Comment is Free: Does NATO still matter?
It seems that Obama has accomplished a thing or two, in theory at least, over in Russia. The commitment to a new agreement on further arms reductions by the end of the year is excellent. As this chart shows, the 1991 agreement really did make a difference. Between them, the US and Russia have destroyed at least 40,000 warheads since then, maybe more. The current numbers are about 9,400 for my team and 13,000 for the Russkies, so there's still a ways to go. (By the way, my British friends, why do you have only 180 while the French have 300?) All well and good. But I hate this: Mr. Obama said he supports the right of countries like Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO despite Russian opposition. "America will never impose a security arrangement on another country," he said. "For any country to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation." NATO is a military alliance, and as I wrote last spring when the Georgia battles were ongoing -- if Georgia were in NATO, the US (and the UK) would in theory be committed to military intervention to defend two provinces in Georgia. That's nuts. If the theory is to spread far and wide this military alliance of democracies, then Russia herself should be enticed to join. That's heresy to the foreign policy establishment, but the foreign policy establishment (by and large; there are of course many exceptions) has misapprehended post-Cold War US-Russia relations pretty much from the beginning, it seems to me. But I'd go so far as to argue that maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness. It was a Cold War alliance. It did one good thing in the post-Cold War era, which was to provide a basis for collective Western action against Milosevic in Bosnia. So maybe you could argue that a Europe-based multinational force is still needed to address such situations in Europe as they may arise. Fine. But if that's so, why does such an outfit need to be called NATO, and why in the world does it need Georgia and the Ukraine? The real reason of course is just to surround Russia and check her power. But that seems to be built on some sort of idea that contemporary Russia has the same kind of expansionist aims that Soviet Russia did. Is that actually the case? There still needs to be a vehicle through which the US and European countries can deal collectively on matters that arise in Europe, but this kind of NATO expansion into areas well beyond the "North Atlantic" kind of harkens back, to me, to the way we took Kennan's containment policy, always intended as he noted to apply to Europe only, and kept applying it more and more expansively around the world. As McNamara's passing reminded us yesterday, we all know where that ended up. ...
All well and good. But I hate this:
Mr. Obama said he supports the right of countries like Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO despite Russian opposition. "America will never impose a security arrangement on another country," he said. "For any country to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation."
NATO is a military alliance, and as I wrote last spring when the Georgia battles were ongoing -- if Georgia were in NATO, the US (and the UK) would in theory be committed to military intervention to defend two provinces in Georgia. That's nuts.
If the theory is to spread far and wide this military alliance of democracies, then Russia herself should be enticed to join. That's heresy to the foreign policy establishment, but the foreign policy establishment (by and large; there are of course many exceptions) has misapprehended post-Cold War US-Russia relations pretty much from the beginning, it seems to me.
But I'd go so far as to argue that maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness. It was a Cold War alliance. It did one good thing in the post-Cold War era, which was to provide a basis for collective Western action against Milosevic in Bosnia.
So maybe you could argue that a Europe-based multinational force is still needed to address such situations in Europe as they may arise. Fine. But if that's so, why does such an outfit need to be called NATO, and why in the world does it need Georgia and the Ukraine?
The real reason of course is just to surround Russia and check her power. But that seems to be built on some sort of idea that contemporary Russia has the same kind of expansionist aims that Soviet Russia did. Is that actually the case?
There still needs to be a vehicle through which the US and European countries can deal collectively on matters that arise in Europe, but this kind of NATO expansion into areas well beyond the "North Atlantic" kind of harkens back, to me, to the way we took Kennan's containment policy, always intended as he noted to apply to Europe only, and kept applying it more and more expansively around the world.
As McNamara's passing reminded us yesterday, we all know where that ended up. ...
And from Obama's Russia advisor:
CBS: White House to Hold Firm on European Missile Shield
In advance of Pres. Obama's first trip to Russia next week, the White House is serving notice on the Kremlin that he won't be making any concessions to win its approval of a U.S. missile shield in Europe or membership in NATO for Russian neighbors Ukraine and Georgia. "We don't need the Russians," says Michael McFaul, special assistant to the president and senior director for Russian affairs on the National Security Council staff. In a conference call with reporters, McFaul responded with unusually tough talk when asked what reassurances Pres. Obama is prepared to give in his talks starting Monday with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev. "We're definitely not going to use the word reassure in the way that we talk about these things," said McFaul. "We're not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense."
"We don't need the Russians," says Michael McFaul, special assistant to the president and senior director for Russian affairs on the National Security Council staff.
In a conference call with reporters, McFaul responded with unusually tough talk when asked what reassurances Pres. Obama is prepared to give in his talks starting Monday with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev.
"We're definitely not going to use the word reassure in the way that we talk about these things," said McFaul. "We're not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense."
So, not even knowing you'd posted this, Colman, I was up late last night wondering, "Why?"
Why is NATO non-negotiable? Why is it still presented in this "We'll always have our differences; Russia opposes NATO expansion. We disagree. But there are other things we can work on," way? Show me the law of the universe that we must always support the existence of NATO and its expansion. Human civilization persisted for thousands of years before America was invented. Why must it perish if we're not calling all of the shots? Why isn't a more multipolar, global security organization preferable to NATO?
Don't tell me NATO, a Cold War military alliance, is non-negotiable and turn around and accuse Russian leaders of being stuck in the old Cold War mentality and chide them for their stuck-in the-past "spheres of influence" worldview. It's bad for my blood pressure. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
if Georgia were in NATO, the US (and the UK) would in theory be committed to military intervention to defend two provinces in Georgia. That's nuts.
Um, Why? If Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties would be under attack, would he say the same? Or if it were Norfolk and Suffolk? It would be an argument to say that it's nuts for the US and UK to go into a war escalating into nuclear holocaust over two counties of a country that actually kicked off the war; but the above, is just naked superiority complex. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The Baltics may be a better comparison, though even they are much easier to defend. Can't defend easily leads to won't defend, meaning that there are no options between doing nothing and destroying the world. So, on pragmatic grounds, I'd say Tomasky is right. It's nuts.
The way I read it, that's exactly what he was saying. Are you reading it to mean, "Georgian lives are not worth defending, but English ones are?" Perhaps it is parsing words, and that's a valid complaint if that is what he means. But read in the context of the rest of the article, I didn't get that impression.
Also, Russia isn't in the midst of arm conflict in Suffolk, so how do you blame him for not addressing a hypothetical? Aliens might invade. What would he think about that? I don't know. But the article questions NATO's need to exist, so I don't think he's pushing some Atlanticist chauvinist agenda. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
And Georgia was not a NATO member at the time of last year's war. He was already in hypotheticals. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You're too intelligent to equate the "hypothetical" of Georgia gaining entry to NATO to the "hypothetical" of Russia invading Suffolk without appearing disingenuous. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Sigh. Exactly the one I am trying to communicate in these comments...
equate the "hypothetical" of Georgia gaining entry to NATO to the "hypothetical" of Russia invading Suffolk
NATO was created to, and I quote, "Keep the Russians out."
Georgia and very influential people in America are lobbying, strougly, for Georgia to get NATO membership.
NATO countries are military allies.
That would make the US and Georgia military allies.
I don't know how I can state this to make it any clearer.
Georgia recently sparked a military conflict with Russia. Regardless who started it, who deserves the blame for it, I think there is a consensus that Georgian troops and Russian troops were shooting each other.
I suspect, based on logic, language comprehension, synthesis of information, that the author was saying it would be nuts to risk the two countries which have 95% of the world's nuclear weapons to find themselves face-to-face in a military conflict.
Is it chauvinist to say two little Georgian provinces are not worth blowing up the world to save? Fine. They aren't. But there is nothing in that statement that says, "But two little English provinces are." "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Tomasky's hypothetical was Georgia gaining entry in NATO and then going to war with Russia. Methinks that's quite large a hypothetical: the war calculations would be radically altered, on both sides.
And you know, given his peculiar decision-making process last August, I'm not convinced that Saak would have conferred with NATO, had Georgia then been a member, before launching an attack on South Ossetia. Even despite not having the protection of NATO, he nevertheless seemed to assume that his Western allies would support him more explicitly then they did. And they did support him up to but not including our troops on the ground. So I'm not convinced NATO membership would have necessarily deterred him, unless there was something in the contract stating that Georgia's membership would be contingent upon not starting fights with Russia. Secondly, so far as Georgian NATO membership could have been a deterrent to Russia's response, well, yet, it might have. OTOH, it could also have been the last straw. People think Russia is on a hair-trigger alert now. Russia thinks it is being restrained and playing nice now. They were happy to teach Georgia a lesson. And they're eager to prove they can teach us things too. Why go there? "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
That's only implicit. He says two counties are not worth for the USA and the UK to war over. Which throws up the questions of whether he considered defending people at all; and whether he would say the same about any other equally insignificant specks of land that are part of present NATO members. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
How can you compare Georgia, an unstable country with unresolved border issues with Russia and a neocon leader, located in an area where we cannot help them militarily other than by going nuclear with a longstanding ally far away from any possible frontline?
Tomasky - and poemless - are completely right on this one. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
