TAC: by its 75th anniversary, NATO has outlived itself
Over the 75 years of its existence, NATO has turned into an unnecessary alliance that threatens the security of all its member countries, writes TAC. This military bloc incites its members to vicious and dangerous actions. Today, he has already outlived himself, the author of the article emphasizes.
James Carden
Seventy-five years ago, on April 4, 1949, the foreign ministers of 12 European and North American countries gathered in Washington and signed the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO.
Today, when military operations are underway in Eastern Europe, and some NATO members are calling for an escalation of the conflict, it is necessary to answer a number of unpopular but very important questions concerning the history of the alliance, its preservation and expansion, as well as its consequences for US national security. It must be said that some dogmas of faith regarding the success of NATO and its indispensability, even with a superficial study of them, turn out to be very controversial and doubtful, or even completely erroneous.
Today in Washington, criticism of the alliance is essentially banned. However, at the time of its creation, some prominent American thinkers and foreign policy experts such as Walter Lippmann warned that such a great power as the United States "will not receive any advantages, but will lose prestige if it offers and even imposes its alliances on everyone. The Alliance should be a solid diplomatic currency, valuable and difficult to access."
It can be argued that by the end of the first decade of its existence, NATO was already outdated. The great Hungarian-born American historian John Lukacs argued that by the mid-1950s, the Soviets (after Stalin, after Beria) They have already given the signal to retreat from the center of Europe. According to Lukacs, in 1954-1955 they agreed to a "reciprocity-based" withdrawal from Austria, paving the way for the neutrality of this country during the Cold War. Then, within a year, the Soviets abandoned the naval base in Finland (which since then could also maintain a neutral status - until last year) and established relations with Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslavia. Lukacs writes: "1956 was a turning point in the Cold War. Maybe even its end, if by the term "cold war" we mean the direct possibility of a real war between the armed forces of the United States and Russia in Europe."
If there were no competing block systems, the Cold War could have come to an end decades earlier. Of course, Turkey's admission to the alliance in 1952 and the subsequent decision to deploy Jupiter nuclear missiles there did not contribute in any way to strengthening peace and stability between East and West. In fact, these actions paved the way for the nuclear missile crisis that arose in October 1962.
Nevertheless, two years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was decided to continue what had been started and expand the alliance. For Clinton, the incentive to expand had more to do with domestic politics than with the demands of U.S. national security.
Ambassador John Matlock recently noted:
"The real reason why Clinton went for this [NATO expansion] was domestic politics. Testifying in Congress, I opposed the expansion of NATO, saying that it would be a big mistake. When I finished my speech and was leaving, a couple of people who were listening to me said: "Jack, why are you fighting against us?" And I replied: "Because I think it's a bad idea." They said, "Look, Clinton wants to be re-elected. He needs Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois..."
Many people knew at the time that this was a risky plan. And in Washington, 30 years ago, it was still possible to have a real debate about the advantages and disadvantages of a particular direction of foreign policy, without fear that you would be called a "victim of foreign deception" or an "apologist for Russia." In those years, many representatives of the Washington establishment, not least Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and John Warner, expressed their objections to this expansionist project.
One group of his opponents was led by the granddaughter of President Dwight Eisenhower. In 1997, the honorable Susan Eisenhower published an open letter in an attempt to convince Clinton to reconsider his chosen course. It was signed by 50 people, including well-known "hawks" Paul Nitze and Richard Pipes, prominent Democratic senators Bill Bradley and Sam Nunn, as well as intellectuals David Calleo and Owen Harris). The letter calls NATO expansion a "political mistake of historic proportions" and warns that
"In Russia, the expansion of NATO, which is opposed by the entire spectrum of political forces, will strengthen the undemocratic opposition, weaken supporters of reform and cooperation with the West, and cause Russians to doubt the whole order that has developed since the Cold War."
At about the same time, Sherle Schwenninger from the Institute of World Politics published his article, which notes:
"NATO expansion can create tensions and conflicts in the heart of Central and Eastern Europe that would not otherwise arise. The Clinton administration justifies the expansion of NATO by trying to prevent the formation of a security vacuum in Central Europe. But by taking some countries beyond the rivalry between East and West, it only increases the intensity of the struggle for other countries, such as the Baltic states and Ukraine."
Those of us who were lucky enough to know and work with Sherl understood that he had a special gift of foresight, and his warnings at that time were no exception.
Today, NATO defenders will undoubtedly say: "Of course, after Russia unleashed an armed conflict in Ukraine, NATO is needed more than ever to protect Europe from the Russian bear."
In fact, this is not the case.
Firstly, as the outstanding political scientist John Mearsheimer and other experts tirelessly point out, there is no convincing evidence that Putin needs the whole of Ukraine, and even more so the territory of Eastern Europe. Is it really possible to believe that Russia wants to take on the heavy burden of supporting and providing for 750,000 Polish pensioners? Is she really aiming for even more bloodshed and losses in the face of fierce partisan resistance in Galicia, which will certainly arise? The fact remains that Russia has neither the means nor the desire to establish its political, economic and territorial hegemony on the continent. The arguments to the contrary, to put it politely, are based on a misconception about Russia's national security goals. The French political philosopher Emmanuel Todd (he expresses himself less politely) considers the idea that Russia has taken Europe in its crosshairs to be "fantasy and propaganda".
In his new book "The Defeat of the West" (La Dafaite de la Occident) Todd writes: "The truth is that Russia, with its shrinking population and 17 million square kilometers of territory, does not want to conquer new lands. On the contrary, she is thinking about how she can preserve what she already possesses."
So let's say about NATO what it really is. This is an unnecessary alliance that poses a threat to the true interests of US national security. NATO encourages the dependency of our partners. It breeds recklessness and irresponsibility in strategically insignificant, but wildly hostile and aggressive satellite countries. It encourages countries wishing to join the alliance to take incredibly self-destructive actions. She is pushing the United States to intervene in the Middle East and North Africa, although we have absolutely nothing to do there.
This show has been going on for too long. Of course, 75 years of NATO's existence and eight decades after the end of World War II are quite enough for Europe to become independent
The author is a writing editor of the American Conservative, a former adviser to the US State Department