Fridi (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fridi) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2019-12-08 07:21 pm
fridi) wrote in talkpolitics2019-12-08 07:21 pm
Entry tags:
Don't pretend you don't need NATO
No photos, please! It's rare that a British PM would play hide and seek with a US president. They're supposed to be attesting to their "special relationship", right? But BoJo stood at a choice. He knew his buddy Donnie who was in the UK for the NATO summit is not very liked by the British public. But Donnie was untypically forgiving while his erratic host was running to and fro' to avoid the cameras.
This very much resembles NATO's situation as of now. On its 70th jubilee, the alliance could've worked a bit on its vision of the future. The initial intention (to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, the Germans down) could've been updated. Instead, the whole event became a diplomatic damage control effort. Atlantism is said to be in crisis, stuck between the whimsical America and the parsimonious Europeans. The Trump/Macron quarrel also didn't help give an impression of an alliance that's working forward.
Granted, it's not easy to follow Trump's logi. First he bashed NATO for being irrelevant, a burden on the US tax-payer. And now he suddenly decided it "serves a greater purpose" when Macron essentially said the same. The Europeans have increased their defense expenses lately, and Donnie insists he should be given credit for that (indeed, he constantly insists for everyone paying their "fair share"). As if money alone equals contribution. But anyway. Macron's position at least seemed more nuanced, in his own twisted way. First he said NATO is "brain-dead", and he elaborated that he wants Europe to find alternative ways to defend itself. Ones that would emancipate it from America. So far so good. That's understandable.
It's not helpful that what's being presented as a club of liberal democracies actually includes autocratic Erdogan. The same one who's sucking comrade Vlad's dick on a daily basis, and refuses to accept that NATO membership goes with certain responsibilities. He's now walking on everyone's nerves by installing new Russian air defense systems. He's defying everybody in Syria, attacking NATO's allies and main cannon-fodder, the Kurds, thus paving Assad's way to regaining full control, and blurring the anti-Daesh effort. Macron is right in that Erdogan has really lost his seat at the table. But that still doesn't erase the fact that Turkey is at NATO's eastern flank, the most important flank. It's prudent to keep Erdogan within the alliance, whatever his flaws.
Now that we've heard and witnessed all thought meanders, weird fantasies and irrational non-logics in Trump's worldview, it stands to reason that it's very likely that things would get much worse if he gets re-elected in 2020. I'm still trying to figure out a way that America's interests could benefit from a lasting policy of sanctions against her European partners, coupled with a trilateral trade deal with Atlantism's rivals, Russia and China. Sure, Trump is hinting this might not actually happen, but still. You never know with this guy.
Of course, NATO's future ultimately hangs on America's whims. And therein lies the key factor for guaranteeing the future of the alliance. The quarel about America's huge financial contribution to the alliance has gone on for so long that many have learned to accept it as some act of altruism or something. In fact, America is paying so much for NATO because NATO has always served America's interests. This hasn't changed even one bit, despite what Trump may be claiming.
The focus may've changed from Russia to China now, and the new challenge for the US/NATO may be further in the east - which means the Pacific ocean is now more important than the Altnatic. But Russian revisionism is still a direct threat to America's interests, and things in the Middle East is not helping much either.
But we shouldn't be assuming that the US/China rivalry will solely be confined to the Pacific. China's actual main drive is to the west. The New Silk Road project is meant to push Russia to the sidelines, drag Europe closer to Asia, and establish China as the leading factor in the world's most populous and wealthiest region, Eurasia. By turning their back to Europe, the US is only helping China achieve this faster than initially planned.
America's withdrawal from the Atlantic will not just deprive the US of its allies and bases that defend its interests in the region. Most importantly, it'll redefine the US as a regional, not a global player. I know, many Americans must be tired of the role of the world cop. But I haven't heard many of them advocate for withdrawal and self-isolationism as the way. And perhaps we shouldn't be that concerned about NATO's future - at least as long as its dismantling is in Trump's mind only (and Putin's).
This very much resembles NATO's situation as of now. On its 70th jubilee, the alliance could've worked a bit on its vision of the future. The initial intention (to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, the Germans down) could've been updated. Instead, the whole event became a diplomatic damage control effort. Atlantism is said to be in crisis, stuck between the whimsical America and the parsimonious Europeans. The Trump/Macron quarrel also didn't help give an impression of an alliance that's working forward.
Granted, it's not easy to follow Trump's logi. First he bashed NATO for being irrelevant, a burden on the US tax-payer. And now he suddenly decided it "serves a greater purpose" when Macron essentially said the same. The Europeans have increased their defense expenses lately, and Donnie insists he should be given credit for that (indeed, he constantly insists for everyone paying their "fair share"). As if money alone equals contribution. But anyway. Macron's position at least seemed more nuanced, in his own twisted way. First he said NATO is "brain-dead", and he elaborated that he wants Europe to find alternative ways to defend itself. Ones that would emancipate it from America. So far so good. That's understandable.
It's not helpful that what's being presented as a club of liberal democracies actually includes autocratic Erdogan. The same one who's sucking comrade Vlad's dick on a daily basis, and refuses to accept that NATO membership goes with certain responsibilities. He's now walking on everyone's nerves by installing new Russian air defense systems. He's defying everybody in Syria, attacking NATO's allies and main cannon-fodder, the Kurds, thus paving Assad's way to regaining full control, and blurring the anti-Daesh effort. Macron is right in that Erdogan has really lost his seat at the table. But that still doesn't erase the fact that Turkey is at NATO's eastern flank, the most important flank. It's prudent to keep Erdogan within the alliance, whatever his flaws.
Now that we've heard and witnessed all thought meanders, weird fantasies and irrational non-logics in Trump's worldview, it stands to reason that it's very likely that things would get much worse if he gets re-elected in 2020. I'm still trying to figure out a way that America's interests could benefit from a lasting policy of sanctions against her European partners, coupled with a trilateral trade deal with Atlantism's rivals, Russia and China. Sure, Trump is hinting this might not actually happen, but still. You never know with this guy.
Of course, NATO's future ultimately hangs on America's whims. And therein lies the key factor for guaranteeing the future of the alliance. The quarel about America's huge financial contribution to the alliance has gone on for so long that many have learned to accept it as some act of altruism or something. In fact, America is paying so much for NATO because NATO has always served America's interests. This hasn't changed even one bit, despite what Trump may be claiming.
The focus may've changed from Russia to China now, and the new challenge for the US/NATO may be further in the east - which means the Pacific ocean is now more important than the Altnatic. But Russian revisionism is still a direct threat to America's interests, and things in the Middle East is not helping much either.
But we shouldn't be assuming that the US/China rivalry will solely be confined to the Pacific. China's actual main drive is to the west. The New Silk Road project is meant to push Russia to the sidelines, drag Europe closer to Asia, and establish China as the leading factor in the world's most populous and wealthiest region, Eurasia. By turning their back to Europe, the US is only helping China achieve this faster than initially planned.
America's withdrawal from the Atlantic will not just deprive the US of its allies and bases that defend its interests in the region. Most importantly, it'll redefine the US as a regional, not a global player. I know, many Americans must be tired of the role of the world cop. But I haven't heard many of them advocate for withdrawal and self-isolationism as the way. And perhaps we shouldn't be that concerned about NATO's future - at least as long as its dismantling is in Trump's mind only (and Putin's).
no subject