The unofficial reason for NATO after World War II was to "keep American in (Europe--unlike after World War I), keep the Russians (Soviets) out (of Western Europe, after the Soviets advance to the Elbe River), and keep Germany down (after starting two world wars)."
The modern purpose of NATO is to keep America in Europe, keep Russia out, and keep European autocratic impulses down. The third reason is a real threat that is easy to forget in the post-World War II time frame that we remember as the normal state of European affairs. And the first reason is the means to achieve the third.
We forget the role that America played in creating the free and democratic Europe that we wrongly assume is the natural state of now-free Europe:
And that distance [between America and Europe] is allowing Europeans to revert to their pre-World War II nature of being a mix of autocracy, monarchy, and democracy. I had to be reminded by this author that our long period of influence in Europe during the Cold War had a role in making Europe truly democratic:
It is easy to forget--and this was a useful reminder to me--that Europe with its autocracies and monarchies was not fully part of a free West (although obviously part of the Western tradition) until we rebuilt Western Europe in that template after World War II. And NATO expansion after defeating the Soviet Union was more explicit in demanding democracy and rule of law for new members.
If left alone without the benefit of American influence, Europe as a political entity will evolve in ways hostile to America, as the proto-imperial body already exhibits:
The EU wants to help Iran despite Iran's record of terrorism and support for mayhem--on top of a nuclear program. And the EU wants to shield Russia from British anger over Russia's use of poison gas on British territory to kill people.
So yeah, basically I do want the EU to die with festering boils.
Europe and America are drifting apart. This is caused by the end of the major threat that the USSR posed to the heart of Western Europe from its advanced military position on the Elbe River. And it is caused by a European elite that wants to push American power out of Europe and reclaim their autonomy that NATO with the outsized influence of America denies them.
Even a revived Russian threat is limited to eastern Europe because of the limits of Russian military power. So the counter to the drift that has taken place after 1989 is only partial.
The Euro elites wrongly claim that the European Union itself has given Europe its long peace since World War II. They despise NATO and America so much that they actually believe their own BS.
The sad fact is that without America, the USSR would have conquered Western Europe.
And without America's continued influence Europe will revert to its norm of autocracies and intra-European violence. Which will weaken Europe to the point that even a weaker Russia can exploit:
And when the EU collapses as the Persian Empire did, the weakened nation-states that once made up Europe will be unable to stand on their own. The empire might not be able to govern, but it can kill the habits and structure of state governance. And then Russia will have the opportunity to move west again. It has always been ludicrous to argue that Russia would fear the supposed might of a united EU as if that would be more dangerous to Russian ambitions for conquest than the American-led NATO.
And even if the EU does not collapse or if the Russian empire remains weaker than even a shaky European Union empire--which is what the Euro elites want--that new European empire run from Brussels is a threat to America. So NATO is still our bulwark against a Europe controlled by a hostile autocratic power:
Europe is fully part of the free West because America helped make Europe fully part of the free West. The EU is a force working against that positive American influence to go back to the Europe of autocracies and strongmen whose legitimacy came from blood and soil rather than individual liberty.
It has long been in America's interest to prevent a hostile power from taking Europe and mobilizing its scientific, military, economic, and demographic potential to be used against America. We stopped the Kaiser, we stopped Hitler, and we stopped the USSR.
The EU will so obviously be a threat given time that I am astounded that any American--or any European who values freedom and liberty--can support the EU.
Obama recognized and Trump has emphasized that European NATO states don't pull their weight. As we debate burden-sharing for the defense of Europe, let's not forget that the Europe of sometimes shaky and weak allies is also an objective worth fighting for:
This survey of European power and resentment is a valuable reminder of just how much broad power Europe has despite its long decline in hard power and global influence[.] ...
All this is why it has been American policy for a century to prevent any potentially hostile power from gaining control of that concentration of potential power.
And yes, I include the European Union as a a potential power America should absolutely oppose in controlling geographic Europe.
Defending Europe is not a favor America grants Europe. Although the Europeans obviously benefit from that. Defending Europe is a core American national interest. And we need to defend free Europe from Europeans themselves.
UPDATE: Trump should not pull American troops from Germany to put them in Poland. Our troops there are not a gift to Germany. They are an insurance policy for America.
And they maintain a power projection platform (see article starting at page 15), among other reasons to keep significant numbers of troops in Germany and Europe.
