Posted on 10/16/2022 9:34:36 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
In Washington, D.C., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the equivalent of a foreign policy holy sacrament. To listen to many policymakers and foreign policy commentators, you would think NATO is as essential to America as our Constitution, apple pie, or baseball.
Questioning its continued utility in the post-Cold War era — or its further expansion — elicits accusations of being everything from un-American to a Putin stooge. This has made it almost impossible to have a substantive discussion about a military alliance designed to deter the threat of the Soviet Union — a country that hasn’t existed for more than 30 years.
Look no further than the fact that only one senator, Josh Hawley, voted against the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO in June. Hawley rightly questioned whether it was wise to extend America’s security umbrella to two wealthy European welfare states that have been safe and secure as neutral nations for more than 70 years, especially considering other pressing challenges at home and abroad. The bipartisan vitriol hurled at Hawley for his reasonable stance showed that Washington is far from ready to discuss the future of the NATO alliance like adults.
This wasn’t always the case. The United States was a nation founded on a suspicion of permanent alliances, especially with Europe. George Washington in his farewell address advised “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…” and specifically against “interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe.” This approach to alliances guided American foreign policy for most of our history and kept us out of the chaos of 19th-century Europe.
There is good reason for our leaders to revisit the wise words of our first president. Just last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky demanded an accelerated accession to NATO, claiming that Ukraine is already a de facto member of the alliance. Due to the collective defense obligations of NATO members spelled out in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, this could mean committing America’s sons and daughters to fight in an ongoing war with a nuclear-armed Russia.
In a diplomatic cable dispatched in 2008, then-U.S. ambassador and current CIA Director William Burns wrote, “NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains an ‘emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia.” For the United States, however, there are simply no vital American interests at stake that warrant a nuclear showdown with Moscow.
Allowing Ukraine to join NATO — and thereby committing America’s full military arsenal to the negligible matter of who governs the Donbas — would significantly raise the possibility of nuclear devastation. It is therefore essential that American policymakers firmly reject Ukraine’s demands to join NATO while slamming shut the “open door” policy offered at the 2008 Bucharest Summit.
Even absent the current conflict, NATO membership for Ukraine would be costly to Americans. According to a report published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies prior to the launch of the current Russian invasion, the upfront costs would be up to $27 billion with annual costs totaling up to $11 billion for American taxpayers if Ukraine joins NATO. The United States military would also be required to permanently deploy tens of thousands more troops to Europe, which would further strain a military that is already over-tasked around the world and facing significant challenges with recruiting.
A further expansion of NATO and increased deployment of U.S. troops to Europe would also encourage more European free-riding. Already, rich European states that should have more of a stake in what happens in Eastern Europe are contributing significantly less than the United States to the defense of Ukraine.
Worse, promised defense spending increases by countries such as Germany may not materialize. And why would they? The United States has doubled down in Europe, spending tens of billions of dollars and deploying more troops to Eastern Europe to support Ukraine and reassure nervous allies. None of this has been fixed to greater defense spending by our NATO allies. The Europeans have no incentive to stop treating Uncle Sam like Uncle Sucker.
For these reasons, it should be a no-brainer for America’s leaders to permanently slam the door on the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. But for many, blind loyalty to NATO trumps common sense.
Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., told Politico he supports Ukraine’s rapid accession to NATO, despite the ongoing war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while not specifically endorsing NATO membership for Ukraine, did say she supports a “security guarantee” for the country, which could be granted through NATO. Even the Biden administration, while not endorsing rapid accession to NATO, did keep the door open for their membership at a later date.
American leaders should put the interests of the American people first — and certainly before those of an alliance that long ago outlived its original purpose. Putting Ukraine under America’s security umbrella through NATO would lead to disastrous results. Beyond the risk of a nuclear conflict, spending tens of billions of dollars to expand NATO to Ukraine or other European countries is foolish during a time of record inflation, a $30 trillion national debt, and the rising threat of China in Asia.
The American people are owed a much more serious evaluation of NATO and its continued utility than the emotional nostalgia that dominates the discourse in policymaking circles.
Zelensky would have certainly hit the button as he clearly stated recently Nato should. Had he had Nuclear capability he would have used it.
The only thing Putin has accomplished is increasing the size scope and speed of the globalists agenda.
The rainbow f[l]lag Zelinskites see otherwise.
He's saber rattling to intimidate and drive up opposition in countries aiding Ukraine.
If Russia uses nuclear weapons, the US will have to respond, and does not have to use nuclear weapons.
Globally, economically, political in regional or world influence, Russia will be a pariah for years.
Putin wants a empire, he does not want to turn Russia into the largest third would country on Earth.
I guess Putin secretly bought The Federalist too.
Let the euro-weenies do it if they really want it.
Of no use to us. Not worth a dime or drop of American blood.
it aint gonna happen, 1 vote discounts it but NATO wants war
I think the boy is mental
homo globo war
You keep saying that. But the alternative was to do nothing and the globalists would have completed their agenda. Uke militias and Uke army were already massing for a massive assault on the Donbass, NATO was extending an invitation, the Ukes were prepping to go nuclear and to also attack Crimea.
So his choice was do nothing and globalists win. Or fight and globalists still do ok, but at least he has kept them away. He learned the lesson of Munich and knew the expansionist dictatorship could not be stopped by appeasement. He offered several months of attempts to negotiate a settlement. Our response was a blatant and rude F U that we would only talk about topics we deemed to matter, and that didn’t include any of their concerns.
Also, globalists are not doing so well. Half the world including the Saudis have turned on them. OPEC has turned on them. They are in an energy and economic disaster.
Putin saw what happened at Munich when the original nazis were appeased.
Russia won’t launch nukes without having all of its forces shut down afterwards. Then the problem will be gone.
The people who replaced Gorbachev with Boris Yeltsin were the first set of idiots who started us down this dangerous path.
I could be wrong on this, but I presume one of the major desires of the American Revolutionaries was to decouple the U.S from Europe’s destiny. Seems they failed.
By what means? You guys are delusional.
Russia seems set up to preserve a greater percentage of its’ population in a nuclear war than the U.S is. Anyhow there would be no winners. At least as far as the non elites are concerned. Neither the Russian or U.S and Euroweenie elite are much concerned about the mass of people who are the meat in the sandwich
Domestically the article is right.
From the other members’ perspective, America unilaterally pulling the plug on the NATO “open door” article of the organisation (article 10 iirc)is as big a deal as revoking article 5.
And doing it only in response to Russia’s blackmail draft agreement from last December would be ruinous for America’s reputation within NATO.
The simple fact is, out of Russia’s demands from December only 3 were tenable; the rest amount to removing all protections over the Warsaw Pact region, terminating three uncontroversial membership processes already in flight, no military exercises without Russian approval, and no - absolutely no - reciprocal concessions by Moscow.
They even threw in a clause allowing them in effect to invade eastern Europe if they have a “self defense” argument for it - which is effectively legitimising their “Ukraine is about to invade the Donbass” argument that they used (amongst other equally bullshit causus belli) to invade Ukraine.
Yes, by all means sign up to that and let a rogue state tell all of Europe and the USA that it has a veto on their defence policy; what could possibly go wrong...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.