|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Last week the annual Nato summit gathered in Vilnius. Like last year’s, the meeting was dominated by the Ukrainian crisis, and was accompanied by the usual cheerleading from foreign policy mavens and globalist media. Also like previous summits, this one didn’t seriously address the problems and weaknesses of the Alliance.
Ukrainian officials who attended the meeting were visibly and vocally disgruntled. One beef is the festering issue of Ukraine’s membership in Nato, promised 15 years ago after Putin’s unpunished territorial predations in Georgia. The long, formal process of meeting requirements hasn’t even begun yet, apart from certain conditions agreed upon at the summit that Ukraine must meet. Nato still made empty promises to Ukraine about membership, even though there’s no chance that all 31 Nato nations will give their approval, and membership requires the consent of every member.
There are several arguments for and against Ukraine’s membership, but one of the weakest against it is the claim that giving Ukraine Article 5 protection––an attack on one member is an attack on all––might ignite a nuclear war with Russia. Yet this provision, regularly and reverentially touted by Nato’s cheerleaders, is what James Madison called a “parchment barrier” riddled with loopholes. Notice the crafty wording of this provision: each state will respond to an attack “by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” [emphasis added].
But “deems necessary” invites a liberal interpretation about how any nation can respond; and “including armed force” makes a military response just one option among numerous less costly ones. That means actually funding and mobilizing a nation’s military can be replaced by speechifying at the UN, issuing blustering diplomatic demarches, or sending money or weapons and other materiel––just what the Nato nations have been doing in the case of Ukraine. This suggests that even if Ukraine had been a Nato member, the alliance’s response wouldn’t have been much different from the current one.
Exacerbating Ukraine’s frustration is the delays in the Nato nations’ provision of weaponry and ammunition. Yet those nations’ stockpiles of both are dangerously low, and as historian Niall Ferguson put it earlier this year, Nato nations’ “military industrial complex has withered away,” making it a challenge to ramp up production of armaments. It’s so bad in the U.S. that the Biden administration announced it would send shrapnel-spewing cluster bombs instead of artillery rounds, weapons most of the world’s nations have proscribed by treaty.
This brings us to the nub of the matter: Nato nations, these days including the U.S., for decades have not spent enough on defense necessary to achieve its goals of security and deterrence. Nor has last year’s rhetoric about a “turning point” and promises of increased spending led to tangible improvements.
Most cheerleaders minimize this chronic problem. The recent Wall Street Journal’ editorial and its question-begging title, “A Revived Nato Comes to Vilnius,” for example, was accompanied by a chart that undercuts that claim. The table lists the defense spending of 30 Nato members from 2014 to estimates for 2023. The modest goal of 2% of GDP, of which 20% must be spent on materiel, is one of the pledges last year that was trumpeted as a sign of Nato’s “revival.” A year-and-a-half later, only 11 countries have met that target, and they are, with the exception of the UK and the U.S., countries that are not among the Alliance’s richest members.
In fact, three of the world’s 10 richest countries by GDP––France, Italy, and Germany, the latter the 4th richest––still are languishing below 2%, which should be a floor, not a ceiling, as the Journal put it a few months ago. Moreover, Nato collectively is very rich. It would take just nine Nato members’ combined GDP to equal number two China’s––and that’s without counting the U.S., the world’s richest economy.
So clearly, money is not the problem, spending priorities are. The nations that are meeting the 2% level are mostly in Eastern Europe, neighbors of Russia and historically victims of its aggression and land-grabbing. Greece is a short stretch of sea away from fellow Nato-member Turkey, for centuries its historical enemy, most recently in 1974 when Turkey invaded––and still occupies––the northern third of Cyprus. Obviously, the proximity of dangerous enemies has concentrated wonderfully these nations’ minds.
The rest of Europe, however, has become complacent from having its national security expenses off-loaded onto U.S. taxpayers. Like us, Europe foolishly assumes it can afford feckless spending on extravagant redistributionist social welfare programs, or lunatic ideas like “net zero carbon” and waging war against cheap, abundant fossil fuels. Worse, our Defense Department is “spending billions of dollars on social spending that has little or nothing to do with national defense, such as zero-emissions vehicles, offshore wind energy R&D, EV charging stations, sensitivity training, transgender treatments, and general education funding.”
Yet the current efforts of Republican lawmakers to use the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets defense-spending levels, to roll back these militarily irrelevant, politicized policies and programs, have been met by the Democrats responsible for these policies accusing them of culture-war “politicization” of defense spending.
At this point, increasing defense spending to the levels necessary to fulfill Nato’s mission is for most Nato nations politically difficult, if not impossible. As history going all the way back to ancient Athens shows us, when citizens can vote, butter trumps guns.
This lack of seriousness toward Nato’s military spending deficiencies makes the political theater of Nato summits irrelevant and unseemly. As retired Lt. General Ben Hodges, the former Commanding General of US Army Europe, wrote recently in The Daily Telegraph, “Nato’s forward defence will neither be appropriately forward nor adequately ready for effective deterrence unless all of the European capitals come to terms with the seriousness of the task.”
Hodges continues,
“The risks and threats for the partnership are only increasing and there is no shortage of adversarial powers willing to use both non-military and military tools to take down the most powerful and successful military Alliance in history. In response, Nato continues to rely on the irreplaceable commitment of the United States on one hand and Europe’s and Canada’s readiness for equitable sharing of the burden. With collective defence and deterrence by denial now at front of mind in order to deter or defeat the Russian military threat, European under-investments and under-performance will not suffice any longer.”
As a result, over the past decade, every Nato SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe) “has struggled with one simple question––do I have the necessary combat-ready and combat-effective units––with appropriate command and control, enablers, logistics and ammunition stocks––to defend each and every [Nato] Ally? The cost of military deterrence is much cheaper than war and reconquering territories. We need to look no further than the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine: that expensive, bloody war is what failed deterrence looks like.”
The bottom line, then, is the number of combat-ready troops Nato nations can put in the field. This problem has been made worse by the inability of the U.S., the largest contributor of battle-ready troops, to meet its recruiting goals, along with its historically low defense spending of 3.5% of GDP, only .5% higher than tiny Greece with a GDP of $2.5 billion––a scandal given the U.S.’s GDP is $23.3 trillion.
Clearly, as Hodges concludes, “Hard questions should be asked of Allied leaders. What is the true combat-effectiveness of your brigades, divisions and corps and the associated enablers and when can SACEUR [currently General Christopher Cavoli] count on these to be ready for the most demanding scenarios? Can SACEUR and other military commanders adequately exercise those plans with the specific formations, in order to demonstrate the intent, capability and capacity of the Alliance to successfully defend every inch of Allied territory? That is what deterrence by denial and forward defence is all about and Nato is not ready.”
Finally, Nato’s failure to adequately fund its militaries is not just about the traditional bad habits of democracies to prefer butter to guns, and to leave needed reforms and expenditures for future citizens to address, usually in the face of a serious threat to its security. The decline of patriotism in the West, and the fashionable self-loathing of our intelligentsia, cognitive elites, and culture high-brow and low, have eroded the willingness of too many young people to serve in the military, and to fight, kill, and die for their homeland and fellow citizens.
These serious problems impacting Nato’s efficacy will not be resolved with cheerleading media and politicos, speeches full of globalist cliches and bromide, and photo ops at haute cuisine banquets. They will require hard cash, sacrifices by citizens, brave and principled leadership, and accepting the tragic, unchanging reality of the human lust for power and its willingness to use brutal force to achieve it. And it demands a recovery of the civilizational nerve required to use lethal force––with all its exorbitant risks, unforeseen consequences, and costs in lives and wealth––to stop such aggression. This means restoring some tragic realism to our idealistic globalist “rules-based international order” foreign policy.
Otherwise, the long story of our freedom will be over.
“ Ukrainian officials who attended the meeting were visibly and vocally disgruntled”
Ukraine is not a member, why are they there?
What most Republicans fail to understand is that NATO is not America’s ally. It is the Democrat Party’s ally. They will learn it the hard way if we ever have a second civil war.
They were invited
Russia out-produces all of NATO in crucial artillery rounds ; as such they are going to win this war
Not only is this going to be the end of Ukraine, except as a land-locked rump state ; it’s going to mean the end of NATO when their proxy war turns into a bigger debacle than Afghanistan
When Ukraine collapses, IF, the WEst is stupid enough to intervene like they did in Kosovo in 1999, then Putin will quickly use tactical nukes to destroy all NATO forces near his border and in Germany too ; then he’ll make clear the next ones go to western cities
The predictable result will be the soyboy metrosexuals in the West go into hysterics, then collapse into a puddle of self pity before pleading for ”peace” . And that is how Russia wins WW3 in 2-3 days without the West even daring to fire a nuke off of their own
Nonsense, putin fanboy
Excellent analysis Bruce, thanks!
It remains truly stunning how different the analyses of this tragic situation are, if one makes the minimal effort necessary to seek outside the usual govt,/media/military industrial complex sources. Douglas Macgregor is, of course, despised by the usual suspects for going against the grain, but the guy has indeed been there, as we used to say, And unless it ultimately turns out that he is being paid by Russia (which seems unlikely) his description of this entire debacle as being both stupid and unnecessary (and even partly caused by us) will resonate deeply. But that analysis will simply never be heard on CNN or MSNBC. Our loss.
It is long past time to accept that many of the institutions/organizations set up after WW2 are unfit for purpose (NATO, UN, WHO. IMF, etc.) in 2023 and need to be either seriously revamped or abandoned.
What the heck is NATO’s real purpose? As noted in the article, their charter is so full of holes as to mean nothing and its funding is far from what it needs to be in order to be effective. If a few of its members abandoned it and admitted that they have no intention of meeting the contribution guidelines ( looking at you Canada), then maybe NATO would get pushed to the revamp that is needed.
But, I think NATO is being held hostage to other factors, including politicians that can claim to be supporting its militaries through NATO membership, which is a good optic, but actually rely on others to do the heavy lifting (again, looking at you Canada).
And don’t get me started on the UN – where is the UN during the Ukraine/Russia war? Why are they not pushing for negotiations (admittedly, no one is, but that shouldn’t let the UN off the hook since that is kind of their whole purpose for existing). Another costly, bloated and ineffective organization
As far as I’m concerned I will vote of any party that vows to withdraw from NATO, UN and other international organizations. Enough of politicians and their bureaucrats swanning around at expensive ‘meetings’ that achieve NOTHING.
Well said eh! Like any good government bureaucracy, they produce nothing and are accountable to no one.
Ukraine has made it clear to fascist ruzzia — get the hell out, return all kidnapped civilians, and then we can talk.
Proud Pagan:
Russia cannot talk with a corrupt government like the Ukraine. Russia proposals have been reasonable, but the United States controls what the Ukraine can and cannot do. I strongly suggest you do some real research as to how this conflict really started.
Fascists are never reasonable. Putin vand his minions should swing from lampposts in central Kiev
We thought that the UN was suppose to make the Nations solve their problems peacefully but it looks like they lied to us and the UN is just another group of Globalists wanting to control our daily lives
I have a theory, perhaps far fetched, that the UN will become the enforcement arm of the WEF There’s your one world govt with communist goals all rolled into one.
The dissolution of NATO would be a victory for freedom. My own government is a greater threat to my liberty and way of life than is Putin or Russia. How anybody can think, at this point, that NATO and the west in general are the good guys fighting for freedom is beyond understanding.
Well then drive to the airport and buy a one way ticket vto ruzzia.
Ukraine is being forced to fight the West’s war with one arm tied behind its back. The plight is ignominious. The West thoroughly disgraces itself.
The exemplar for decisively defeating a third world nation – like Russia — equipped with inferior Russian equipment is Kuwait. Full combined arms was key to rapid victory including air superiority. In Kuwait the fast decision included robust air superiority including armor blasting, mine and fortification clearing, communications/supply destroying, trench defeating air and engineering support – all necessary capabilities presently denied Ukraine which are KEY TO VICTORY.
Ukraine performs brilliantly with inadequate arms. Cluster munitions will not remotely be a material factor. One year in the Kerch bridges are not fully dropped with jury rigged bombs. It is clear what is missing. The inane Western dawdling must stop.
If the West allows Ukraine to bleed out, the West will face the invader directly. China watches carefully.
Orc boots out. Now. Period.
Go and volunteer, you simpleton
YOU ARE AN IDIOT
Unfortunately, so true
All of the above participants are chomping at the bit for their New World Order.
NATO should have been dissolved on its 50th Anniversary in 1999, in a celebratory gala with champagne glasses raised to a hearty “Well done!”
On its founding in 1949, and for the rest of the Cold War, NATO brilliantly served its essential Original Purpose: As a defensive treaty to protect Western Europe from being gobbled-up by Stalin and, after him, by the USSR. Of course, the Members were never really full partners; the Big Stick was always the United States military and our nuclear arsenal, convincingly brandished against the Soviets.
Instead, at NATO’s 50-year Anniversary, they went (like any other organization or bureaucracy) looking for new “missions,” “more dragons to slay,” and unending excuses to continue the Treaty’s by-then anachronistic raison d’être–as long as the U.S. was the Guarantor and sugar-daddy, and nearly all of the other Members (except the U.S., Britain, and Poland) lost interest in keeping up with their own funding and military preparedness commitments, and have ignored them.
Talk of inviting Ukraine — a “neutral” border state with Russia (which the always-paranoid Russians insist on) — into NATO is exactly the provocation and the kind of poking the Bear in the eye — that could easily could lead to a direct and mutually suicidal shooting war between the U.S. and the Soviets (excuse me, “the Russians”) that we have successfully avoided since WW II.
No matter what Zelensky and his fellow Globalists (not to mention Communist China) want, such a war could easily, and probably would, result in a catastrophe for the entire world.
This is Ukraine’s fight with Russia. It’s NOT ours.
Do any of these dangerous, warmongering fools remember how WW I started in Sarajevo in the summer of 1914, and how a Serbian terrorist’s murder of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke had all of Europe, with its entangling treaties, in a bloody world war in a matter of weeks? Obviously not.
Or maybe they just don’t care….as long as they idiotically believe that they, and their own sons, and their own cities and nations, will survive.
Well, I have news for them: They won’t.
The nations depending on the US to defend them in the case of a major conflict will be seriously disappointed. Our military is not prepared, in almost all aspects, for a serious ground conflict. A “NATO” war in Europe will quickly spiral downward into an exchange of nuclear weapons and Western Europe will bear the brunt. Russia may be defeated but much of Europe will be laid to waste with massive destruction of major cities and millions of deaths. A ground war with troops on the ground, tanks, missiles and so on will be a short-lived precursor to nuclear devastation.
Instead of Analyzing the Political Religious Economic System at WAR…Get Out…Simple…Save your Family, NOW!
NATO should have gone down alongside the Berlin Wall as the USSR no longer exists and so no need for NATO anymore but I guess those power hungry morons didn’t want to give up a good thing.
That wee thug running the money game in Ukraine is always dressed like he just came from the War Front when in FACT he just came from his Mansion.
What a scam this is.
The Americans didn’t want USSR Nukes in Cuba 90 Miles away from Florida but they cant seem to understand why Putin does not want NATO Nukes directly on is International Border..
The hypocrisy is stunning .