Frank Schnitter asks for the opinion of CEE bloggers about the role of NATO; this was originally written as a comment to his article, but it’s long enough now to be a separate post.
So, one different perspective, coming right up.
Frank asks if NATO is “a colonial relic to be taken over by the EU after its Eastern enlargement”. It’s hardly colonial; in fact it is resolutely an old boys’ club, extremely wary of allowing new members to join.
He also asks, “Why should the US be allowed to have military bases throughout Europe and to jeopardise relations with Russia through active encirclement and aggressive military domination?”
What military domination? The biggest US base outside its soil is Rammstein, and that didn’t stop Germany from refusing to participate in the Iraq war. The significance of US army bases in Western Europe at this time is primarily economic, not military.
As for encirclement, that is the biggest bit of Cold War paranoia still running. Who exactly is going to be staging the sort of land-based invasion of Russia that encirclement is supposed to threaten? While Russia is vast enough for its territory to be undefendable, that also makes it unconquerable. There is no rationally conceivable threat of a NATO invasion of Russia. The Kremlin’s angst over NATO encroachment has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with sour grapes over lost influence. Well, too bad; as the old US State Department saying goes (related by Paul Goble): Europe ends at Narva.
As regards South Ossetia, there is sufficient evidence now that it was a long-premeditated provocation by Russia, and there is a very good case to be made that Russia was emboldened by NATO’s lack of public support for Georgian and Ukrainian membership. Certainly Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia was ill-advised, but I’d dearly love to see what you, Frank, would have demanded of your government if Irish villages along the Ulster border were being shelled on a daily basis.
For seventeen years, we have been paranoid, and then it turned out that they really were after us. For better or for worse, Russia is still a threat to Europe. Frank, I do not think you are so foolish as to think that Russia would stop at reclaiming its former satellite states, and go no further.
NATO is no longer a creature of the US. The US now has more important things to do than to police the world, while the EU’s strategy of influence through trade is the one form of conquest that is both viable and moral.
The great wars have instilled into the European mentality a fear of armed conflict. We are still cunning, ambitious and ruthless, but above everything else we want to avoid war. War is an absolute, unquantifiable evil. We have the military capability to go to war, and in an outright conflict the combined armies of the European Union stand a good chance of beating any other military force in the world. But to us, this really is the final argument, which must never be exercised, for all our sakes.
Yet many see this as Europe’s weakness. And in our immediate vicinity, it is Russia that has a habit and history of using offensive wars to relieve the tension of its own population’s anger with an incompetent and corrupt government. The distance between cooperation and aggression is far, far greater than the distance between Thbilisi and Dublin; the last time any European leader seriously believed otherwise, he was standing on an airfield waving a piece of paper, and saying “peace in our time”.
The only reason why Russian tanks pulled back from Gori is this:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
(39 votes, average: 3.28 out of 5)
Loading ...
A breath of fresh air, Andrei. Excellent! Those nations that suffered so much under the two monstrous European 20th-century ideologies know that NATO, despite its imperfections, is vital for their survival. NATO can adapt and respond to the challenges of the 21st century, but human nature does not change and the territorial ambitions of totalitarian neighbours should alert all of us to the dangers that lurk on Europe’s borders. As history, savagely, shows, it’s better to be inside the tent.
It’s Ramstein, Mr. Tuch. For all your fancy retorts to my previous comments, you’ve only managed to prove my judgement right about your mediocre blogging skills, if you can’t even get the spelling of a key place straight.
Oh, and NOW am I truly anonymous.
Thanks for the video link. I’d forgotten about salami tactics
Anonymous, would that be mr. Schnittger? Why are you hiding, dear sir? That comes off at cowardice in debate, instead of duelling with an “open visor”, as goes the Dutch saying. Secondly, your insults to Andrei’s blogging skills only discredit yourself. Please stop doing that, and focus on the issues and arguments.
I do believe Andrei has a point. Still, NATO needs to constantly think about its direction. Web 2.0 might not be a terrible way to go about this, although at first it may seem a bit awkward.
I just saw http://elections.thinkaboutit.eu/2009/02/at-last-a-good-argument/, and owe my apologies to Frank Schnittger. The mentioning of “previous comments” led me to - erroneously suspect you as the anonymous poster. For that I am sorry.
Simon - Frank has nothing to do with it; the anonymous trolls and massive downvoting is the result of my having dared to challenge the wisdom of Veerle Vrindts and her cohort of unassailably enlightened vegans.
Hahaha Andrei, hilarious. Although the combination of “trolls” and “cohort” creates an image in my mind’s eye of some kind of Joan of Arc-Veerle leading a Warhammer-like regiment of orctrolls into battle… But I see; you might be right! Guess that’s the down side of (anonymous) voting.. I’d say: mobilise your own hoard!!
… and you’ll have “democracy 3.0″
oh btw where were you challenging veerle? can’t find it.. too impatient..
Simon - I don’t have a hoard; I used to, but found maintaining it to be a poor use of my time. Now I speak to whoever is willing to listen (which, on my own site, is a fairly miserly 1400 unique visitors per month). I’d tried advertising TAI at the start of the competition, when it looked like only other bloggers were voting, but it soon became pointless.
The initial challenge was on Veerle’s first post I believe, the one about the Indian Nobel laureate suddenly saying the Golden Billion had to stop eating meat.
Veerle didn’t do this, oh no.
Simon, you might have meant ‘horde’ rather than ‘hoard.’ One’s distinctly easier to mobilize than the other. Still, I don’t suppose Andrei has need of either, as he’s quite adept at mobilizing his wits.