Putin has played a weak hand well, but the brutal fact is that Europe does not need the United States to protect it, especially considering that France and the United Kingdom also have nuclear deterrents of their own. Nobody needs to worry about keeping the Germans down either. Trump has done precisely the opposite: tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran, starting trade wars with everyone he can think of, insulting European leaders, and driving his own image and that of the United States down to levels unseen in years.
In the absence of a common, clear, and present danger, sustaining an elaborate multinational alliance was always going to be difficult, and it is in some ways a testimony to past diplomatic artistry that NATO has kept going as long as it has and despite the failures in Afghanistan and Libya and the divisions that erupted over the war in Iraq. Even if Trump had stuck with the status quo, reaffirmed the U. A better course would have been to start a gradual, constructive, and if possible amiable decrease of the U.
The United States might conceivably remain a formal member of NATO, but it would no longer station forces there, no longer insist that the supreme allied commander in Europe be a U.
Trade, investment, and tourism would continue, and U. Meanwhile, the United States would be free to focus on other problems. The alliance was a bold achievement for its time and one that served both the United States and Europe well in the past. Instead of mindlessly extending guarantees to every potential trouble spot, and instead of basing our foreign policy on a presumption of permanent partnership, it is time for Europe and the United States to begin a slow and gradual process of disengagement.
This is going to happen anyway, and wise statecraft anticipates and exploits the tides of history rather than engaging in a fruitless struggle to hold them back. The Europeans recovered economically but failed to increase their defense outlays accordingly. Washington maintained its dominant military presence while constantly urging its allies to do more. They routinely said yes but did little. Ultimately the alliance decided to expand its membership, even though the enemy had disappeared.
Doing so violated multiple assurances given to Moscow. This ironically turned the pact into an offensive instrument, first used to dismember Serbia in In essence, NATO had gone from a means to an end, with war the new means.
Said Sen. The process continued for years, demonstrating, perversely, that the less Europe did the more America would. The alliance continued to add members. Most recently it accepted Montenegro, with North Macedonia awaiting treaty approval by the 29 current members.
In every case, of course, the heavy lifting inevitably falls on Washington. Every recent president criticized Europeans for failing to make sufficient contributions for the common defense. Congress, and in the American body politic writ large, to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources … in their own defense.
Even when President Trump does the right thing, he does so badly. So it is with NATO. Quite simply, it makes no sense for U. Shared interests will continue to justify military cooperation. However, the alliance as today constituted no longer serves American interests. First, America and Europe no longer face an existential threat, let alone a common one. Which makes united action by such a diverse membership so difficult. Russia is no Soviet Union. To chart its future role in this world, NATO needs to start by addressing the core question of its geographical scope.
It should start in Europe. Its first task in and beyond must be to protect Europe and the democratic West from a threat from Moscow. That threat is nowhere near as severe as it was during the Cold War and it is of very different character, but it is a threat nonetheless and a complex one, involving gray operations like the Skripal attack , political interference, and nuclear saber-rattling.
It would be the height of irony if in seeking to respond to China or other new challenges, NATO failed to mount an adequate response to Russia. NATO has a vital role in that. Coordination on Russia policy was extraordinarily difficult during the Trump administration; it must now be central to U.
The second vital region is Asia. That is of course essentially a China question, and that in turn is an economic, technological, values, and military question. NATO has to find a way to add value, whether by contributing to U. This expanded into a military alliance that included the U. In , member countries put their signature to the North Atlantic Treaty for the first time.
Its relevance and popularity has ebbed and flowed. Full membership by France was restored only in and just 10 years later, current French leader Emmanuel Macron is again doubting the alliance. Macron has said NATO is experiencing "brain death" because of pressure to reform from Trump and unpredictable military action from Turkey.
0コメント