A more assertive and less predictable Russia reminds Europeans that their lives would be much less convenient if it wasn't for the US nuclear umbrella. Issues such as Iran, piracy, and Palestine are of vital interest to Europeans but rely on a strong US to be resolved. Even the European Union's own attempt to become a producer of security, the European Security and Defense Policy, has proven to be largely dependent on NATO and American assets. If Washington, for a sheer lack of resources, is forced to concentrate its diminished assets on a few select hot issues, Europe, incapable of defending itself, could end up being a significantly less comfy place to live in.

I think we're supposed to be frightened by this. I'd guess he's implying that the Russians will invade - because that would be such a good idea for Russia and well worth the time and effort.

Not that it makes any sense anyway. If a resource-poor Washington decided to cut back, isn't it obvious that US NATO commitments would suddenly stop being quite so committed?

Do conceptual videos like this one help raise visibility about NATO's purpose and achievements? How do you think NATO can best enable young people to connect to the core values of the transatlantic alliance? Let us know what you think! (Atlantic Community)

history's most enduring military alliance.

Ummm, sure...

• NATO: was 60 years old this April.
  
• Delian League: 478BC-404BC, that's 74 years.
  
• Peloponnesian League: c. 550BC-366BC, that's ~180 years.

Maintaining NATO means keeping the tool that allows US policy to be labelled as approved by the "international community."

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

European governments must finally get straight with their populations on what's ahead. Yes, the world is an increasingly insecure place. No, the US won't be prepared to carry the burden alone any longer. Yes, that means more and smarter spending on unpopular stuff, more engagement, and most certainly more casualties. No, this isn't war-mongering, this is the 21st century. Say it publicly. Say it now.

The assumption is clear that the US bears the burden of defending Europe from the world's insecurity.

By the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? But weren't they in reaction to a threat to America's security?

By the nuclear umbrella? But against whom? It's in Russia's interests to threaten Europe with nuclear destruction?

this is the 21st century

Meaningless rhetoric, worn out long ago by neocon overuse.

It may be that the goal envisioned by the author has to do with un- or half-stated assumptions. E.g.,

the late 1970s and early 1980s, when political leaders in Europe were deeply concerned that a war-weary US could retreat and leave its old-world partners unprotected

...the European Atlanticists believe Europe needs protection, now. But, this time they don't blame a Carter II for 'abandoning us' (which in itself is interesting retro-history), but seem to imply Europe stupidly forgeting about its defenses?...

Now, this is the author. As for NATO's real goal: to keep vassals pliant, of course.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

Surely when it comes to deterrence it matters not whether you have 640 kiloton or 640 megaton? An enemy that is not discouraged by your ability to remove two or three major cities from the face of the planet within the first two hours of a serious shooting war is not likely to be discouraged by your ability to remove his entire country...

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

Given that NATO was dedicated to protecting Europe from the Soviet Commie threat, it depends on:

a. Maintaining a demonology of Russian/Islamic/ other terrorist/nuclear threat

b. Maintaining a sense of insecurity and dependency on US military superiority

c. Undermining any sense that Europe might be able to look after itself thank you very much

d. suppressing any sense that protecting Europe may not exactly be the USA's top priority

e. Underscoring the EU's inability to coordinate a meaningful alternative defence and security policy or capability

Too bad Ganley didn't get electe...

notes from no w here

The reason is that it's the same governments sitting at the table. Both the EU in terms of foreign and defence policy and NATO are almost exclusively intergovernmental bodies. The only practical difference is that in the first the US is not sitting at the table.

(and Canada, Norway, etc. but that doesn't really matter)

If there is no NATO we can not force countries to buy fancy weapons, if we do not buy fancy weapons we have no weapons at all, if we have no weapons we are defenseless, if we are defenseless someone will notice, if someone notices it will attack us and we will be destroyed.

Here you have the mind-set in a nutshell.

Now find at least five quantum leaps in that logic.

Uppps..it is not logic, it is narrative.. self-narrative or militar-industrial complex propaganda :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

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. ...

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."

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.