NATO is indeed about “keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down” but that’s only part of the story. Completely disregarding Russia; NATO is an absolutely vital part of preventing inter-European war. The UN is ineffectual and the EU broadly lacks support, but even the actual communist parties in Europe no longer talk loudly about withdrawing from NATO. Article 5 does not distinguish between attacks from a member or non-member, at all.
The above point is probably the most important selling point for continued American interest in NATO. Europe is not a bloc and does not act like a bloc, except now it kind of does. Britain may leave the EU, sure, but it’s not about to leave NATO. Same thing with Greece, Hungary and Italy, who have elected nationalist proto-fascists; making loud protestations against Brussels doesn’t mean they want to leave the safety of the NATO umbrella.
European countries seeing themselves as part of a distinct and discrete Europe, as opposed to torn between Russian, Turkish or US spheres of interest, allows the US to deal with Europe as Europe in terms of trade, tourism and international collaboration and vice versa.
NATO is quite strong as compared to any potential adversaries. Military strength is a relative concept.
People are largely annoyed because Trump told them to be; for 99% of all people this sort of thing isn’t something they think about.
Again, though, I’m going to have to ask how Italy or Canada’s defense spending puts the USA out. Canada’s decision to spend $21 billion a year, instead of $30 billion, does not cost the United States $9 billion. That money doesn’t somehow flow out of the USA’s budget. The USA spends nothing at all defending Canada, in fact; it has no bases there, and isn’t responsible for patrolling Canadian airspace or waters. If Canada were to increase defense spending by 50% to get to the NATO target, the U.S. defense budget would, in fact, be completely unchanged. Not a penny would be saved.
Quite a few NATO countries went along with a stupid invasion of Iraq, yes. And quite a few did not, because they realized it was stupid.
And yes, nearly all NATO countries made Afghanistan a priority… which is very much appreciated, and I think very important for the alliance, but let’s not believe that what was provided was either (a) a substantive improvement to what the U.S. could have provided if required; or (b) sustainable beyond a certain level.
But, NATO doesn’t really have security commitments to areas outside of Europe, with a few exceptions like how the French are very involved in the Sahel and how Italy and France were very involved in Libya. Even these distant security interests pale in comparison to U.S. commitments to other regions – we’re talking orders of magnitude in difference.
As a NATO commitment, only Afghanistan counts toward what you are saying. Some NATO countries certainly went to war with the US or at the US’s urging with the US in other regions, but they did so as individual countries, not honoring their NATO commitments. As for Afghanistan, well, it was determined that since AQ attacked the US, and the Taliban was aiding and harboring them, that this invoked Article 5. The US would have done the same for any of them had Article 5 been invoked…or, hell, because they asked us to. Not like the US hasn’t ever gone to war because European nations needed or asked us to help out.
This escaped attention when it was originally posted. It’s been our practice to not issue warnings for things after an unspecified amount of time has passed and I decline to modify that practice now. Instead I will leave a note. Do not insult other posters by calling them cowards in this forum.
As I said in another thread, if I were US President, an invasion of the Baltics would be a red line and the assured destruction of Moscow. Not an abstract “nuclear war,” not devastation of “some part of Russia,” but the complete destruction of the Kremlin itself.
Latvia is certainly not Russian. And if the Russian oligarchs feel that their current borders are a bad fit, they are welcome to have a much smaller total territory.
People have invaded Russia before, including the Russians. It’s not like this is unknown territory.
And the Russian Army is stupid and weak. Are the non-commissioned officers still sodomizing recruits to death?
Russia can stay within its present borders and avoid a world war. And considering what the last world war was like for them, of course they will. European Russia has far more to fear from such a conflict than does the West.
And it’s worth mentioning that a hard, red line like that is a major deterrent to war. Waffling on such obligations makes war more likely, not less, as it makes it unclear whether Russia can get away with expanding into NATO. As is, we know exactly what will happen, and that matters.
Indeed. France for example has the whole “Françafrique” post-colonial fuck-a-thon going on, which does involve some military engagement against enemies of the US - we recently sent paratroopers to fight off an ISIS affiliate insurrection in Mali/southern Sahel for example. We also have troops in Syria and Iraq.
Much like US commitments anywhere we’re not doing that out of the goodness of our freedom-loving hearts, obviously. We’re primarily doing it for our own benefit & safety. Still - that’s above and beyond NATO or even US-FRA defensive agreements.
Yeah but here’s the thing : you can’t go around saying “oh but European countries are slacking off and not doing their part/honoring their end of the deal !” while at the same time saying “yeah you came to help us in Afghanistan but that’s just Article 5 and it’s not like y’all really helped and we could have gone it alone easy”.
At some point you have to pick a fucking narrative. Either you don’t need us we need YOU, and you could totes go it alone (in which case, fine, don’t ask for help any more and more power to y’alls stretched out resources) OR we’re all in an alliance and we have to help each other (in which case, don’t dismiss it when we do just that).
Why are some people acting as though absent NATO, the EU won’t still have its own defence treaty. The CSDP already exists, and while it doesn’t have a NATO-style formal mutual defence pact component as yet, with EUGS that would be easy enough to implement. And the PESCO and other integrations renders it largely academic, anyway - an attack on any member border state is always going to involve other EU countries’ military. All of that kicked in in just the last few years.
Yeah, Russia is SO nice and FRIENDLY, and Putin is such a NICE guy, why do we need an organization for the defense of Europe? After all, it’s not like the Russian military has ever rolled into any European countries and annexed any territory. Besides, countries like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc, have such STRONG military might that they would have no problem defending themselves against Russia’s paltry little military.
You seem to be reading a lot more into what I said that I intended. First, I CAN certainly say that SOME members of NATO are slacking off because…they are. That is just the facts, jack. Not just me saying it or not just something new since Trump arrived on the scene. Not even just American’s saying it.
I didn’t say anything about ‘and it’s not like ya’ll really helped and we could have gone it alone easy’. That’s YOUR strawman and comes right out of your ass. Has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. My point was that if someone is going to say that NATO has been following the US around like a dog getting into wars on our behalf, which was what I was originally responding too, well, the only instance so far is Afghanistan…and that was because Article 5 was invoked. Iraq wasn’t a NATO effort, though some NATO members chose to join (or were pressured into it).
The last part is, again, simply you projecting onto me your own thoughts so just going to ignore that and move on. Try and actually read what I’m writing in the context I’m responding and not project your strawmen my way. Thanks.
Personally, I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t feel Russia would start a nuclear war over Latvia but I do feel they would start a nuclear war over Moscow (although I guess it wouldn’t be starting a nuclear war if we launched first).
In my opinion, the best response would be for NATO (including American forces) to fight the Russian invaders with non-nuclear forces in Latvia. Neither side has an interest served by extending the war outside of Latvia or up to the nuclear level (and diplomatic back channels should relay this message both ways).
