Today's papers react to the split in NATO.

Telegraph

"What, then, are they playing at in the chancelleries of Paris, Berlin and Brussels? Some of the middle-aged salon revolutionaries who now hold power may dream of reliving the glories of 1968, and the pacific ideals of many demonstrators are doubtless impeccable.

"But the motives of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are more Machiavellian. An opinion poll yesterday shows that 57 per cent of Germans agree with the proposition: 'The United States is a nation of warmongers.' French attitudes are not dissimilar. The Chiracs and the Schroeders are riding a wave of anti-Americanism that they have done nothing to discourage. We are all paying for their abdication of leadership."

FT

"All this pulling and hauling inside NATO over relatively small precautionary measures does not look good. Certainly not to new and incipient members from eastern Europe, which look to NATO to shield them from any future Russian threat on their borders. Nor does it bode well for the alliance, whose entire rationale is crisis management and whose credibility in coping with future crises is in serious danger of being impaired."

Times

"The refusal by France, Belgium and Germany to give Turkey access to purely defensive NATO equipment. has precipitated a pointless crisis in the Alliance, reinforced Turkish suspicions that its European NATO allies will leave it alone to face a pre-emptive attack by Iraq and, with justification, exasperated the US.

"The idea that NATO cannot even make contingency plans until the security council has acted is as hypocritical as it is militarily absurd. This is about tweaking the American tail, not about international law."

Guardian

"There is no dispute about the need for Iraq to disarm. The argument is about the best means to attain that aim. The US and Britain must persevere down the UN route of intensified inspections, containment and diplomatic pressure. At present, this is a reasonable alternative to war. But it is also a unifying policy that most UN, NATO and EU states and most people can rally behind. Plainly, bridging these divisions is greatly in Britain's interest. Equally, if the US presses on regardless, Mr Blair may soon have to decide where his interest lies: following Mr Bush or leading the British people."

Independent:

"The international community is now so badly fractured over Iraq that it is difficult to see how it can be patched together again. Yet patched together it must be if NATO, the transatlantic alliance and the United Nations itself are not to be broken apart... There are real differences on the two sides of the Atlantic about invading Iraq, not least among the voters, and they should not be disguised. But there is no real difference on the central issue of fighting terror and reducing the threat to world peace from states with weapons of mass destruction. On that consensus the international community needs to reform and re-establish its unity."

Mail

"Let there be no mistake, even if this contemptible Axis in Ingrates ultimately draws back from the brink, the damage has been done.

"US policy makers and voters - who have spent an average of over £6 billion a year on NATO since the Cold War ended - will never view the Alliance in the same way again. Even those hostile to war will rankle at an insult that drips with rank anti-Americanism, and will question the value of 'allies' who treat them with such hostile disdain. Who could blame them?"

Sun

"The one thing that might convince Saddam to disarm is the threat of a united world bearing down on him. But the three stooges of Europe, with Putin's help, have handed Iraq the propaganda coup of a divided West. Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and the pipsqueak Belgians put the future of NATO and the EU in question."

Mirror

"The Americans are furious, naturally. They have spent so long expecting Europe to follow meekly behind, they can't accept this sudden opposition. It must make it worse that these three countries are clearly in the right. Their view is supported by most of the United Nations. By Russia and China. By almost the entire Middle East. Tony Blair already had a problem with that. Now he has a new one. Is he with the White House red-necks or the sane voices of Old Europe? It shouldn't be a hard question to answer."