It is also dangerous to view any alliance as permanent in the face of changing realities. Western Europe has been largely democratic post-WWII and democracy has spread to Central and Eastern Europe since the Soviet collapse, but the growing EU superstate is anything but democratic. Its leader and ruling bureaucrats are unelected, its parliament has no authority to author legislative bills or to amend what the Brussels bureaucrats present to them, and the members' own courts and legislatures are subordinated to dictates from Brussels. As the EU's noose stangles whatever national sovereignty remains, Europe will emerge as a completely different entity. Things change, and prudent governments make strategic decisions based upon what might happen, not upon what is presently obvious.
NATO was a solid alliance when the Soviet threat loomed over Western Europe, and Americans were fully committed to wage total war in defense of West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the UK and other real allies. But NATO has since adopted 12 new treaty members that are relative strangers to the West. Regardless of what the North Atlantic Treaty requires, America will not fight for Bulgaria or Estonia or Romania or Slovenia. The American people never signed on to such an expanded obligation, and will not spend our blood for these strangers. Despite this unspoken reality, much of the world continues to engage in reckless gamesmanship under the mistaken hope that we will always protect them.
You and I espouse different views of America's role in the world. America has made itself the arbiter of every dispute, the surety for every bad loan, and the guarantor of every treaty. We lived up to those promises for decades, but in the process we created bitter enemies and fair weather friends, bankrupted our treasury and mortgaged our future, and exhausted the military power and resources that should have been preserved to fight a necessary future war. Like every empire before us, we have spent our blood, treasure and national will to the point that exhaustion and collapse are on the horizon. America has written more checks than we can cash at one time, with promises payable in American blood. If too many of those checks come due at once, the bank crashes. In my view, spending even more, promising even more and fighting even more is the wrong answer, and will lead to our own destruction.
It is still is a defensive alliance. We can debate about whether NATO should have intervened in the Balkans, but something had to be done in reaction to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the war crimes being committed within Europe.
As I have stated repeatedly, the additional countries that were added to NATO did not constitute an offensive action against Russia. Those countries actively sought entry as a way to protect themselves from potential future actions by Russia. Each country had to meet certain standards and be approved by all the members. It took years to gain admittance. It is a multi-step process. Cyprus and Macedonia are stalled from accession by, respectively, Turkey and Greece, pending the resolution of disputes between them. Russia was provided an observer status at NATO Headquarters.
Regardless, the aggressive US/EU actions to destabilize Russia's economy and influence are a clear provocation in Russia's eyes. And make no mistake, non-lethal warfare is still warfare, and when taken too far often leads to shooting.
If Russia had its way, NATO would not exist. The corrupt oligarchy that runs the country should not dictate our actions and policies. We made a major mistake in canceling the defensive missile installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. The governments of both countries overcame major domestic obstacles and put their countries on the line in terms of Russian threats, veiled and otherwise.
If any shooting starts in Europe, Russia will be the instigator. And frankly, Russia lacks the military wherewithal, except for its nuclear arsenal, to pose a real danger to Europe. You continue to buy into the premise of a moral equivalency between European democracies and Russia, which is run by a tyrant who has little concern for freedom and individual liberties.
It is also dangerous to view any alliance as permanent in the face of changing realities. Western Europe has been largely democratic post-WWII and democracy has spread to Central and Eastern Europe since the Soviet collapse, but the growing EU superstate is anything but democratic. Its leader and ruling bureaucrats are unelected, its parliament has no authority to author legislative bills or to amend what the Brussels bureaucrats present to them, and the members' own courts and legislatures are subordinated to dictates from Brussels. As the EU's noose stangles whatever national sovereignty remains, Europe will emerge as a completely different entity. Things change, and prudent governments make strategic decisions based upon what might happen, not upon what is presently obvious.
The trend is actually in the other direction. The recent EU parliamentary elections show a move to the right. Nigel Farage and Marine Le Penn won major victories. There is a growing movement in the EU to reduce the control from Brussels and in the case of the UK, pull out of the alliance. The EU is crumbling in the light of the deteriorating economic conditions in Southern Europe. A single currency is hurting recovery. The EU is failing badly and in my opinion, will fall apart or become a weak overall trade alliance.
NATO was a solid alliance when the Soviet threat loomed over Western Europe, and Americans were fully committed to wage total war in defense of West Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the UK and other real allies. But NATO has since adopted 12 new treaty members that are relative strangers to the West. Regardless of what the North Atlantic Treaty requires, America will not fight for Bulgaria or Estonia or Romania or Slovenia. The American people never signed on to such an expanded obligation, and will not spend our blood for these strangers. Despite this unspoken reality, much of the world continues to engage in reckless gamesmanship under the mistaken hope that we will always protect them.
If the US backs away from Article 5, there will be no alliance. In order to be credible, an attack against one must be an attack against all. We cannot selectively decide which country can be attacked without consequence.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
You and I espouse different views of America's role in the world. America has made itself the arbiter of every dispute, the surety for every bad loan, and the guarantor of every treaty.
Overstated and wrong. We are a superpower (at least for now) and global leader. We are the indispensable nation when it comes to defending human rights and freedom. If we retreat from that role, someone else will try to fill it and the result will be a far more dangerous world. We are seeing that now with Obama's leading from behind. He is implementing the strategy you seem to advocate.
There are limits to our power and influence. We have recognized that since 1945. We act out of protecting our strategic national interests. We didn't stop North Korea or Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons. We didn't help the Hungarians when their revolution ended in failure. And our ability to act is going to be even more limited in the future as our resources decline. We are now engaged in the classic battle between guns versus butter. And butter wins every time because it has more constituents. The welfare state is going to limit our ability to project power globally. We have not yet reached a "No troops East of Suez" yet, but we are headed in that direction. It is inevitable.
Like every empire before us, we have spent our blood, treasure and national will to the point that exhaustion and collapse are on the horizon. America has written more checks than we can cash at one time, with promises payable in American blood. If too many of those checks come due at once, the bank crashes. In my view, spending even more, promising even more and fighting even more is the wrong answer, and will lead to our own destruction.
As I indicated above, I agree with you. We are in decline, which is why our options to act are going to be limited. We can't afford it. The Soviet empire collapsed for that reason. The UK is no longer a global power. This all speaks to the need for sharing the defense burden and using alliances to reduce our costs. The West and Japan must develop a shared world view and structure our national security strategy to support it. Putin is an enemy of freedom and must be dealt with. We have various non-military levers to contain his adventurism. We should not cede him a sphere of influence, which he will seek to enlarge.
We are spending less on defense. The Army is being reduced by 100,000 personnel. More cuts are on the horizon. Politicians from both parties are now rationalizing those cuts. Rand Paul is calling for less US involvement in the world, a popular view. Obama wants a smaller military and less US influence globally. You are going to get your wish.