Even if it's fashionable to criticize NATO, I sincerely believe that NATO serves American interests very strongly. Do you think I'm wrong?

[Julie4]

I can already see the American taxpayer coming to me, yelling that NATO costs them a fortune **

But let me explain myself. NATO, by ensuring the American presence on European soil and integrating several European countries, helps to maintain a balance between the different European powers and to keep Russia as far away as possible.

This allows the United States to not only exert considerable political influence, but also to benefit from an extremely important market for its trade. It also allows the United States to ensure its own security by preventing any single power from dominating the continent.

Zbigniew Brzezinski says it better than I do:

"Europe is America's fundamental geostrategic bridgehead. For America, the geostrategic stakes on the Eurasian continent are enormous. Even more valuable than the relationship with the Japanese archipelago, the Atlantic Alliance allows it to exert political influence and have a direct military weight on the continent. At the point where we are in US-European relations, the allied European nations depend on the United States for their security. If Europe were to expand, it would automatically increase the direct influence of the United States. Conversely, if the transatlantic ties were to loosen, it would be the end of America's primacy in Eurasia. Its control of the Atlantic Ocean and its ability to penetrate deep into the continent would then be very limited."
He adds:

"Finally, on the western periphery, the eviction of the United States by its partners would sign the end of American participation in the Eurasian chess game, even if such a turnaround would undoubtedly mean the subordination of the western borders to an actor that has become powerful again in the central region."
I could add that NATO also benefits the American arms industry quite extensively.

So I agree that Europeans must also take charge of their own defense, by devoting 2% of their GDP to their defense.

Updates

1 mo

However, the consequences for the Americans if NATO disappears will be worse than what they have to pay today.

[Soteris]

Nope, you are entirely correct. One could very easily argue that NATO as an organization is USAs super power project which they are relying on to remain the one and only super power in the world.

USA is not a diplomatic super power, or a trade based super power or a naval super power akin to the British Empire. USA is a military super power. While USA dabbles in other areas, the thing that maintains US dominance is its military and its military alliance (NATO). Where China exports cheap plastic crap to try become a super power USA exports military power.

That also means that the stronger everyone else is, the weaker USA becomes by comparison which is why USA has never historically been too upset that so few countries in NATO actually defended themselves or kept their defense spending at 2%, because that by extension gave USA more control and power.

Also yes, being a super power costs a lot of money, but at the same time you also gain so much more money in return. Thinking you are saving money by not spending it on defending NATO or whatever is incredibly short sighted since it comes at the cost of losing the benefits your current economy is built upon.

[NaultD]

Nato dosen't cost USA more then anything they invested into it.

There was a promise for every country to "invest a percentage of GDP into there own military spending." So yes there are country's cheating out of the promise of there own military capacity. But that ultimately only harms that country creating the weakest point of entry in an opening of a potential war.

No one is losing any money for anything. But ultimately creats the weakest point of defense that isn't safe for everyone anymore. We are still strong all together but a back door is going to be really bad for the country not contributing common sense shit.

[NaultD]

Another way to say it. If nato does get attack it will be on the land from the country's not meeting expectations of the military spending being the weakest link. That ground war is going to be costly but ultimately winnable but will nato reimbursement probably not. If you did your due diligence more then likely.

[SweetDripp]

NATO does serve American interests, but not to the point of where Americans should provide the degree of funding that they do. It serves European interests to a much greater extent.

[SnackTime]

Call our bluff. We don't have to pay shit for you.

[nightdrot]

You are entirely correct. The lesson of two world wars and the Cold War taught the United States that isolation, domination of the Western Hemisphere, and two broad oceans are not sufficient to protect American national security at the most basic level, let alone broader national economic interests.

Unfortunately, first, as a general rule, Americans tend to forget the lessons of history. As a nation that has been - until the last century - mostly protected from the world's tumult, Americans have a tendency to believe that they are exempt from history and the calculation of national interest.

Working against this has been - as noted - the last two centuries. Also, ironically, America's general commitment to free market economics and global free trade. That commitment runs contrary to narrower definitions of national interest and, when challenged, has tended to draw the USA into specific national conflicts.

Further, despite America's commitment to the principles of the Enlightenment - as manifest in its' commitment to free trade and the like - the USA has not been able to escape the fact it has specific national security interests, Thus, the Monroe Doctrine - adhered to in fact if not explicitly to this day - in which the USA stood steadfast against intervention by the great European powers in the Western Hemisphere. (See also the Spanish-American War as well as the immediate reason why the USA entered World War I.)

This will tend to wax and wane in the American national mind. At the current time, a rising populist trend in both American political parties is conducing to a resurgence of isolationism. Thus, the increasing resentment in the general public toward NATO and the burdens - especially economic burdens - membership in that organization imposes on the American taxpayer.

Yet NATO, at an irreducible level, serves American interests and thus it is not likely - not impossible but not very likely - that the USA will walk away from it. Not only does NATO assure that the USA will have allies against Russia in Europe - thereby keeping the Russians out of the Western Hemisphere - it also maintains the balance in Europe.

The specific national interests that led to two world wars in Europe are not gone. Thus has Germany tended to seem open to a deal wih Russia over Ukraine. Thus is Italy seemingly open to any situation that will divert the other powers from the Mediterranean. Thus is France looking for a counterweight to Russia while maintaining a relationship with Germany within the EU. Thus is the UK looking to maintain the balance between all these powers.

NATO facilitates this by assuring that Americans - nominally disinterested in specific European national interests - remain part of Europe's security infrastructure. This in turn assuring that America holds the balance in Europe.

American citizens - raised as they are in the ideals embodied in the culture of their Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address and even Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen points, FDR's Four Freedoms and the Reagan Doctrine - will not recognize NATO for the realpolitik mechanism that it is. However, when push comes to shove they will relinquish it and the assurances of security that it offers, only in the most unusual and extreme circumstances. Much as they unconsciously continue to adhere to the Monroe Doctrine - its' overtones of imperialism notwithstanding.

To repeat, it is not impossible that the USA, under the right circumstances, might turn against NATO membership outright. However, the USA has too many material interests in NATO to just walk away from it and thus they will, however begrudgingly, remain in it, whatever inequities they see in their contribution to it.

[Avicenna]

this argument made sense during the Cold War, but NATO has been unnecessary for 30 years. The EU is perfectly capable of defending itself against Russia, and the main threat to Europe today is extremism in the Middle East.

The US economy isn't hugely tied to foreign trade and the US can trade with Europe even without NATO. NATO definitely serves the military industrial complex's interests, though.

[Soteris]

This is incorrect. While NATO is a military alliance and many countries joined it to defend themselves, the actual purpose of NATO from USA's point of view was not for protection but rather to spread American control over the world. It is an influence project and should be seen as such and as such will probably never be "unnecessary" for as long as USA wants to stay as a super power.

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: Europe has been decreasing in importance in the world for decades (North America is as well, albeit to less of an extent). NATO can therefore in no way be some vehicle to "spread American control over the world", and such control is anyhow impossible to achieve.

If the US wants to remain a superpower, it needs to focus on strengthening its economy and its public institutions, not on attempting international domination.

[Soteris]

... What are you even talking about? Being a super power has absolutely nothing to do with the actual economic strength or whatever of your country. It is a measurement of the influence that you have over the rest of the world. If you want to be a super power through your economy then you need to project your economic power onto other countries like what China is doing with their mass production and "Belt and road initiative".

"focus on strengthening (your) economy and (your) public institutions" is isolationism and the polar opposite of being a super power. One can not be the other. Are you sure you have any idea what you are talking about at this point?

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: You can't be a superpower and be influential for long without economic power. Hard and soft power are both downstream from economic power.

Ooh, wow, you used the "i" word! It makes a lot more sense to deal with internal problems than trying to dominate much of the rest of the world. If you want to declare that the end of being a superpower, I can live with that as long as we can improve our economy and fix our broken institutions, which is a lot more important than being lauded or scorned as a "superpower".

[Soteris]

Its the other way around generally speaking. Economic power is generally a benefit from having hard and soft power, especially for a super power. Which is also why pulling back and focusing on your internal problems generally results in you becoming poorer anyways. Something USA should have learned during WW2 if nothing else, but who am I to remind you of recent history?

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: That's a novel view. The US became the world's largest economy around 1898. It won WWII thanks to its industrial might and its geographic isolation. I understand that most Europeans prefer to have the US heavily engaged in Europe, but it's simply not in the best interests of the US anymore to carry the load while most European countries free ride. It's a different calculus if European countries invest in their militaries.

[Soteris]

Most notably, USA was expansionist at that time. They primarily entered isolationism between 1914 to 1917 which is a period that did not do very much for USA aside from cause internal division as opposed to the benefits of joining WW1 which USA later enjoyed both in the rewards for winning the war and the benefits of being involved in world politics.

Following that period USA entered another period of isolationism, which again made the country stagnate which again was broken by joining WW2 and world politics which reforged USA into a super power.

Isolationism has never done anything for your country outside of keeping you from benefiting from worldly events, cause further internal division as various factions demand action to be taken and generally just cause stagnation.

[Avicenna]

@Soteris: Well, having seen the "benefits" of wasting trillions of dollars on useless foreign wars, we'll pass. Note that the period of US expansionism didn't mean having a large standing military and didn't mean fighting large wars.

I'd hardly say the US was "isolationist" during the first three years of WWI (loaning lots of money and selling lots of things to the UK and France is hardly isolationist, and note that it ended up getting us into an expensive foreign war we didn't need or benefit from.

[Soteris]

USA is a super power built on military power. Yes, that means you need a big army and yes that does mean you have to directly become involved in wars to maintain your influence unlike something like China which is taking a soft power approach.

Look, its becoming very clear that you dont understand what you are talking about here.

[Kaneki05]

Zbigniew Brzezinski is right. I'm willing to bet people who disagree with his point barley know anything about National Security. NATO with simple research and understand is an obvious benefit to US.

[RavVid]

My criticism of Nato is that the structure is unwieldy now after a lot of expansions. That Hungary & Turkey could delay Sweden's accession is not a satisfactory structure and it does need reform.

[gorydetails]

If you loved NATO so much then you should pony up some cash.

[msc545]

NATO is a tool of imperialists, and cannot win battles or wars.