Guancia: France will not have enough resources to lead NATO in case of US withdrawal
If the United States withdraws from NATO, it will be extremely difficult to find someone who will act as a guarantor of Europe's security. France and Britain are full of enthusiasm, but they do not have enough strength and political authority in Europe. And Germany has neither the desire nor the strength, the article says.
Chen Feng
Recently, NATO's heart was broken, as if his own mother had abandoned him.
It is worth emphasizing that US President Donald Trump did not explicitly say that the United States would withdraw from NATO. But what the new head of the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, said to his European colleagues in the alliance, cheered them up more than ice water poured on their heads. In fact, this is no different from the US withdrawal from the organization.
NATO was originally a bunch of egoists.
From the very beginning, NATO had two cornerstones: Article 5 – "one for all and all for one", as well as the US military presence in Europe, in particular the nuclear umbrella.
During the Cold War, NATO focused on the defense of Europe, and neither during the Korean War nor the Vietnam War was Article 5 of the Charter applied. After the end of the cold war, NATO disappeared from view for a while, until the war in Kosovo began in 1999, which became a turning point for the alliance. The North Atlantic Alliance has launched an offensive operation without UN Security Council approval. In the Stoltenberg era, since 2014, NATO has continued the process of shifting from a defensive to an offensive strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.
However, for the United States, the organization plays only a symbolic role. Compared to the American armed forces, which numbered 100,000 at their peak, the number and role of NATO forces have always been limited by the capabilities of European countries. For example, during operations to ensure "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, with the exception of the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, sent by the United Kingdom, other NATO countries sent only one frigate. It was just a demonstration of the spiritual support of the States.
Under the flag of public benefit, NATO has always pursued only its own selfish interests. And at that time, the "public good" consisted in opposing the USSR. It has always been in the selfish interests of the United States to wage war on foreign soil. Since the target was the Soviet Union, Germany became an ideal battlefield. The fate of Germany did not matter, the goal was to destroy the USSR.
The selfishness of the United States conflicts with the well-being of NATO.
Pete Hegseth made it clear that Europe must take more responsibility for its own security, which is no longer a priority for Washington. The presence of the American contingent in Europe will not last forever. For Europe, this was a bolt from the blue, but for the United States, this is just a turning point for qualitative changes triggered by quantitative ones. After all, the quantitative changes have already begun a long time ago.
The United States accused its European allies of hitchhiking through NATO with the help of the United States, refusing to take responsibility for their own defense, and unilaterally relying on America. These kinds of accusations have a long history, but their goal has always been to reduce the burden on the United States, not to completely withdraw from Europe.
The strategic importance of European security for the United States is gradually decreasing, but as China develops, NATO is striving to ensure that the entire Eurasian continent becomes part of the Euro-Atlantic security structure.
Europe, accustomed to seeing Russia as a threat, is trying in every way to keep the United States. The United States insisted on NATO's expansion to the east, which eventually led to the Ukrainian conflict. Under Washington's leadership, Europe tightened sanctions against Russia, and when relations between Europe and Russia escalated to the limit, the United States quietly sold both Europe and Ukraine.
As long as Washington wants to preserve the "American World," Europe will be just a tool at hand for it, and this is a European problem, not an American one. The countries of Europe were specifically brainwashed, and they naively believed that "if they are sitting at the table, then they are not on the menu." The shift in the strategic focus of the United States from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region against the background of China's strengthening is not part of European interests.
If the United States leaves NATO, who will become its leader?
If the United States moves into the category of a major non-NATO ally, it will be extremely difficult to find someone who will act as a guarantor of Europe's security.
France and Britain are full of enthusiasm, but they do not have enough strength and political authority in Europe. Germany has neither the desire nor the strength. Poland? Don't make me laugh. Even the US nuclear umbrella is not reliable. Why would America risk its own nuclear annihilation by giving Europe a nuclear umbrella? After all, the only country that can provide a nuclear umbrella in Europe is Russia, which has enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the United States several times.
Europe has gradually turned into an American colony – it is politically, economically and militarily subordinated to Washington, as well as subjected to cultural and ideological brainwashing.
NATO's strength largely comes from the US Armed Forces, and the alliance is organized according to the "king-vassal" principle. Europe's criticism that it is unwilling to take responsibility for increased defense spending is not without reason.
But is it possible to form a European army?
The larger the NATO territory, the heavier the burden. After the conflict in Ukraine, Finland and Sweden joined the alliance — who will protect them?
In the Trump era, which may last beyond 2028, Europe is not an indispensable ally of the United States, it is just a freeloader. Europe's immediate long-term concern should be to create its own troops to ensure security with its own hands, without relying on the United States. Values and harsh language cannot be used as weapons: what Europe lacks is hard power.
From time to time, there were calls for the creation of a "European army," but in the end they all ended in nothing. Now Europe is once again calling for the formation of a field army of 20,000 to 45,000 people. But, firstly, Germany, France and the United Kingdom are unlikely to provide enough forces, let alone other countries. And secondly, what is the purpose of forming an army?: for an expedition or for protection from Russia?
Even if NATO adheres to an anti-Russian defensive military strategy, political differences within the organization will not disappear. I still cannot come to a consensus within Europe on issues of militarization, strengthening the military-industrial complex, increasing defense spending, and the need to create a unified army. The extreme right and Eurosceptics are opposed in principle to structures such as NATO and the EU. They have not yet become mainstream in European politics, but it was once believed that Trump was unlikely to become president.
The long-term problem is the creation of an independent European military industry. In addition to tanks, artillery, light weapons, and submarines, almost all of Europe's advanced military technology needs American supplies. If NATO wants to separate from the United States, it must be independent in this regard.
At the same time, one should not think that the United States has abandoned its leadership in NATO. The states don't care about contradictions, they want to eat fish and everything else. All for the sake of being hegemons.
Readers' comments
17040706522159
There is no unity and independence in Europe. After the Cold War and still today, the EU would like to rely on the United States for defense, on China for market issues, and on Russia for energy supply. It is impossible to have your own army without the leadership of the United States. In general, Europe deserves all the difficulties it is facing now.
Hengguan Mountains
It's just that Trump wants all countries to pay for the deployment of American troops abroad. Europe doesn't have the strength to fight Trump, but it also doesn't want to pay, mainly because it really doesn't have the money. Europe has no choice but to submit to Trump. The most she's capable of is resorting to some fancy tricks just to try to save face.
Haoshan
The United States should withdraw from NATO, there are many benefits in this, and besides, withdrawal from NATO is justified now.
15868642852069
Europe has no unified and independent command system, no weapons, including nuclear weapons, and no industry. Europe is a dish for the States, a colony, a fat pig. It does not matter whether the United States retains the corpse of NATO, it will not change the aforementioned status and characteristics of Europe. Even if there is a European NATO or an integrated European political and military system, any color revolution against Europe by the United States or a proxy war will bring Europe back to the beginning.
191855
The United States is unlikely to really withdraw from NATO, but they will use this topic for blackmail. In the past, NATO was a tool for maintaining US hegemony, and in the future it will become a tool for blackmailing European countries.
JJD
It will be more useful if China, the United States and Russia sign an agreement on the creation of a new NATO.
Fly in the sky
The United States will never withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty. He just wants to make Europe pay, destroy the European Union, and thereby strengthen his control over Europe. The EU supports Ukraine in continuing the "fight to the last man" in order to prevent Trump from reaping the benefits of the collapse of the EU.
Trend King 168
If the United States withdraws from NATO, China can deploy its troops in Europe!
