Frailty, Thy Name is NATO
It is time to have a national conversation about the institution whose usefulness ended with the Cold War, thirty years ago
NATO will celebrate its 75th year in existence on April 4th this year. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed after World War II in Washington, DC as a counterbalance to the threat posed in Europe by the Soviet Union and her allies. The Russian communist state, after winning the war as an ally of the United States and Great Britain had seized large swaths of territory in Eastern Europe, creating its own Treaty organization - the Warsaw Pact. These two alliances (like their predecessors of the 20th century, a few of which include the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the Triple Entente, the Central Powers, the Balkan Pact, the Rome Protocols, the Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Alliance, the Pact of Steel, the Tripartite Pact, the Western Union and the Secret Swedish American Alliance, all of which are gone) promised its members a military alliance declaring that if one member were attacked, the other members would come to the attacked party’s defense. But the main focus was Europe, as the NATO countries wanted to ensure both that Germany would not rise again, but most importantly to guard against the potential encroachment of the rising Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact into Western and Southern Europe.
Fast forward to the end of the Cold War in the late eighties and early nineties. The Soviet Union broke apart, and the newly formed Russian Federation was very interested in detente with the West and moving to a western-style economy. Vladimir Putin’s predecessor, Russian President Boris Yeltsin spoke before a joint session of Congress, and Russia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council with NATO. Russia and NATO Countries then signed an agreement called the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. The US and Russia continued to work together in the early 2000s, with Russia providing key intelligence regarding Afghanistan to the United States in the aftermath of 9/11.
Looking back at US-Russia relations in the 1990s, an opportunity was missed. After shedding off Communist rule and working to liberalize their economy and government, the Russian Federation was ready to join Europe and the United States in a new structure of European relations. General Secretary Gorbachev of the USSR suggested to US Secretary of State James Baker that Russia join NATO in 1990; Baker rejected it as a dream. Vladimir Putin said in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson that he had asked President Clinton if the US could see Russia joining NATO; after internal discussion, according to Putin Clinton told him no once again.
So the opportunity was lost, certainly due to actions by both parties. Disputes rose up in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and Georgia. Next NATO (despite guarantees otherwise) sought to gain territory eastward towards the Russian border and added Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary in 1999 and then Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria in 2004 as member countries, further encroaching on Russia’s border.
President George W. Bush announced in 2008 that he supported Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, which likely led to the subsequent invasion of Georgia that same year. Relations between the US and Russia have continued to deteriorate since, with the 2014 coup in Ukraine spurring Russia’s invasion of the Crimea that same year, and the subsequent war there has continued for 10 years.
This is all to say that the existential reason for NATO to be formed no longer exists and has not for more than thirty years. The Soviet Union is long gone and a reevaluation of the Treaty Organization should have been undertaken then. The second and more fundamental point is that over those past thirty years, NATO has served to increase tensions with Russia and made the European theater less safe. The war in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Georgia, and the Ukraine can be tied back to NATO-Russian relations and the muscle-memory of their adversarial relationship. It should be noted that most historians attribute the causes of both World War I and World War II to ill-conceived alliances and treaties that either forced or caused European powers into wars they should or could have avoided.
More importantly, the United States spends way too much money, resources and attention on European relations and security than we should. To make this case, a bit of background as to the lopsided nature of the “alliance”:
The United States currently has approximately 75,000 troops stationed in NATO countries in Europe to protect their borders. Conversely, there are zero NATO troops stationed to protect US borders.
The United States has 800 bases around the world with approximately 200,000 total troops deployed. Their posture surrounds Russia, and to a lesser extent China and costs approximately $100B to maintain. No NATO countries participate in any significant way.
The United States, through her Navy, secures the entire international shipping lanes on behalf of NATO and every other country in the world. NATO does not contribute to this effort, but NATO countries have vast shipping interests.
Only 35% of NATO countries meet their stated obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense; the US is an exception at 3.7%
It is clear that the United States is for all intents and purposes NATO. We supply a vast majority of the troops, arms, bases, weapons, intelligence and leadership to accomplish NATO’s goals. We do not argue here that the security of Europe is not important; we argue it is more important to Europeans than Americans. And we ask why American taxpayers must supply all of the heavy lifting for Europe to protect itself - shouldn’t this be the EU taxpayers’ job? The arrangement where the US owns the burden may have made sense in the aftermath of World War II when much of Europe was devastated by war and needed rebuilding - the US taxpayers paid for that too. It is time for Europeans to provide their own security and pay their own fair share, which seems to this US taxpayer to be the vast majority of the cost.
And Europe can pay. While our government has been desperately trying to pass the ill-fated $60B for Ukraine aid over the past six months, the EU just authorized $54B for Ukraine. So the EU countries have the means and can be forced to pay up when we refuse.
One more set of comparisons:
The EU’s population as of January 1st, 2023 is approximately 448 million, compared to the US’ 335 million
The EU GDP was $16.6T in 2022; the US was $25T
The EU only spends $222B on defense while the US spent $750B.
You see the point.
The truth is that the only country that can and will defend the United States is ultimately herself. The same should go for Europe. Currently, the alliance is completely one-sided. It ultimately commits the United States to fight what could be a costly, even existential war on behalf of Europe, while we can expect little from Europe in return. The strategy is ill-advised and the cost is devastating to our economy and future. We should do everything we can to help our European friends establish their own defenses (and not rule out assistance on a case-by-case basis) while we address issues at home and in the Pacific, where the real threat to America looms large.