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'être 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.
And here it is at World Net Daily:
https://www.wnd.com/2024/03/nato-lost-way-get/
***
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...
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteChange Eurocrats to Euroweenies. Just joking. But really, NATO has seen its day and served a purpose. But the Europeans need to form their own defense forces. They have the EU, which at one time was thought impossible, so their next step (some time ago) should be a EU defense alliance. This can be done, and the Europeans know it, but like the almost free ride they are getting. In any event we don't need to be in Europe in such numbers. I think we have rapid response forces, don't we, just in case? So, who is going to attack Europe? Russia you think? Really. NATO tends to be a relic of The Cold War, generally speaking.
RAY TO DR. WADDY AND JACK
ReplyDeleteI realize I'm drifting away from the topic of the above articles a bit, but I was watch Bill O'Reilly earlier and he said that conservative traditionalists aren't invited to talk shows or late night shows anymore, because they are run by The Left for The Left. And I like O'Reilly, but I was thinking "Who in the hell wants to be guests on their damn shows anyway"? What is The Right doing to build strong institutions. Is Fox the only conservative news we have? And so on and so on. I'm not writing my best tonight (if I ever do) but I think you can grasp my main point here.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: You have convinced me on Nato. It was a great success in its original mission when the USSR had to be contained but now let Europe maintain whatever defense it thinks necessary against Russia. As DJT put it in somewhat different terms, its their lookout ; if they shrink from standing up for themselves, let the consequences be theirs alone. Surely Russia's historical record and its yet again proven atavistic brutality in military tactics makes it imprudent to trust it without reservations; Russia has been the historical fount of incalculable evil, both to itself and its neighbors but its current effort in Ukraine, yes , savage as always it seems, is nonetheless one of self defense forced on Russia by Western recklessness and hubris. Let us be willing to do right by offering to rebuild Ukraine but let Europeans defend themselves both militarily and, concerning Ukraine, diplomatically. They have nuclear weapons and they have strengthened themselves considerably by adding Sweden and Finland.Cynically wise old Europe has, I think, been more than willing to let an America still perhaps in its relative international infancy do the job for them if it is so inclined. It's time for us to disincline; your view is well taken.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack:Germany and Japan wreaked theretofore unimaginably depraved cruelty on millions but were admitted back to relatively normal international participation in very short order. Russia deserved to lose its Eastern European empire and it deserved the foreign restraint which helped to end its inhuman regime. But that's done now and Russia, it MUST be said, has demonstrated astonishing forebearance in the face of the arrival of a vast ,openly anti Russian military alliance at its very gates. But when presented with the plausible possibility of that alliance actually entering its historical and geographical hinterland, for which it fought the inhuman Boche in its "Great Patriotic War" eh, Russia has demonstrated absolute determination never to countenance such an affront. Consideration of their invasion of Ukraine as an indicator of future Russian expansionism must be weighed against what is to them a nonnegotiable issue of vital national security. Their gratuitous brutality in this to be condemned but if we were willing to coexist with Germany and Japan, surely we can with a Russia which, of nearly all nations, has most historical justification for being absolutely and forever resolved on defending itself from invasion. I do not think a US withdrawal from Nato would set Russian minds to planning an onslaught on a still massively powerful fully European nuclear armed Nato. Putin is, I think, essentially a Russian nationalist and has little reason to contemplate Hitlerian adventurism. Maybe he'd love to restore the USSR but its a pipe dream and a man as brutally practical as he is probably knows it. Russia has more than enough lebensraum.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Perhaps the intense emotion attending the dems' anathema of DJT and their utter contempt for Maga actually does compromise the better judgement of their majority. For them, the thought itself that DJT could win may be too painful to consider calmly. Every day it appears more likely they will brazen it out with their laughable ticket and will count also on lawfare to destroy DJT personally. NY's chortling lawless Attorney General is the face of their party now as she foists NY's dictatorial administration on a common sense America - which has until now beheld NY's antiamerican neomarxist dysfunction with bemused pity - with her execrable personal onslaught on a once and possibly future President. Take heed America, take heed; NY's shame could become yours if you let it. It WILL if you let the once loyal, now completely subjugated dems win in November.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Plainly, the Dems and their enablers think their mendacity and hyperbole, their visceral and disgraceful ad hominem onslaught on DJT and Maga cannot move a decisive number of independents to empathy with DJT. Let's consider what that reveals about the way they view independents. They actually think perhaps most undecided are as amoral and fanatically expeditious as they are when they do improbably mull this choice we have this year. Perhaps the antiamerican left thinks itself as skilled in molding public perception that even a public with serious misgivings about them will see them as yet the safer pick. That left's withering contempt for an America it fully expects to render powerless in the near future, is breathtaking
ReplyDeleteand definitive.
Ray, I wish, frankly, that NATO was merely a relic. Then we could admire its quaintness. Unfortunately, it's a relic that thinks it's an empire. It's capable of extraordinary mischief.
ReplyDeleteRay, luckily, the late night talk shows and variety shows have way less influence over public opinion than they used to. It mattered who Johnny Carson sat down with 50 years ago. I don't think anyone cares what Jimmy Kimmel has to say now.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jack! The sad part is that NOW it probably is necessary for the Europeans to consider ways of defending themselves from Russia. Thirty years ago, or maybe even ten, everyone could have taken a deep breath and moved on from this senseless East-West rivalry. Now, sadly, it's probably here to stay. Be that as it may, Europe can and should fight its own battles.
Good point that the Anglo-French nuclear umbrella would give Putin pause, even if European conventional forces didn't (which they obviously would). Of course, would Britain or France ACTUALLY start a nuclear war over, say, Estonia? Would we, for that matter? I doubt it.
Jack, you said it: the Left assumes that its demonization of DJT will win the election for them, and make Biden president-by-default (once again). It's a valid strategy, but I wouldn't assume it will work...
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Nuclear war over Estonia? Perhaps we
ReplyDeleterelied on the lessons Hitler taught us too long or even too much. We cannot blame a world maimed beyond measure by WWII for it but did we admit Estonia with the full intention of going to the nuclear wall should Russia once again ingest it? We may be counting on the probability that Russia will never attack a Nato country; it never has done. We did it partly, yes, out of humanitarian concern for countries who have for so long lived with the Russian bear slavering over them. Strategically, its been part of a very successful effort to flank Russia militarily. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction may in the minds of both sides ALMOST preclude the possibility of war with Russia for any reason.
Let's hope so! No, I don't think it's likely that Russia would call our bluff in Estonia, especially after its bruising misadventure in Ukraine. Nonetheless, I still regard our promises to Estonia and other NATO states as mostly bluster. We've steadily expanded our Western Empire to the east mostly because it's been easy. Were it to get hard, as perhaps it's beginning to now, then all bets are off.
ReplyDelete