Just because Trump says it doesn't mean it is always wrong.
Trump may have a winning issue with NATO. You want to be safe from Russia? Pay for your own tanks.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an artifact of the Cold War. It was designed to preserve the peace and protect countries aligned with "the West" against Russian military aggression.
 |
| NATO on the march |
The alliance means an attack against any country would be considered an attack against all of them, so we all come to the defense of that country. The Soviet Union might have been tempted to pick off a country--Greece, for example--but it didn't want total war, so it doesn't. NATO legitimized stationing American soldiers in West Germany, which seemed like a good place to have soldiers, since after all, they had gone to war with us twice in the past 30 years. The thinking was that Americans were bound to be drawn into any European war anyway, so stop fights early.
There was a bipartisan consensus that included presidents, Congress, diplomats, foreign policy experts, academics: NATO and multilateral treaties with the US military as the centerpiece served American interests.
Trump is challenging that consensus.
Many of my readers start with a premise that Trump is so vile, narcissistic, impetuous, racist, and dishonest, that everything he does is tainted with a Trump-stink. That is a dangerous way to think. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
NATO may endangert the peace, rather than preserve it. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union countries on the border of the former Soviet Union asked to join NATO. We eagerly said yes--striking while the iron is hot. The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland entered in 1999. It expanded further in 2004 to include Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Then Albania and Croatia in 2009, and this past year, Montenegro.
Ukraine began flirting with membership in NATO beginning in 1994. It formally requested membership in 2008.
Looked at from the point of view of Cold War politics, or a football offensive drive, the west is a big winner. We moved the ball down the field, deep into the opponent's territory. But looked at from the point of view of a post-Cold War world, it was a disaster. NATO is a threat to Russia. It isn't defensive; it is offensive.
Look at the map:
 |
| Click for the interactive map. NATO in grey. |
Parts of Russia are surrounded, and there is a foreign army at its doorstep.
European Russia is a broad, flat plain. Every high schooler has learned the lesson of the peril of invading Russia, the graveyard for Napoleon and the Third Reich. There are no natural defenses across this plain, and what has protected Russia for centuries is distance. The combination of long supply lines, a policy of scorched earth leaving no local support for an invader, plus unlimited Russian casualties are the price of safety. NATO's expansion to the east took away the natural defense of Russia.
Of course Putin is popular in Russia. He stopped the invasion. He is the protector of the Russian people.
Trump's criticism of NATO fits into a bigger pattern of a "Trump policy" insofar as he has a comprehensive world view. It recognizes Russia's legitimate interest in its own security. It is skeptical of European unifying institutions (common market, common currency, free movement of labor, NATO.) It takes a fresh look at whether a European alliance protects America from entry into new conflicts. And it takes a hard look at whether the US taxpayer is being treated fairly.
American taxpayers, like taxpayers everywhere, are skeptical that they are paying too much. Americans have no interest whatsoever in actually living up to the obligations of NATO.
Can any readers recall with confidence which Baltic country is which?
NATO promises that we will defend these countries with the full force of America's military including if necessary a nuclear exchange against the invader. Are there any readers actually willing to die to preserve the territorial integrity of Latvia? Of course not.
NATO is a hollow bluff. Putin knows it. Europeans know it. Trump knows it. The NATO emperor has no clothes. Trump is shaking things up, creating an opportunity to re-evaluate an American policy in Europe that had gone stale.
Final note and disclaimer: I have not "gone soft" on Trump. Trump is a vulgar, dangerous, authoritarian narcissist. He is flagrantly dishonest and he appeals to the worst elements in America's history of misogyny and xenophobia.
But he is a master at political messaging. He manipulates America's media and is the center of all national politics. He communicates powerful messages that appeal to many American voters. His ignorance and impetuousness in foreign policy create opportunities for change. He shakes things up, and sometimes that is good.
But he is a master at political messaging. He manipulates America's media and is the center of all national politics. He communicates powerful messages that appeal to many American voters. His ignorance and impetuousness in foreign policy create opportunities for change. He shakes things up, and sometimes that is good.
9 comments:
I would take issue with your notion that Putin is popular. He is feared. There is a difference.
Trump would like this.
Also Trump as some kind of media genius is a gross overstatement. His tactics appeal to wise** teenagers and cat ladies. Oh, and unscrupulous morally bankrupt enablers.
Otherwise, right on the money!
"Many of my readers start with a premise that Trump is so vile, narcissistic, impetuous, racist, and dishonest, that everything he does is tainted with a Trump-stink".
REALLY?? I'd put Trump up against Obama, Merkley, Wyden, Brown, Kitzhaber, Kotek, and Courtney. Trump is a leader. The aforementioned democrats are all corrupt, ineffectual, fool, non-leaders, and none have any positive accomplishments. These are the politicians that delusional democrats constantly drool over, yet none could tie Trump's shoes.
As Peter has noted, the economy is zipping along, jobs are plentiful, people have HOPE for the future again, and foreign countries respect the United States again. Third world dictators aren't stepping on America any more like they did to Barry.
It must be a bitch being a progressive democrat knowing that nobody wants to buy what you're selling, and your leadership bench is mighty thin. Bernie the millionaire commie???? You must be kidding!
If you don't like Trump....then too freaking bad. You're going to get Trump for 6 more years, because the masses like his results, and the democrats have nobody better. "Jeff Merkley for President". You have to be kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Peter....are you going to hold a fundraiser for The Merk?
After 8 years of Obama, life is looking better again for most. Get over it, whiners.
You democrats are the same folks who have constantly bitched about Greg Walden (whom I do not care for), yet when it was time to replace him, who did you present as a candidate?? An ultra-liberal lesbian carpetbagger from the San Francisco Bay Area, who has lived in the congressional district for less than two years, and who was fired from the City of Phoenix after less than 90 days because she was disliked. Do you think that's the person who is going to beat Walden? If you think that, then your judgement is shot. Walden will destroy her.
Walden plays political advertisements on the radio daily. Walden is well-known. I hear nothing from Walden's opponent, and I'm a political junkie who follows the candidates. The average person couldn't even name Walden's congressional opponent.
Rather than bitch about Trump and Walden all day, why don't you try presenting candidates who fill the middle of the political spectrum, because your current candidates don't, and democrats have gone SO far to the left, that they deserve to lose every election for the foreseeable future. Try putting Americans ahead of illegal aliens and your communist agenda for once.
For me this isn't remotely a Trump issue but the ore question, "Why NATO?" I've never seen the position "to dismantle NATO," or pull out, until moving from Ohio to this Illinois Valley. So my first impression was "is this some libertarian or neo-liberal notion of sovereignty with which I am not yet familiar?"
Now I've come to understand it as a "riding the coattails" issue of spending. And I write today not advocating one side or another. Like topics of "voting" or "statism," there are opposing sides of the spectrum. For instance, Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience was largely opposed to statism in which a government violently enforces laws imposed against rival minorities. Conversely, the Catholic Church in general may say that rule of law and the choice to vote are moral obligations, for how else will the public be shown what is right? Oddly, NATO seems to share these reactions, which raises some questions...
...Is there not a great difference between violent enforcement of adopted law, and the solidarity of defense against foreign aggression, even when the latter will likely result violently? Is not the issue of foreign conquest a bigger issue in the treaty than is the division of budget? I don't pose these rhetorically, as I don't pretend to have a definitive answer.
The answer to your question is Yes, and we spend over half of are Budget on Weapons and Waring, with over 8,000. Nuclear Weapons and Counting, Spear Heading Globalization
Kurt do you buy your suits off the rack or have the same tailor as the president?
Anonymous....learn to spell. My name is Curt, and I RARELY wear a suit any longer, and I'm certain that I don't shop at the same stores as Trump. If you're inferring that I brown-nose Trump, then you're wrong. I disagree with Trump on a lot of stuff, and I'm vocal about it, yet he's still better than anyone the democrats can present. Trump is doing 1,000% better than Obama did on foreign policy, and the Europeans can pay for their own defense, although as was said above, America spends way too much on its military. I think that we spend more than the next 7 countries combined, which is ludicrous.
Arguing for the elimination of NATO seems rather misguided and your argument seems a bit like Chamberlin’s “Peace in Our Day” position when conceding Sudatenland from the Czechs to Hitler. “
As for “hollow bluff” I assume you aren’t acquainted with U.S. military deployments or training exercises in the Baltics or Poland. Their presence resonates very deeply within those countries. Note that the Russians have moved militarily towards non-NATO members like Ukraine & Georgia but not towards the Baltics [though they’ve sought to cause trouble].
Having done duty in NATO regional commands I assure you the Russians don’t think it’s a ‘hollow bluff’.
I’m not sure why you’d want to eliminate your oldest defense alliance located in a continent where two world wars were started & precisely when international stabilizing institutions are being threatened.
Whether Estelle and Harry from Condon want to fight for Latvia isn’t how a defense or foreign policy should be based. As citizens they do deserve to have access to clear-minded explanations as to why NATO is important to the U.S
It’s not well-known what NATO has done since the end of the Cold-War. A review sheds a bit of light on the question.
After the Soviet break-up Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia & Kosovo would have been 10x the bloodbath without NATO being there. NATO units were literally standing between opposing factions. The few times that Serbs, Croats or Bosnians tried to tangle with NATO troops they had their rear-ends handed to them [I’d done planning during the first Vance-Owen peace plan & ended up as a liaison at the NATO base in Naples].
If you think NATO may endanger peace consider the consequences without it. Russians have stated that anywhere there is a large Russian minority is game. That includes all the Baltic countries.
Again, Ukraine, Georgia and Crimea have come under Russian aggression the only because they were not NATO signees. The Russians have the same aggressive stance towards the Baltics but haven’t done anything overt because they are NATO members.
There’s a reason those countries flocked to NATO. In this case the Russians have themselves to blame for their treatment of them under the Soviet Union.
And consider this; over 800 non-American NATO troops have died fighting alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Most people aren’t aware that NATO countries invoked Article 5, for the first time coming to the defense of a NATO country that was attacked.
That countries don’t pay their fair share is kind of a Red Herring. U.S. defense is expensive because it is involved in every continent. Africa, South America, Asia as well as Europe are within the U.S. national security interests. Germany doesn’t need one multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. And consider that as a volunteer force almost 1/3 of all DOD spending is on personnel; pay, benefits, etc. Countries with conscription aren’t paying their corporals $2300 a month not including housing, extra-pay, medical for families, etc.
Ending NATO is horrid foreign policy and in a time of turmoil vis-à-vis national and international institutions is ending it is either incredible incompetence or quite suspicious.
Frank, I could not have said it any better.
One addition, too bad that Russia, the US and the UK did not adhere to the agreement reached in the Budapest Memorandum, when nuclear weapons were removed from the Ukraine.
Post a Comment