I’m unsurprised to already see a comment on the Suicide of NATO post pointing out logistics problems with a new NATO with the Baltic States. My inner smartass is tempted to say “No Bleep!” while my inner book promoter notes that someone apparently hasn’t read Cauldron as those issues are discussed there at length. Both responses, however, need to be set aside so as to focus on the fact that “a new NATO” is the last thing we should be doing. To repeat failure is arrant stupidity.
First up, why should we set ourselves up as a tripwire again? What benefit for the U.S. is there in so doing? Against whom are we playing tripwire, Russia or the EU?
The fact is, the former Eastern Bloc are the countries most enthusiastically embracing and encouraging freedom and the concepts of Western Civilization. Are they doing so exactly on our model? No, thank goodness. Each is taking a different approach, and in that regard they are acting much like the founding Fathers envisioned the states in the United States. Each was free to try different things, and the things that worked could then be adopted by other states while avoiding the things that failed.
Remember, we are The Great Experiment and if you don’t know what that is, sue your schools and do some research. The whole concept of regular individuals being bright enough to make choices on their own was only a thing of intellectual thought until the Founding Fathers needed to put a government of, by, and for the people into place. Many, including progressives here and overseas (which includes pretty much all EU leadership) still feel that such is wrong and that you are not capable of such. Understand not only your civics, but the history of your civics…
Now, back to topic. Do we have a legitimate and/or vested interest in free and independent states that promote freedom and the values of Western Civilization? I posit that we do, one that is worth investing in those states. Why that is, is a post for another day. For now, simply accept that my thesis is based on this being true.
The question is, who now threatens those states and what are the threats?
NATO was predicated on a military threat from the USSR. While the USSR has fallen, Russia does have even larger territorial ambitions as outlined in Russkiy Mir (Russia World). If you like, look up previous discussions here on that topic (search function, along with the tip jar are on the upper right) but you do want to read up on it as it is the guiding document for Vladimir and current Russian leadership. And, yes, Ukraine was the first step in it.
The Russian military, conventional or nuclear, is clearly not the threat it was many years ago (discussions on that being wrong are for another day). Vaunted stockpiles are useless and have to be scrapped, and it is only through Western industry violating sanctions and such that it is even starting to hang on. Yes, I do think those sales are an even larger part of things that what is being done by Iran and North Korea.
Individually, some of the larger countries such as Poland or Hungary can defend themselves if they continue to go as they are. Working together, the countries in question should easily be able to do so. Without the U.S. having to rush troops in via a modern Reforger. Resupply of logistics may be a different issue, but it is not an urgent one at this time.
The larger threat right now comes on other fronts, including diplomatic and logistical. Yes, I know I just said that the resupply of logistics wasn’t urgent, and it’s not. What is important is energy, and Russia has been using this as a weapon, effectively, for a while now. One need only look at Germany for a prime example. Germany has committed energy suicide, and while it is reversible, it’s current leadership is refusing to admit there is a problem, much less take positive steps to fix it. Much of what they seem to want to do involves energy from Russia. From whom we are supposed to be defending them…
The energy issue is one for a post of it’s own one day, but almost every major EU country except for France is committing energy suicide. While not back in the EU, the UK is doing the same just without buying (yet) from Russia. France has bucked the trend (and the EU to some extent) by going heavy into new nuclear, which actually is quite smart. Not something I normally associate with the government(s) of France, but it truly is the smart thing to do, and we need to go with some of the advanced SMRs and newer systems here.
It’s time, however, for the elephant in the room. For all that I don’t see the EU as lasting, it is here and it plans to stay here by hook, crook, or force against its members. Most of the former Eastern Bloc have joined the EU and the EU has waged political war against some of them who have not toed the Brussels line. To the point of removing at least one government. I see no reason they would not engage in a military war to ensure their continued rule. Again, read Cauldron because the current EU seems to be following the playbook of the bad guys in it.
Which, skipping a few steps I think you can posit on your own, leads me to the idea that any “new NATO” should be nothing such; rather, it should focus on trade, energy, diplomacy, and ensuring that the countries involved have forces on their own capable of meeting threats from any direction. Trade boosts their economies as well as our own, and can help us reboot certain manufacturing sectors. Energy ensures their independence, and with research and other sharing agreements could provide an opportunity to test and advance nuclear and other advanced generation means. Heck, it could even provide a chance to upgrade and modernize some older generation systems (hydro for one example). Good diplomacy builds better relationships even as it discourages the stupid from doing stupid things.
Now, I do think that it is to our advantage to work with them to help them build the military systems they want and need. I can think of a few scenarios where having the ability to work with and integrate forces might be a good idea. The way to do that is through trade. We sell them systems, we sell them training, and we sell them supplies. We might give them a discount even. More than that, for those interested, we offer training opportunities here for their troops, and it might not hurt if some of ours trained there. We build them up as close as possible to our old standards (which hopefully Pete and company will get us back to), and we make sure we can work together at need. What they need is their own military, not ours, being known as capable of defending them against all comers.
Whatever we call this new thing, it must not be just a rehash of NATO. It needs to focus on economic well being, promotion of the values of Western Civilization, with an internal professional and potent military. It must not become yet another suck of manpower, material, and money. In that way you avoid the issues raised in Cauldron about logistics and resupply. Unless Russia or the EU want to start a war by sinking ships, free trade is the best way to work around things.
*****
Some quick related thoughts not germane to the post. We are going to have to look at how to work around some things no matter what happens here soon.
The UK became a staging ground in WWII because it was off the coast of Europe as much as it was an ally (sorta, some discussion there too). We needed bases for aircraft, ships, and troops, and England provided them. With the end of WWII and the start of the Cold War, those bases remained needed to counter the USSR. Scapa Flow and other bases up north provided sanctuary for ships and subs, along with the ability to sortie in several directions. Air bases provided the ability to reach Europe, Africa, and Scandinavia with ease.
Over the last couple of decades, however, the UK has gutted its military on a scale that made Obama green with envy. If you want to have some fun, look at tanks in say 1985 versus now. You can do that with planes and more if you like. Fact is, the UK has indeed limited our use of air fields and even or own assets when we were needing to respond to various incidents over the years. The state of the ports unfortunately mirrors our own.
One way or another we are going to need to look at how much we need/want forward basing, and what options there might be. We sure don’t need another turkey like Turkey and I fear that is where we are headed with England.
Which ties into some of the discussions in Cauldron about the problems of supporting the former Eastern Bloc/Baltic states in time of war. Especially as unlike the novel, I don’t see Denmark going neutral and could see England going actively hostile. Given that I’m not sure our current naval leadership could successfully get a rowboat across the lake in Central Park, I sure don’t trust it to run supplies into the Baltic in a time of war. Resupply by air just isn’t feasible in terms of amounts, much less the routings that would have to be used to avoid EU airspace. For all that I think there might be a few surprises in terms of EU members not taking part in such, it just reinforces my contention that we should avoid doing a “new NATO” at all costs. I think what I’ve outlined above is far better.
As I noted in a comment on the previous post, nuclear deterrence is the elephant in the room with regard to dissolving NATO and replacing it with a ‘coalition of the willing’ in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. If we want this to happen without a US ‘tripwire’ (and I for one do) we have to accept one or more nuclear powers into the club. However, if I were a German politician or diplomat, the thought of Poland with nuclear weapons along with its planned conventional uparming, would give me nightmares.
You mention that Ukraine was the first step in territorial expansion for Russia. I’d argue it’s the third or maybe fourth time in the last twenty years Russia has invaded and occupied foreign ground. This was just the first that didn’t have a fig-leaf.
Left unaddressed in entirely too many “future of NATO” pieces is demographics. This author makes the same error.
Within two generations, the only new entrants to the European labor force will be illiterate third worlders with no ability to compete in any first world economy. The cost of energy won’t matter as the complex systems that need it won’t be working, maintained or invented. The automated farming on which europe depends (as does much of the third world) will be in tatters. Manufactures will cease to exist and with them, the welfare state on which these third worlders depend. Europe will not be able to manufacture or grow anything for trade, be unable to run transportation systems to move goods or food, and be unable to feed itself.
Even with all of that, the demi-continent will be crashing in population. What, exactly, the point is in defending people who don’t believe in their own future enough, even, to populate it, escapes thinking people.
Everything in this piece ignores demographics – the people – and nothing in this piece matters – energy, etc. – matters without them.
One thing that everyone (with rare exceptions) seems to be missing is the rapid Islamization of most of Europe. It would seem wise to factor in how our former allies becoming countries ruled by sharia would effect our relations with them.
To ignore this phenomenon is to be “willfully blind” to borrow from Andrew C. McCarthy (NR cuck). If one reads one or more of Mark Steyn’s books on demography (America Alone, After America, and other essays) one finds that in order to capture a country, culture or society, a particular demographic, if aggressive enough, and Islam is anything if not aggressive, need only reach about 20% of the voting demos. This is doubly and triply true if the country that they are taking over has little or no cultural confidence, which is obviously true of France, Germany, UK, Nordic countries, Spain, Portugal, et al.
It is clear that the current ruling class in those countries listed above have made their pact with the immigrant population (for temporary power) not realizing (or maybe they know) that at some point they will be ruled by the immigrants themselves. This is already happening in several localities in those countries and in a certain city in Michigan, here’s looking at you Dearborn.
I have not made any predictions regarding this because predictions are really hard, especially about the future. But I am quite certain that if this part of the equation is not considered, we will all be surprised if Islamic governments in Europe have control of nuclear stockpiles.
Enjoy your work thru Instapundit.
NATO some decades ago morphed into a sinecure for the rather many Western civilian employees who did most of the “work” associated with maintaining the NATO presence in Europe. I was able to benefit from that for a few years while my wife was employed by USAG Benelux in Belgium.
The supposed official terms of employment for American civilians basically said that they could remain in those jobs for a few years (usually no more than five), at some point they had to return to CONUS and a regular civilian government job. In reality, once you were into the system, it was possible to “camp-out” in the assignment and stretch it for decades up to time of retirement from government service. And it was a sweet deal… they were paid a good government salary, a generous housing allowance was included (not taxed), military commissary and base exchange privileges were provided, and there were sundry other benefits (including the fact it was difficult to be fired, even for pretty egregious non-performance). At the time, I only wished I could have tumbled to that overly generous opportunity a decade or more earlier. Looking back, it was a travesty being forced upon the American taxpayers.