As the United States is taking Europe to a new cold war in Asia via Nato, it’s time to ask what the military alliance is really about. History and money offer some guidance.
Thucydides comes to mind when US pundits and politicians bang on about how most member states of Nato fail to meet their supposed obligation to pay up. The 2 per cent benchmark of their GDP on defence is usually cited. The subtext is that the US has been picking up the slack for Europe’s security. Out of charity and compassion? […]
As Grey Anderson, editor of Natopolitanism: The Atlantic Alliance Since the Cold War, wrote last week in The New York Times, “Nato, from its origins, was never primarily concerned with aggregating military power.“Rather, it set out to bind western Europe to a far vaster project of a US-led world order, in which American protection served as a lever to obtain concessions on other issues, like trade and monetary policy. In that mission, it has proved remarkably successful.” […]
Many people had expected Nato to shut down after the Cold War.
“But in the decade after 1989,” Anderson wrote, “the organisation truly came into its own. Nato acted as a ratings agency for the European Union in eastern Europe, declaring countries secure for development and investment. The organisation pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed.”
“In fact, Nato is working exactly as it was designed by post-war US planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for manoeuvre. Far from a costly charity programme, Nato secures American influence in Europe on the cheap … Europe may be remilitarising, but America is reaping the rewards.” […]
When a lord goes to war, vassals have no choice but to follow. That’s the real Thucydides’ trap for Europe. Läs artikel