A good and reliable NATO must first have members that have the same values and goals. NATO has become a shell because Europe has mostly abandoned true liberal values. What are we defending is the ultimate question? Are we defending our freedom or simply welfare states on the decline? Oh to go back to the clarity of the Cold War. We mostly understood the good and the bad of it. Today we are in a muddle and the cure may kill us. But all is not lost. The work of so many may be able to turn this tide towards freedom once again. God help us. Take care.
You said it better than I did. The lack of a shared purpose has been the key sticking point for the Atlantic alliance since the end of the Cold War. I’m not sure that we will find renewed purpose, because frankly, I think what unites Europe more than Ukraine is their dislike of Donald Trump. And that does not constitute a sustainable rallying cry.
The bottom line is, the Europeans don't want to give up their luxurious (by American standards) welfare states, or even slim them down significantly to pay for defense. Instead, they hope to blackmail America ("abandoning your long-standing allies") into indirectly paying for it. In many countries, notably Spain and Italy, this resistance rises to electorally significant levels. As to Germany, only 17 percent of young Germans say that if their country were invaded they would fight to defend it.
That’s right. This selfishness has become a defining characteristic of post Cold War Europe. And everyone has been very quick to forget how uninterested in Ukraine the Europeans have been for the last 11 years.
In fact, most European social benefits are pretty paltry. GDP per capita in most European states is less than Mississippi. That’s right.
The only European states with a higher GDP per capita than Mississippi are Luxembourg (a cow pasture and banking center) and Germany which just ekes out a GDP/capita slightly higher than our lowest state. Hmm? Things are not going swimmingly for Europe. This explains it: Productivity in Europe in 1990 was about 95% of the US productivity rate. Today it is 85%.
The selfishness you describe boils down to this: Europeans are interested in the social welfare state, but the social welfare state is not that great since the economy is not that productive. European healthcare is adequate, allocated, and often downright poor. The Nordic Countries used to provide ample benefits, but they have cut back considerably and are not what Bernie Sanders tells people.
The bottom line is Europeans are not that interested in working. That is selfish — but they accept their plight because their political system focuses on skimming income off the top earners. That soothes their inherent envy. Meanwhile they act like the grasshopper, and then suddenly realize the big bad wolf (Putin) is at their door (yes, mixed metaphor). In fact, Putin has affirmed the risk to Europe of Russian invasion is more or less nil if they will sell out Ukraine a little and maybe Estonia. And Europe will (except for Poland).
And to top that off, they have wasted enormous resources pursuing a non-scientific energy infrastructure to make themselves feel good, adopted all kinds of policies to work less, and to plug the labor gap they import more Muslims who work for a fraction of the cost and do work Europeans won’t.
What is NATO’s purpose? Defend a recovering post-WWII Europe against Russian armor attacking the Fulda Gap? Erecting a nuclear umbrella with Pershing missiles? Launching peace-keeping initiatives to Bosnia, Serbia? Fighting a War on Terror? Providing logistics air support and real time satellite intel so Europeans can put down a rebellion in Mali or Libya? Defending Europe with an anti-missile defense? Helping stop Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and pirates in the Gulf of Arabia? Promoting a European arms industry so it can sell helicopters to the USA? Creating a NATO bureaucracy, employment, important titles and positions for a shadow European military and another layer of politicians and experts with wonderful degrees?
How does NATO fit into our Grand Strategy? Recently, it was revealed that NATO Europe would be hard pressed to field a peace-keeping force of 65,000 soldiers for Ukraine. Hmmm? Pretty useless for a quasi-super state of 300 million people.
Europe used to share, or at least was the birthplace of, the American ideals of free agency, liberty, and the essential element of that, free markets. Europe today censors, outlaws political parties and denies them earned power in the Bundestag, throws people in jail in Britain for holding up signs, and pursues dirigisme in a soft but firm handed way. Something is not right in Europe. Is it worth defending?
Grand Strategy is about security. Is Europe necessary to American security? One can make a case for Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. But Estonia, Spain, France? Russian dominance of Eastern Europe might marshal tremendous resources coerced against US interests, … but Putin does not realize this drains motivation and saps a society. Eastern Europe under the Soviets was a drag. European dominance does not strengthen Russia.
Europe simply does not care anymore, about themselves or their future. They import Muslims to work in factories and do unsavory jobs. These immigrants do not integrate. Belgium, the capital of Europe, has become its first Muslim European state. Islam works off a different construct than the west, one of submission to religious authority. Europe broke free of theological dictatorships after 6 centuries of religious wars. Islamic countries really never did.
What does Europe bring to America’s Grand Strategy? We now produce better wine, artisanal cheese, and bespoke suits. We can visit a better version of Europe at Disney World without the personal security risks. We don’t need European outposts to listen in or watch our adversaries. Yes, their airbases help, but soon we can buy those.
Maybe we are not that into Europe anymore? Maybe NATO is like that older relative, unconcious, living on life support? Maybe we don’t need to do anything? Just keep the life support machines plugged in, do not perform any medical intervention, and simply let it die or miraculously recover. Daniel Moynihan might prescribe, “benign neglect.” Trump is trying in Trump fashion to prod NATO and Europe into being something — but he kind of has a sweet spot for the UK, the old UK of Bobbie’s, red phone booths and audiences with the royals. That UK is gone. The new UK has a leadership that wants two standards of justice — one for Britons and one for people who come from elsewhere. That should work well (sarc\). Will, at some point, the degradation of Europe’s liberal values become Ebola and spread back to America?
So I ask, “What is NATO’s purpose within the American security needs?” How are they useful?
A good and reliable NATO must first have members that have the same values and goals. NATO has become a shell because Europe has mostly abandoned true liberal values. What are we defending is the ultimate question? Are we defending our freedom or simply welfare states on the decline? Oh to go back to the clarity of the Cold War. We mostly understood the good and the bad of it. Today we are in a muddle and the cure may kill us. But all is not lost. The work of so many may be able to turn this tide towards freedom once again. God help us. Take care.
You said it better than I did. The lack of a shared purpose has been the key sticking point for the Atlantic alliance since the end of the Cold War. I’m not sure that we will find renewed purpose, because frankly, I think what unites Europe more than Ukraine is their dislike of Donald Trump. And that does not constitute a sustainable rallying cry.
The bottom line is, the Europeans don't want to give up their luxurious (by American standards) welfare states, or even slim them down significantly to pay for defense. Instead, they hope to blackmail America ("abandoning your long-standing allies") into indirectly paying for it. In many countries, notably Spain and Italy, this resistance rises to electorally significant levels. As to Germany, only 17 percent of young Germans say that if their country were invaded they would fight to defend it.
That’s right. This selfishness has become a defining characteristic of post Cold War Europe. And everyone has been very quick to forget how uninterested in Ukraine the Europeans have been for the last 11 years.
In fact, most European social benefits are pretty paltry. GDP per capita in most European states is less than Mississippi. That’s right.
The only European states with a higher GDP per capita than Mississippi are Luxembourg (a cow pasture and banking center) and Germany which just ekes out a GDP/capita slightly higher than our lowest state. Hmm? Things are not going swimmingly for Europe. This explains it: Productivity in Europe in 1990 was about 95% of the US productivity rate. Today it is 85%.
The selfishness you describe boils down to this: Europeans are interested in the social welfare state, but the social welfare state is not that great since the economy is not that productive. European healthcare is adequate, allocated, and often downright poor. The Nordic Countries used to provide ample benefits, but they have cut back considerably and are not what Bernie Sanders tells people.
The bottom line is Europeans are not that interested in working. That is selfish — but they accept their plight because their political system focuses on skimming income off the top earners. That soothes their inherent envy. Meanwhile they act like the grasshopper, and then suddenly realize the big bad wolf (Putin) is at their door (yes, mixed metaphor). In fact, Putin has affirmed the risk to Europe of Russian invasion is more or less nil if they will sell out Ukraine a little and maybe Estonia. And Europe will (except for Poland).
And to top that off, they have wasted enormous resources pursuing a non-scientific energy infrastructure to make themselves feel good, adopted all kinds of policies to work less, and to plug the labor gap they import more Muslims who work for a fraction of the cost and do work Europeans won’t.
What is NATO’s purpose? Defend a recovering post-WWII Europe against Russian armor attacking the Fulda Gap? Erecting a nuclear umbrella with Pershing missiles? Launching peace-keeping initiatives to Bosnia, Serbia? Fighting a War on Terror? Providing logistics air support and real time satellite intel so Europeans can put down a rebellion in Mali or Libya? Defending Europe with an anti-missile defense? Helping stop Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and pirates in the Gulf of Arabia? Promoting a European arms industry so it can sell helicopters to the USA? Creating a NATO bureaucracy, employment, important titles and positions for a shadow European military and another layer of politicians and experts with wonderful degrees?
How does NATO fit into our Grand Strategy? Recently, it was revealed that NATO Europe would be hard pressed to field a peace-keeping force of 65,000 soldiers for Ukraine. Hmmm? Pretty useless for a quasi-super state of 300 million people.
Europe used to share, or at least was the birthplace of, the American ideals of free agency, liberty, and the essential element of that, free markets. Europe today censors, outlaws political parties and denies them earned power in the Bundestag, throws people in jail in Britain for holding up signs, and pursues dirigisme in a soft but firm handed way. Something is not right in Europe. Is it worth defending?
Grand Strategy is about security. Is Europe necessary to American security? One can make a case for Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. But Estonia, Spain, France? Russian dominance of Eastern Europe might marshal tremendous resources coerced against US interests, … but Putin does not realize this drains motivation and saps a society. Eastern Europe under the Soviets was a drag. European dominance does not strengthen Russia.
Europe simply does not care anymore, about themselves or their future. They import Muslims to work in factories and do unsavory jobs. These immigrants do not integrate. Belgium, the capital of Europe, has become its first Muslim European state. Islam works off a different construct than the west, one of submission to religious authority. Europe broke free of theological dictatorships after 6 centuries of religious wars. Islamic countries really never did.
What does Europe bring to America’s Grand Strategy? We now produce better wine, artisanal cheese, and bespoke suits. We can visit a better version of Europe at Disney World without the personal security risks. We don’t need European outposts to listen in or watch our adversaries. Yes, their airbases help, but soon we can buy those.
Maybe we are not that into Europe anymore? Maybe NATO is like that older relative, unconcious, living on life support? Maybe we don’t need to do anything? Just keep the life support machines plugged in, do not perform any medical intervention, and simply let it die or miraculously recover. Daniel Moynihan might prescribe, “benign neglect.” Trump is trying in Trump fashion to prod NATO and Europe into being something — but he kind of has a sweet spot for the UK, the old UK of Bobbie’s, red phone booths and audiences with the royals. That UK is gone. The new UK has a leadership that wants two standards of justice — one for Britons and one for people who come from elsewhere. That should work well (sarc\). Will, at some point, the degradation of Europe’s liberal values become Ebola and spread back to America?
So I ask, “What is NATO’s purpose within the American security needs?” How are they useful?