Military Review

Stand for themselves

30
It turned out that the US is not eager to fight for Europe, especially for its eastern countries. It also turned out that the United States might think about withdrawing from NATO: let the mentioned Europe fight for itself. Analysts also admit that the reasons for the activities of NATO, determined after the Second World War, simply do not exist today. In short, let Mother Europe stand up for itself.


Stand for themselves


Achtung! What is written in the announcement of the article should not be taken for the official position of the United States. This is the opinion of experts. Nevertheless, it was announced in a large and influential specialized edition - The National Interest. We also note that it is in some ways combined with the election theses of Comrade Trump, who does not consider that the United States should stick its nose in all conflicts on the planet and have domestic rather than foreign policy as a priority. The United States should live like this: build bridges and roads, drive illegal immigrants to the neck and give people a normal education, and not go with democracy to Ukraine. But who will listen to Trump? That expert Carpenter is unlikely to listen.

In Ted Galen Carpenter’s article “Is it Time for America to Quit NATO?” Published in "The National Interest", it considers the likelihood of the US leaving NATO, as well as the complete disbandment of this military bloc.

In April, NATO will celebrate the sixty-seventh anniversary of its existence, the analyst recalls. Instead of celebrating this date with yet another stupid cliché "about the all-time importance of the alliance for the security of the United States and the whole world," on 67's birthday, one could make a "long overdue assessment" of NATO’s commitment to America’s interests in the 21st century. After all, there is no evidence that this is actually the case, the author sneers. Yes, and before it was not.

The creation of NATO in 1949 was a “most obvious break with traditional American policies that had so far avoided alliances with foreign powers” ​​and, in general, “followed a non-interventionist course”.

True, the “psychologically destructive attack” on Pearl Harbor struck a fatal blow to such foreign policy, the author believes.

Even well-known opponents of interventionism, such as Senator Arthur Vandenberg, acknowledged that the world has changed, and the policy of “isolationism” (“a deliberately misinterpretation of the term”) no longer meets the needs of the United States. NATO membership eventually led to an alliance with the European powers, thereby confirming Washington’s policy change.

Proponents of NATO insisted that the world has changed since World War II, and therefore the planet needs a "new paradigm" built on US global leadership.

However, a problem has arisen: decades have passed since then, and other leading minds still suggest that this change (World War II and its consequences) is “the only major event”, and everything else fits into the framework of the “new paradigm”. But this assumption is "absolutely wrong," the author writes.

Change is a “continuous process,” he said. Today, Europe is different from Europe 1949 of the year. However, the NATO institutions and most of the relevant US policies have not changed at all - they “have remained the same”.

The whole world situation "in terms of security" is also different.

The formerly divided European democracies are now united in the European Union. Its population and total GDP is greater than that of the United States! These united countries, despite their concerns about “turbulence” in the Middle East and the “roar of the Russian bear”, can “resolve both of these problems”. In addition, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is only a “pale shadow of a threat to the Soviet Union.” And the European Union in terms of population is three times ahead of Russia, and its economy is almost ten times higher than the Russian one.

The main reason why the EU countries did not do more for their own security is simple: the United States "insisted" on assuming the leading role and incurred "most of the expenses" on defense. As a result, the US spends almost 4 percent of its GDP on military needs; for NATO states from Europe, this figure barely reaches 1,6%. America bears an "incomparable economic burden"!

The European security environment has changed in a different direction. During the first decades of the alliance’s existence, Washington’s goal was to preserve the security of major players (West Germany, Italy, France, Great Britain). After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, US leaders insisted on expanding the alliance to the countries of Central and even Eastern Europe. As a result, “marginal allies” got into the block (this was approximately the way people on Facebook add random friends).

Yes, only NATO is not Facebook! The military alliance is a serious enterprise, reminds the expert. Judge for yourself: NATO, with its article 5, regards an attack on one member of the alliance as an attack on all. Such a commitment can easily draw the US into an armed conflict that "has practically nothing to do with America’s own security."

“The absurdity of NATO in the 21st century may have reached its peak in February 2016, when, with enthusiastic support for Washington, the alliance recognized tiny Montenegro as a member,” the author writes further.

During the first decade after World War II, supporters of the new approach claimed that the alliance would strengthen America’s security. But how can Montenegro, this micro-country, strengthen America’s tremendous military power and economic power? This is probably a “great secret.”

Come on, Montenegro at least does not have "great-power enemies." The same cannot be said about the three other small members - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Their relationship with Russia is cold - it’s freezing cold. In addition, an analysis of a “think tank” clearly showed that the Baltic countries are so vulnerable that Russian troops could capture them in a few days.

Thinking about the maximum security of America and its well-being (which is the “highest priority,” the author notes), one cannot take “static thinking” as the basis for actions.

Sixty-seven years is too long a time for any unchanging policy. American policies related to NATO are increasingly failing. You can't even call her sensible. It would be good, therefore, to conduct a thorough analysis and consider the “most radical option: US withdrawal from the alliance,” suggests Carpenter.

For reference: Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at National Interest. This man is the author of ten books on international affairs, including several volumes on NATO activities.

* * *


Of course, Mr. Carpenter’s ironic analysis is not exhaustive. Some interest, and rather big, the existence of NATO for the US has. Suffice it to recall the major interventions of the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries, which were carried out specifically with the participation of the bloc states and often while maintaining the leading role of the USA.

On the other hand, the North Atlantic Alliance could not necessarily serve as the basis for such invasion and “democratization” operations. If needed, the United States could act on a pair with France, Britain or other allies. These states would not abandon their alliance with the United States if NATO were disbanded. Instead of NATO operations, joint allied operations would be conducted. But to say that, for example, the Baltic warriors played a decisive role in Afghanistan, is not necessary.

There is, however, another international nuance that justifies the existence of NATO and turns it into a convenient American tool for manipulating public consciousness. NATO is a kind of collective counterbalance to the UN, which has turned into a puppet partly due to American influence on the planet and the wide activity of the “defense” bloc. And if the UN may veto against potential opponents of the West - primarily Russia, the North Atlantic Alliance was created to resist Russia.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The black
    The black 31 March 2016 07: 08
    +23
    The United States will never abandon the NATO project, because this is one way to keep Europe by the tomatoes ..
    1. sa-zz
      sa-zz 31 March 2016 08: 01
      +9
      Quote: Black
      The United States will never abandon the NATO project, because this is one way to keep Europe by the tomatoes ..

      Except for this option: Given the tendency to unleash World War 3, jump to the side at the most opportune moment and not participate in the war, but extract dividends. History has the property of repeating itself
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. siberalt
      siberalt 31 March 2016 09: 04
      +3
      So how did this NATA protect Europe from terrorists? laughing
    4. Alexez
      Alexez 31 March 2016 09: 06
      +6
      The United States will never abandon the NATO project, because this is one way to keep Europe by the tomatoes ..

      And if on the hand squeezing the tomatoes it is necessary to call in with a tarpaulin boot, ehh ... this would be an egg, with ketchup and bacon!
    5. otter.1
      otter.1 31 March 2016 09: 38
      +2
      And the point is not even this, but the fact that Europe will immediately look for a new "manager" and there are only one options in this situation soldier
      1. Beaver
        Beaver 31 March 2016 12: 12
        +3
        Quote: otter.1
        And the point is not even this, but the fact that Europe will immediately look for a new "manager" and there are only one options in this situation

        Do you think Turkey will give up the role of "manager"? laughing
    6. Beaver
      Beaver 31 March 2016 12: 17
      +3
      Quote: Black
      The United States will never abandon the NATO project, because this is one of the ways to keep Europe by the tomatoes.

      NATO, as a guarantor of repayment of loans from the IMF, do not you find? hi
      The occupation forces of the United States (the admission of the country to NATO) are always "loaded" to these loans, in my opinion, not by chance. bully
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 31 March 2016 18: 27
        +2
        The US military-industrial complex will not allow NATO and its almighty lobby to disintegrate. Arms sales will go down sharply. Do they need it? For example, the F-35, which many countries have chipped in and are ready to take. For such a pie with 12 zeros, they will condemn anyone you want. And "Patriots" who will they push if there is a cheaper and better alternative? And all sorts of rockets? The Israelis are forced to take American weapons when they have their own development. Therefore, all these are fairy tales. Even if Trump becomes president, and he is a businessman in the first place, such a business will not fail. Buy or "introduce", unambiguously. hi
  2. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 31 March 2016 07: 10
    +4
    US may consider withdrawing from NATO

    If you imagine that this happened, then I clearly see a string of ambulances to the Baltic, Polish governments. Heart attacks and strokes in the governments of Ukraine and Georgia. In old Europe, they would probably cost nitroglycerin. Yes, in this case, the United States would do Russia a great service. Therefore, it is obvious that this will not happen.
  3. Adik89
    Adik89 31 March 2016 07: 13
    +3
    I wonder what the Lithuanian, Pole, Kiev authorities will say if NATO resolves ?!
    1. The black
      The black 31 March 2016 07: 23
      +5
      I wonder what the Lithuanian, Pole, Kiev authorities will say if NATO resolves ?!
      What is always - Hitler Caput! wassat
  4. aszzz888
    aszzz888 31 March 2016 07: 36
    +2
    Do not leave the meriticos of NATOsrovtsev. At least in the near future. And for a long time we confront them.
  5. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 31 March 2016 07: 37
    +2
    What is it, the EU will have to create its own army? Will the mattress close its bases in Europe? Well, that’s generally fantastic! But what, the military-industrial complex of a mattress will refuse income? And he will give a piece to the Europeans (the military-industrial complex of Europe is not so powerful, but they will not give up their own). Well, no, where the loot is, there the stupid politicians are shot like rabbits. Although they consider themselves smart and progressive.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 March 2016 08: 42
      -5
      "And the mattress will close its bases in Europe? Well, this is generally fantastic! And the fact that the military-industrial complex of mattress will refuse income?" //// "

      Why is it fantastic? Obama has already closed 3/4 bases in Europe
      (to the Crimea). Now they are thinking of using several bases in Germany again.
      And for the US military-industrial complex, the closure of NATO is only a profit.
      Imagine: Europeans will start spending not 1% of the budget on weapons, but 4%!
      Whose weapon are they on? They hardly release their own, they will buy American.

      But for Russia, the collapse of NATO will not bring anything good. Military expenses
      the Europeans will grow 3-4 times, and in Russia, and so on, about 5% - at the limit.
      Imagine, in Germany, not 250 tanks, as it is now, but 2500?
      And nuclear weapons without NATO will immediately appear in a dozen countries. Technologically -
      it’s nothing for developed countries. Who needs to take risks
      without an american umbrella?
      1. 1rl141
        1rl141 31 March 2016 12: 25
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        But for Russia, the collapse of NATO will not bring anything good.

        The collapse of NATO will just benefit. When each mongrel will be "for itself", this mongrel will think well before barking. And let Germany have at least 25 tanks, if it will be without someone's support. And we still need to agree on support from another country, and we already know what such agreements are worth. And in the 000st world and in the 1nd passed.
        Shawkam own shirt is always closer to the body.
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 31 March 2016 07: 38
    +3
    It turned out that the United States is not eager to fight for Europe, especially for its eastern countries. It also turned out that the United States could think about withdrawing from NATO: let the aforementioned Europe fight for itself.... It is entirely possible that it will be necessary to fight not for Europe, but in Europe, and that is typical, not with Russia .. but with its upreaders .. ISIS terrorists, al-Qaeda .. Of course, from the realm of fiction, but a unique chance arose .. Muslim Europe, where Europeans will work for Muslims .. Like in a German joke .. Who are you? A refugee from Syria, I am a refugee from Libya, I am from Tunisia .. and where are the Germans? At work ... I don’t stir up any passions .. but it seems like it’s coming ...
  7. gamer
    gamer 31 March 2016 08: 11
    +5
    Vladimir Putin’s Russia is just a “pale shadow of the threat of the Soviet Union”. If it were not for Russia of Mr. Vladimir Putin, the next enslaved peoples would swallow the western city ..., for which you have to pay an inflated price, while expressing the obligatory admiration and love.
  8. dobrik10
    dobrik10 31 March 2016 08: 13
    +5
    And this was known for a long time, the islanders were not in vain creating buffer zones around the world and feeding them as much as possible with the forces of the European part of the alliance, a fresh example of the evacuation of families of military personnel from Turkey.
    Principle, shamed created destabilization and piled up. Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., etc.
    They think everyone will disentangle except them. But this is not so ...
  9. atamankko
    atamankko 31 March 2016 09: 09
    +2
    It was necessary to think "in front of those sitting" in the EU, and not to dance to the tune of the United States.
  10. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 31 March 2016 09: 18
    +3
    Quote: Black
    The United States will never abandon the NATO project, because this is one way to keep Europe by the tomatoes ..

    I agree that NATO is a kind of legalized US occupation of NATO member countries, in the United States there is not a single soldier from another country, even England, but in England itself, if I’m not mistaken, it’s not a soldier of the USA or others either. But the US soldier in other countries is a dime a dozen.
  11. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 31 March 2016 09: 21
    +2
    Terrorism is one of the elements of a hybrid war.
    Its inventors are the USA and NATO allies.
    Something NATO had to justify its existence after the collapse of the USSR and the corresponding military bloc.
    But US-created and armed terrorists have long gone out of control of their ancestors.
    NATO justified the continuation of its existence.
    And there, you see, new enemies will be appointed ...
    1. Monge
      Monge 31 March 2016 12: 29
      0
      Terrorism is one of the elements of a hybrid war.
      Its inventors are the USA and NATO allies.
      Well, in vain you are. The origins of terrorism are clearly not in the United States. By the way, it’s much more interesting to read the article by Ted Galen Karpeneter. There is also a translation into Russian. Just the opinion of one analyst.
  12. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 31 March 2016 09: 32
    +2
    America is not going to fight Russia, but is doing everything possible and impossible to push its NATO partners to this.
    They themselves want to sit out behind the puddle of the Atlantic, at a time when Eurasia will blaze with nuclear fire.
    America is an evil empire!
    1. Blondy
      Blondy 31 March 2016 10: 47
      +3
      Do you think the Europeans will want to fight Russia if the states leave Europe? Now they have such problems with the Islamists that the Russian threat already seems like flowers. Maybe that's why they want to blame it - NATO will not fight against a quasi-internal enemy, and unforeseen problems have appeared above the roof, so they want to keep them away from all this. Smart people warned the guys - what are you doing! They didn’t dope at this time - now they’ll have to disentangle themselves, and the Americans, as always, will wash themselves out for their puddle. And you will not dump anything on Russia.
    2. the villain
      the villain 31 March 2016 21: 14
      0
      Quote: Mama_Cholli
      They themselves want to sit out behind the puddle of the Atlantic, at a time when Eurasia will blaze with nuclear fire.
      America is an evil empire!

      Do you think no one, in this situation, will be tempted to insert the "exceptional" wick in the end?
  13. Leeder
    Leeder 31 March 2016 10: 24
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "And the mattress will close its bases in Europe? Well, this is generally fantastic! And the fact that the military-industrial complex of mattress will refuse income?" //// "

    Why is it fantastic? Obama has already closed 3/4 bases in Europe
    (to the Crimea). Now they are thinking of using several bases in Germany again.
    And for the US military-industrial complex, the closure of NATO is only a profit.
    Imagine: Europeans will start spending not 1% of the budget on weapons, but 4%!
    Whose weapon are they on? They hardly release their own, they will buy American.

    If Europeans have 4% of the cost of armaments for their weapons, they will most likely establish their own. The question here is rather how strong the lobby of American gunsmiths is in Europe. With such demand, I think offers on the market will quickly appear.

    But for Russia, the collapse of NATO will not bring anything good. The military spending of the Europeans will grow 3-4 times, while in Russia, and so on, about 5% is at its limit.
    Imagine, in Germany, not 250 tanks, as it is now, but 2500?

    But Russia does not need more. At the moment, no European country is able to confront Russia alone. And in a crowd, provided that spending on the army is increased to at least 2-3% of the budget, that's enough.

    And nuclear weapons without NATO will immediately appear in a dozen countries. Technologically, this is nothing for developed countries. Who needs to risk without an American umbrella?

    Here I agree, the increasingly less developed countries of Europe are capable of producing nuclear weapons in the shortest possible time. True, the question is different, Iran has just been banned from working in this direction, but here they themselves rushed to produce. :)
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. Sargaras
    Sargaras 31 March 2016 14: 53
    +1
    Quote: rotmistr60
    US may consider withdrawing from NATO

    If you imagine that this happened, then I clearly see a string of ambulances to the Baltic, Polish governments. Heart attacks and strokes in the governments of Ukraine and Georgia. In old Europe, they would probably cost nitroglycerin. Yes, in this case, the United States would do Russia a great service. Therefore, it is obvious that this will not happen.

    And in Russia, they will run to liquor stores.
  16. uncle
    uncle 31 March 2016 17: 04
    +3
    Isolationists are gaining strength. The states are looking for friendship with Iran, "Assad is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism" and must not leave. Talks about leaving NATO. Waltzman is not given money anywhere. Welcome to the new world!
  17. Ramzes33
    Ramzes33 31 March 2016 20: 42
    0
    For all the seemingly delusional thought of leaving NATO, it may have a continuation (in the medium term).
  18. Lord blacwood
    Lord blacwood 31 March 2016 22: 04
    0
    NATO will not be dissolved in the near future, as the US is holding the EU on the hook.