace. A hymn is appropriate for that.

    It’s fine.

  • Dennis says:

    A NATO hymn? How grotesque that they think this is a good use of the funding provided by member state’ s taxpayers. NATO now is just a bloated bureaucracy designed to provide sinecures in Brussels. NATO should have been disbanded after the Cold War.

  • M2N2K says:

    As long as Russia is the way it has been almost all the time after WW2 (except maybe 1988-1999), NATO unfortunately is necessary.