The unneeded burden
18/8/16 19:39![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luvdovz.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn a recent NYT interview, Trump warned he'd change things in NATO if he became president, the US likely refusing to defend those NATO members who refuse to fulfill their commitments to the alliance, namely investing at least 2% of their GDP into defense. His works may've caused a slight panic in some East European capitals, where it was interpreted almost as an outright rejection of the infamous Article 5 of the NATO code, which says any attack on any member automatically means a collective military response from the whole alliance. Now analysts also believe a possible Trump presidency would mean the money NATO member countries would have to pay would increase, which could mean another Trump idea could become fact: reducing the number of NATO members.
At a first reading, the isolationism that radiates from these ideas has a purely economic reason behind it, as much as the alliance has become a burden for the US for quite a while. The US now practically funds NATO, and simultaneously guarantees the bulk of its military might. It's a fact that only 5 out of the 28 members have fulfilled the 2% requirement: the US (3.6%), Greece, UK, Estonia and Poland. This means a Trump presidency could mean 23 NATO members (including Germany, France, etc) would automatically be left out of the US "umbrella". Trump is saying the wasting of funds does not help the efficiency of those investments, and NATO's arsenal is too old and useless, and needs overhauling. Which means even more military expenditure from all members.
Despite all his scandalous statements though, most analysts believe the question of NATO's future is not about Trump's personal opinions on the matter, but rather depends on the question if NATO's existence is in the interests of the US elites and the financial circles who are closely related to the US military industry.
It's no surprise that despite his criticism of NATO, Trump is still promising massive investment into the modernization of the US military industry. And he's far from being the first US politician to voice discontent with the behavior of America's allies. Lots of NATO members, especially the post-communist countries of East Europe, have entered the alliance with the sole goal of cutting their own military budgets and having someone defend them from Russia. Btw, many of them had the same reasons to join the EU, they wanted to solve the economic problems they were having at the time with help from the EU funds.
Besides, it's not just them, but also France who's failing to meet the expectations. Among the few who actually honor their commitments in Europe are the UK and Poland. As for Estonia and Greece, the former's budget is so tiny, its military expenditure doesn't make any difference in the alliance; and a possible cutting of Greece's military budget would likely cause serious turmoil among the military circles there, which could additionally deepen the political instability in that country.
It's likely that if elected, heaven forbid, Trump could try to change the way NATO is being run. Right now, the 2% requirement is mostly a nice wish - and Trump wants to make it obligatory. What's more, the US has been trying to formally remove the principle of consensus in running the alliance, and placing that process in the hands of a limited top military headquarters, completely controlled by the US of course. Such a transformation would surely be supported by America's closest allies, the UK and Canada, and also by some traditional US supporters like Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Albania, etc. While the bigger European powers like Germany, France and Italy would likely try to oppose it.
Such a change in NATO could provoke a giant world crisis, not least importantly because other great powers like Russia and China are not interested in such a development, a complete US domination of NATO. Therefore we can't rule out the possibility that behind Trump's scandalous statements there's his drive for creating a completely US-dominated military alliance at the expense of the current wasteful, bureaucratic, therefore inefficient NATO model. By the way, that would allow the US to avoid embarrassing situations like the recent ones that their lack of coordination with France (in Libya) and Turkey (in Syria) have caused.
In any case, it's clear that the US would never give up running a bloc that's a nice tool for keeping their control over Europe. Even now, when NATO's decisions are formally being taken through unanimous decision, at a purely military level everything in the alliance is being run by the US - they're calling the shots, they control the intelligence, and they make all the strategic calls. Still, given the failures in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria, I wouldn't be surprised if the US decides to completely ignore their alliances from the continental part of what GWB's clique used to call "Old Europe", while leaning upon the UK plus the post-Soviet "New Europe", and ultimately turn NATO into an extension of their own selfish geopolitical doctrine. In other words, it's very possible that Trump's attacks on NATO are actually meant at triggering a reform within the alliance, a transformation aiming at a total submission of the alliance to the US geopolitical interests - even if that requires the gradual marginalization of formerly traditional partners who've now turned out expendable for the alliance.
Whether that would lead to the creation of new blocs which would then venture into a geopolitical competition with the US, is another story.
At a first reading, the isolationism that radiates from these ideas has a purely economic reason behind it, as much as the alliance has become a burden for the US for quite a while. The US now practically funds NATO, and simultaneously guarantees the bulk of its military might. It's a fact that only 5 out of the 28 members have fulfilled the 2% requirement: the US (3.6%), Greece, UK, Estonia and Poland. This means a Trump presidency could mean 23 NATO members (including Germany, France, etc) would automatically be left out of the US "umbrella". Trump is saying the wasting of funds does not help the efficiency of those investments, and NATO's arsenal is too old and useless, and needs overhauling. Which means even more military expenditure from all members.
Despite all his scandalous statements though, most analysts believe the question of NATO's future is not about Trump's personal opinions on the matter, but rather depends on the question if NATO's existence is in the interests of the US elites and the financial circles who are closely related to the US military industry.
It's no surprise that despite his criticism of NATO, Trump is still promising massive investment into the modernization of the US military industry. And he's far from being the first US politician to voice discontent with the behavior of America's allies. Lots of NATO members, especially the post-communist countries of East Europe, have entered the alliance with the sole goal of cutting their own military budgets and having someone defend them from Russia. Btw, many of them had the same reasons to join the EU, they wanted to solve the economic problems they were having at the time with help from the EU funds.
Besides, it's not just them, but also France who's failing to meet the expectations. Among the few who actually honor their commitments in Europe are the UK and Poland. As for Estonia and Greece, the former's budget is so tiny, its military expenditure doesn't make any difference in the alliance; and a possible cutting of Greece's military budget would likely cause serious turmoil among the military circles there, which could additionally deepen the political instability in that country.
It's likely that if elected, heaven forbid, Trump could try to change the way NATO is being run. Right now, the 2% requirement is mostly a nice wish - and Trump wants to make it obligatory. What's more, the US has been trying to formally remove the principle of consensus in running the alliance, and placing that process in the hands of a limited top military headquarters, completely controlled by the US of course. Such a transformation would surely be supported by America's closest allies, the UK and Canada, and also by some traditional US supporters like Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Albania, etc. While the bigger European powers like Germany, France and Italy would likely try to oppose it.
Such a change in NATO could provoke a giant world crisis, not least importantly because other great powers like Russia and China are not interested in such a development, a complete US domination of NATO. Therefore we can't rule out the possibility that behind Trump's scandalous statements there's his drive for creating a completely US-dominated military alliance at the expense of the current wasteful, bureaucratic, therefore inefficient NATO model. By the way, that would allow the US to avoid embarrassing situations like the recent ones that their lack of coordination with France (in Libya) and Turkey (in Syria) have caused.
In any case, it's clear that the US would never give up running a bloc that's a nice tool for keeping their control over Europe. Even now, when NATO's decisions are formally being taken through unanimous decision, at a purely military level everything in the alliance is being run by the US - they're calling the shots, they control the intelligence, and they make all the strategic calls. Still, given the failures in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria, I wouldn't be surprised if the US decides to completely ignore their alliances from the continental part of what GWB's clique used to call "Old Europe", while leaning upon the UK plus the post-Soviet "New Europe", and ultimately turn NATO into an extension of their own selfish geopolitical doctrine. In other words, it's very possible that Trump's attacks on NATO are actually meant at triggering a reform within the alliance, a transformation aiming at a total submission of the alliance to the US geopolitical interests - even if that requires the gradual marginalization of formerly traditional partners who've now turned out expendable for the alliance.
Whether that would lead to the creation of new blocs which would then venture into a geopolitical competition with the US, is another story.
(no subject)
Date: 19/8/16 09:16 (UTC)On the other hand, if what almost everyone in the West suspects is true and Erdogan pulled a false-flag op in order to find an excuse to crack down on all opponents and establish an authoritarian regime, now with the enthusiastic support of his people who are fired up in patriotic emotion, then I say let him die in a fire. Either way, he will, ultimately. Whoever has crossed America's way hasn't fared well, after all.
(no subject)
Date: 19/8/16 15:58 (UTC)If NATO is not meeting the requirements of protecting its members because the members aren't contributing to their own defence in terms of GDP contributions or personnel deployments then it must adapt, contract, shrink, or whatever.
NATO has been the American defensive aegis pointing East since just after the Berlin Airlift. It has adapted to new situations as they have arisen. Structural changes are sometimes needed. (The UK has just prompted a structural change in the EU; alas for us, but hopeful for the rest of the EU.) Civil wars abound. Crises are lining up to strike sequentially. Folk with tinfoil hats don't feel embarrassed about spouting their opinions in public.
Seems like it's that time of the Century. If NATO ceases to be relevant, something new will take its place, or maybe Uncle Sam will leave Europe to Uncle Vlad and his slightly more violent and rather cruder Russian cover version.