Diverging American views on NATO
As seen in the progressive verbal dissonance between SecDef Mattis and President Trump, there are two different views on NATO in the US. This is not terribly new, historically the US has always seen Europe alternatively as a bulwark and as a burden.While it is obvious that RIS would attempted to feed its own agendas in EU by manipulating the American debate on the relevance of the EU in American security, I feel it is important to pay attention to the details of the argument to see what is really going on.
At a most basic level the US is bankrupt. Economically its debt is at an unsustainable level. The balance of trade with partners has to shift at least until the debt issues become manageable. The EU is one of America's major trading partners and quite naturally it will need to help the US in its hour of need. The American economic bankruptcy is mirrored by a political and intellectual bankruptcy too. This is presented by the flamboyant fabulist that parades as our President. He is very high on hype and very low on substance. His behavior mirrors the fact that most of us have no f**king idea what to do about our situation even though we all acknowledge the fact that this is unsustainable.
A majority of European immigrants whose descendants call themselves "native" Americans today carried very negative memories of the old country. This fed a deep desire to stay out of European affairs for many. Others felt a desperate need to connect to connect with their cultural homelands and never quite accepted assimilation in the American melting pot. These nostalgic groups were drawn towards Eurocentric associations. Such processes tore the European immigrant communities apart. Two great examples of this are the Swiss-German immigrants of Kentucky & Ohio and the English cultural loyalists of the North East. Both suffered greatly from the shearing process that is natural to the melting pot.
NATO was born in the ashes of the WWII. As the prospect of Stalin becoming a Hitler 2,0 grew in the minds of national security strategists, the idea of an alliance against Stalinism in Europe grew. This alliance served primarily to to protect the Marshall Plan loans that the US gave the European states that were emerging from rubble of WWII. As the Cold War progressed, Europe became the bulwark against Soviet aggression. After the USSR fell, some argued that NATO should be closed down but instead it became a way to secure loans given to newly liberated Warsaw Pact states and its footprint actually expanded.
This widening NATO footprint became a cause for concern in the RU. It was seen in Moscow as a new Mongol army that was slowly eroding the defensive boundaries of Mother Russia. Something was a creeping threat to the security of the Moscow Principality and its strategic reserves around the Tatar lands. RIS responded to this threat as best they could. Today the situation can best be described as "Militarily Stable with a few important caveats".
So leaving aside old ideas about Europe and its place in culture, we are faced with a choice between two very real issues
a) the internal collapse of the US system of debt and
b) the fragility of the "military stability" in Europe.
From a NATO perspective - it must protect against a combination of physical, electronic and psychological aggression from a bellicose Russia that seeks to protect its boundaries. And NATO must do that while watching its financial situation become more and more precarious.
If NATO fails to do its job - there will be no Europe to lust after. There will be no one to buy oil and natural gas from Russia or Saudi Arabia or Qatar. No one to buy cheap Chinese products or Indian software, or American weapons.
So we have an exceedingly difficult task at hand, one has to protect the chicken that lays golden eggs and protect it without killing it even by accident.
NATO it is the absolute core of American national security. This subtle fact gets lost in the idiot driven public discourse popular on our TV channels.
Can a highly competent American national security state accomplish this goal with the person who gave that press conference yesterday at its head? Can all this be managed by someone who fantasizes about making deals with the Russians - especially on issues where he clearly has no comprehension of the details?
I think not.
A system that was set up by people of the caliber of Gen. Eisenhower and George H W Bush can only be maintained and repaired by people of similar ability and that is where its all going terribly wrong. We are woefully short on that account today.
In the language of the Deep State dwellers - there is a terrible phrase - once uttered it cannot be unsaid and it forms a final and binding contract with its outcome.
"Something must be done".
I have said this now but I am not a member of the American Deep State. I am an ordinary outsider.
If some American Deep State citizen repeats it in any fora. You should not be surprised by the outcome.
posted by maverick @ 7:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home