Friends, my latest article is hot off the digital presses, and it's an argument for why NATO is making European and global security worse, not better -- and why the the U.S. should therefore withdraw from the alliance. I say it's about time those mealy-mouthed Eurocrats stand up straight and provide for their own defense! Who's with me?
NATO Has Lost Its Way
Way back in the year 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed for the excellent purpose of defending the West (meaning mainly Western Europe) from attack from the USSR. Formally and legally, NATO was a defensive military alliance. All members agreed that, if one of them were attacked, all would rush to its defense. In practice, this bound all Western Europeans together, forbade them from going to war with one another (a rather important proviso, given recent unpleasantness), and, most importantly, committed the the United States to remain engaged in European security and to place all member states of NATO under its nuclear umbrella.
There was, in a sense, an implicit transaction here: the Europeans would acknowledge and respect American military and strategic supremacy, even placing their own forces (usually) under the command of an American “Supreme Allied Commander”, and in return the U.S. would provide the bulk of the armed forces and the financing that would keep Europe free.
This was, at the time, a very elegant solution to an extremely pressing problem: the aggressive posture of the Soviet Union, a conventional and nuclear superpower and a communist pariah. By these methods, the security of the West was maintained – if not exactly “guaranteed”, because no one knows what would have happened if the Soviets had called NATO's bluff – for the next 40+ years.
In 1989-91, the raison d'ĂȘtre of NATO suddenly disappeared. The USSR released its grip on its Eastern European satellites, which sloughed off communist overlordship in record time, terminated the Warsaw Pact, and it even officially dissolved itself, freeing its constituent “republics” to become newly independent states. All of these states, moreover, abandoned communism, demilitarized themselves (to varying degrees), and established friendly relations with the West.
Now, at this point, you would think that a defensive military alliance that had been formed in opposition to the expansionist tendencies of an empire that had entirely ceased to exist would...itself disband. If it chose to wind up its operations slowly, out of an abundance of caution, you would think that it nonetheless would – in line with its commitments to the leaders of the new “Russian Federation” – avoid any moves that would threaten to reignite old tensions, such as expanding to the east.
You would be wrong, however, because, almost as soon as the USSR's death rites were performed, the Western political and military establishment began to plot the enlargement of NATO – almost as if growth, in itself, could counteract the newfound pointlessness of the organization. Not for the first time, Western elites refused to take “Yes!” for an answer from their erstwhile enemies. NATO expansion was duly pursued, with the clear corollary that Russia would be permanently unwelcome. The unmistakable message to the Russians was: NATO is still in business, and its business – its only business – is containing you.
It is in this context that the current war between Russia and Ukraine should be viewed. American, Canadian, and European leaders, having secured more than a dozen new members for the NATO Bloc in Eastern Europe, decided to push even farther to the east. A coup was engineered that overthrew the Russian-friendly administration in Ukraine, and the political, military, intelligence, economic, and cultural elite of the West committed itself to the seduction of Ukraine and its incorporation into a now sprawling web of Western dominance. Russia's timid response to previous waves of NATO/Western expansion lulled these inveterate Russophobes into the naive assumption that Ukraine, too, could be annexed without difficulty. We all know what consequences this arrogant and shortsighted policy has had for the people of Ukraine.
Two things must be made absolutely clear: one is that NATO, for all the bluster about it being as strong today as ever before, has literally never been put to any practical use. Throughout the Cold War, and in the years since, it has never gone to war on behalf of any of its members, which is its only formal and legal purpose. Its only military operations to date have been symbolic contributions to Western misadventures in places like the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya, unconnected to its core responsibilities. It is still, to this day, a defensive military alliance, even if it behaves sometimes more like an expansionist empire.
Second, because of its defensive institutional focus, NATO has no bonafide commitments in Ukraine, and no legal standing to intervene in the conflict. Thus, NATO's support of mostly American, British, and German military and economic aid to that country is purely rhetorical, not practical. Just like during the Cold War, the Europeans expect America to solve their perceived strategic and military problems for them – but, unlike during the Cold War, this time the U.S. is under no treaty obligations to oblige, since the relevant “victim” of Russian aggression is a non-member state.
The lesson here is simple: NATO has long since outlived its usefulness. In fact, NATO and the Western military alliance have, by their aggressive, intemperate, and inept machinations in Ukraine, placed both that country and all nations of the world in much greater peril than they would have been in had Western leaders had the foresight to disband NATO in the early 90s.
The only things that continued U.S. membership in NATO will achieve are: the prolongation of unnecessary conflict in Eastern Europe, the encouragement of Western Europe's most destructive fantasies about its ability to dominate the entire continent, the financial overcommitment of the United States to the provision of security to various European countries wholly capable of achieving it (and paying for it) themselves, and the stoking of a toxic animosity between Russia and the West, which is quickly metastasizing into distrust and resentment that most of the non-Western world feels towards the United States and its European allies.
For all these reasons, the next president of the United States should do what George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton did not have the wisdom or the courage to do in the early 90s: he should withdraw the U.S. from NATO. He should also suspend aid to Ukraine and definitively end the program of Western strategic expansion that began almost as soon as the Soviet Union fell apart.
For the first time in almost a hundred years, let us abandon the architecture and the mindset of incessant conflict, and let us instead give peace – or at least minding our own business – a chance.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
***
In other news, the mainstream media is clutching its pearls over Donald Trump's colorful allusion to a "bloodbath" in the auto industry if he isn't reelected, because of Chinese competition. Well, as usual, the establishment journos are spinning these remarks to make DJT look like a bloodthirsty fascist maniac. To be fair, his exact wording is open to various interpretations, but the only one that leftists cotton to is the one that's the most scary, needless to say. The depths to which Trump's detractors will sink in the next few months to portray him as unhinged and dangerous will, we assume, set new records for mendacity and hyperbole, which is saying something, given the long record of willful distortions to which Trump has been subjected. Will any of it move those stubborn independents? Maybe. Of course, they've heard it all before, but we can't deny that even the most shameful lies acquire a certain currency in public discourse, if they're repeated often enough...
Finally, a Washington Post columnist is getting worked over by "progressives" after she had the temerity to suggest that it might be in the best interests of Democrats, and the country, if Kamala Harris were to make way for a more competent and politically popular running mate for Joe Biden. No kidding! It shocks me to the core that the Dems are seemingly hellbent on retaining BOTH of the clunkers at the top of their ticket. That's so unnecessary and reckless. They claim that nothing matters except keeping the demon Trump out of the White House. Well, if that's what they think, how about putting up a candidate (or two) that people actually want to vote for? But what do I know...