Americans opposed to NATO mistakenly think that Europeans wouldn't bleed to defend Europe. And these opponents of NATO overlook the benefit to America of keeping Europe friendly.
FFS, defending Europe is not a gift to Europeans:
The European members of NATO have the population and resources to more than adequately counterbalance the Russian threat, but they lack the will to do so. For 75 years, Europe has been the dependent child of the United States, relying on American military might, including its nuclear umbrella, for its ultimate security.
Look. I understand the frustration of Democrats suddenly becoming anti-Russian. But rather than reflexively choosing the opposite policy of political foes, Republicans should say, "Welcome to the party, pal."
Protecting Europe to prevent it from being a launching pad for an attack on America across the Atlantic is in our security interest:
We found that a dominant power in Europe--or even small powers unrestrained by friends in Europe--could project power across the Atlantic to reach America.
With more power, America found that it could influence events in Europe rather than just be jostled around as near-helpless collateral damage or worse in European rivalries and conflicts.
You may think I invoke a ridiculously hypothetical threat. But it is a longstanding American objective, as described by George Friedman[.]* ...
Dismissing the threat from the Atlantic is only possible because we've been so successful since World War II in preventing a threat from Europe extending its reach across the Atlantic in a persistent manner. And dismissing the potential threat from Russia this century ignores that Russia would be much more powerful if it can seize or dominate significant portions of Europe's economic, financial, technological, demographic, and military power.
We've paid a price when we have not maintained that buffer zone. Europe has actual and even greater military potential under control of an enemy, whether that enemy is an invader or from internal sources.
When
America has just a few Army brigades in Europe, it is ridiculous to say
that America defends Europe. European troops would do the majority of the fighting and dying. We do provide the vast majority of supporting
forces and capabilities that help weave more narrowly focused European capabilities into a
coherent whole. Russia would be happy to have NATO destroyed or weakened.
As for nukes, do we really want Europe to have a large nuclear arsenal? Isn't it in our interest to make sure nobody else can really start a nuclear war?
Remember, too, that Trump worked to strengthen an alliance that benefits America in many ways. We certainly want Europeans to spend more on defense. And they are finally starting to do that.
Increased European defense efforts will help keep Russia at bay. But NATO has another purpose. You recall the classic justification for NATO--keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. Germany doesn't seem to be a problem anymore. Although some worry. I think the European Union is the political entity NATO must keep down.
And the EU knows it. Killing NATO is the wet dream of the proto-imperial European Union as much as it is Russia's objective. We must not forget that the anti-democratic EU threatens to undermine an under-appreciated victory of the America-led NATO over European autocracy:
Europe without American help has the economic, demographic, and scientific base to keep a weakened Russia out of Europe. But if left on its own, Europe's long history of autocracy will return and risk a Europe that again poses a threat to America.And once again I will remind you that if you are determined to slash America's military commitment to Europe to focus it ... somewhere else, you can ... celebrate! The Strategy Fairy already granted your wish to slash America's European deployment.
If you want to remove significant numbers of American troops out of Europe at this point, you'd need to dig up our military cemeteries and return them home.
We bled to repel threats in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. After all that, the conventional threat to Europe is pinned in Ukraine at a fraction of the cost of those hot and cold wars. Yet some think it is strategy to walk away and let the Russians advance west as they clearly say they want to. I say, no. No buffer zone will dull their paranoia.
And these anti-NATO writers--who now disguise it by saying they just want it to be "dormant" until needed--compound their error by saying America should let the EU take charge of defending Europe. This fails to recognize it for what it is and will invite the EU to emerge as the threat from within.
I'd rather keep a hostile Russia as far east as possible and suppress the EU threat at a relatively cheap price built on past sacrifices lest the price we need to pay to keep Europe from being a threat to America rises in blood and treasure--again.
UPDATE: Can Europe defend itself?
Along NATO’s eastern flank, member states are ramping up defenses against any future Russian aggression. Two years of war in which Kremlin forces killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians has convinced NATO that what was once unthinkable is no longer. The plan is for hundreds of thousands of troops to eventually be rotated among its border states, with alliance members such as Germany planning a permanent presence.
But will it be enough? To match a militarized Russian economy, NATO members must spend a lot more on defense. And the possibility of Donald Trump taking power again has them worried America will shirk its commitment, emboldening Vladimir Putin.
No doubt that if Russia defeats Ukraine, Europe will need to spend more. As will America. But Europe has the economic, scientific, and demographic power to defeat Russia.
But please take the Trump hysteria over there with a grain of salt. Europeans default to worrying about America being too weak--or too strong--in its capabilities or leadership.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.
