Many observers expected NATO to close shop after the collapse of its Cold War rival. But in the decade after 1989, the organization 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 organization pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed, according to which â as President Bill Clintonâs national security adviser put it â âthe pursuit of democratic institutions, the expansion of free marketsâ and âthe promotion of collective securityâ marched in lock step. European military professionals and reform-minded elites formed a willing constituency, their campaigns boosted by NATOâs information apparatus.
When European populations proved too stubborn, or undesirably swayed by socialist or nationalist sentiments, Atlantic integration proceeded all the same. The Czech Republic was a telling case. Faced with a likely ânoâ vote in a referendum on joining the alliance in 1997, the secretary general and top NATO officials saw to it that the government in Prague simply dispense with the exercise; the country joined two years later. The new century brought more of the same, with an appropriate shift in emphasis. Coinciding with the global war on terrorism, the âbig bangâ expansion of 2004 â in which seven countries acceded â saw counterterrorism supersede democracy and human rights in alliance rhetoric. Stress on the need for liberalization and public sector reforms remained a constant.
In the realm of defense, the alliance was not as advertised. For decades, the United States has been the chief provider of weapons, logistics, air bases and battle plans. The war in Ukraine, for all the talk of Europe stepping up, has left that asymmetry essentially untouched. Tellingly, the scale of U.S. military aid â $47 billion over the first year of the conflict â is more than double that offered by European Union countries combined. European spending pledges may also turn out to be less impressive than they appear. More than a year after the German government publicized the creation of a special $110 billion fund for its armed forces, the bulk of the credits remain unused. In the meantime, German military commanders have said that they lack sufficient munitions for more than two days of high-intensity combat.
Dammit the master plan has been revealed. America goaded the jack-hole Putin and his backward country to invade Ukraine in an effort to boost the US economy.
Well let's face it... someone has to supply the military hardware and it certainly wouldn't be Russia what with its Jiffy Pop tanks and hypersonic weapons that can be shot from the sky with pistols.
(...) The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened alliesâ ability to defend themselves.
Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver. Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe account for a tiny fraction of the Pentagonâs annual budget â less than 6 percent by a recent estimate. And the war has only strengthened Americaâs hand. Before Russiaâs invasion of Ukraine, roughly half of European military spending went to American manufacturers. Surging demand has exacerbated this tendency as buyers rush to acquire tanks, combat aircraft and other weapons systems, locking into costly, multiyear contracts. Europe may be remilitarizing, but America is reaping the rewards. (...)
Dammit the master plan has been revealed. America goaded the jack-hole Putin and his backward country to invade Ukraine in an effort to boost the US economy.
Well let's face it... someone has to supply the military hardware and it certainly wouldn't be Russia what with its Jiffy Pop tanks and hypersonic weapons that can be shot from the sky with pistols.
(...) The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened alliesâ ability to defend themselves.
Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver. Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe account for a tiny fraction of the Pentagonâs annual budget â less than 6 percent by a recent estimate. And the war has only strengthened Americaâs hand. Before Russiaâs invasion of Ukraine, roughly half of European military spending went to American manufacturers. Surging demand has exacerbated this tendency as buyers rush to acquire tanks, combat aircraft and other weapons systems, locking into costly, multiyear contracts. Europe may be remilitarizing, but America is reaping the rewards. (...)
But the reality is the American view will have to prevail. The US accounts for roughly 70 per cent of the total defence spending of all Nato countries. So Nato policy will ultimately be decided in Washington, not Brussels or Vilnius.
I also notice that R_P seems to conveniently forget that there are a lot of other NATO nations supporting Ukraine and in some cases have provided it with more advanced weaponry than what the US has provided to date (or a least did until recently). But not once have I ever seen R_P post anything criticizing or denigrating the support provided by these other countries,,, why? I guess he must feel that every other NATO country (along with Ukraine itself) are just puppets to the will of the US.
Hi R_P, just saw the link in your previous post. My bad.
I thought about your posts on Ukraine during a long walk. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you disapprove of American involvement in Ukraine's fight because you (apparently) view it as a sign of American hegemony and the power of the American military-industrial complex.
I don't recall seeing disapproval of Russia's actions in your posts, however. Am I wrong? It strikes be that all of your disapproval of America's actions could also be directed at Russia, with greater relevance to the facts of the war and Putin's thinking.
I also notice that R_P seems to conveniently forget that there are a lot of other NATO nations supporting Ukraine and in some cases have provided it with more advanced weaponry than what the US has provided to date (or a least did until recently). But not once have I ever seen R_P post anything criticizing or denigrating the support provided by these other countries,,, why? I guess he must feel that every other NATO country (along with Ukraine itself) are just puppets to the will of the US.
I thought about your posts on Ukraine during a long walk. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you disapprove of American involvement in Ukraine's fight because you (apparently) view it as a sign of American hegemony and the power of the American military-industrial complex. I don't recall seeing disapproval of Russia's actions in your posts, however. Am I wrong? It strikes be that all of your disapproval of America's actions could also be directed at Russia, with greater relevance to the facts of the war and Putin's thinking.
To some extent, yes. A sign certainly. An overrated and overused power. But if all you have is a hammer... I don't approve of Russia's invasion. Or any other invasions.
That took a long time coming. Yes, I can live with that approach. Ideally we wouldn't have national borders and would rather live by some kind of charter that minimized our impact on the environment and maximized human and environmental well-being, but then you might say I was a dreamer.. as a species we seem to be miles away from that and actually moving in the opposite direction.
I thought about your posts on Ukraine during a long walk. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you disapprove of American involvement in Ukraine's fight because you (apparently) view it as a sign of American hegemony and the power of the American military-industrial complex.
I don't recall seeing disapproval of Russia's actions in your posts, however. Am I wrong? It strikes be that all of your disapproval of America's actions could also be directed at Russia, with greater relevance to the facts of the war and Putin's thinking.
To some extent, yes. A sign certainly. An overrated and overused power. But if all you have is a hammer...
I don't approve of Russia's invasion. Or any other invasions.
Hi R_P, just saw the link in your previous post. My bad.
I thought about your posts on Ukraine during a long walk. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems you disapprove of American involvement in Ukraine's fight because you (apparently) view it as a sign of American hegemony and the power of the American military-industrial complex.
I don't recall seeing disapproval of Russia's actions in your posts, however. Am I wrong? It strikes be that all of your disapproval of America's actions could also be directed at Russia, with greater relevance to the facts of the war and Putin's thinking.
I watched the PBS News Hour segment and discussion which you quoted without attribution, R_P.
There's a single link that careful readers are likely to notice.
For those worried about losing moral high ground or making the war more vicious and collaterally damaging, I'd point out that I haven't heard or read about good alternatives to cluster bomb usage.
In order to lose the moral high ground you'd have to occupy it first.
Former Human Rights Watch Investigator Galasco thinks sending US cluster bombs is a drop down a slippery moral slope with questionable strategic and tactical value. He notes that American cluster bomb use in the Gulf War caused significant casualties amongst civilians and US troops. He also pointed out that our use of cluster bombs in '91 and in the Iraqi war in 2003 created areas where US troops couldn't maneuver through their own cluster bombs had been dropped down. Apparently Galasco thinks that Ukraine can without them.
Former Ambassador to Ukraine Taylor thinks that Ukrainian use of American-supplied cluster bombs is necessary to sustain and improve the Ukrainians' chances of pushing the Russians back. (I have read that cluster bombs are highly effective in clearing troops hunkered down in trenches as the Russians are). Taylor notes that the Ukrainians are running out of other forms of artillery weapons. Taylor admits that our cluster bombs would likely add to the amount of unexploded ordinance in Ukraine but points out that the Russians started using cluster bombs first and their cluster bombs have a much higher dud rate even when one adjusts for the Pentagon's rosy claims that US cluster bombs have a marginal failure rate. As he sees it, cluster bombs are just a small part of the unexploded ordinance problem.
I agree with VV: the Ukrainians have a right to decide whether they want to use such weapons in their self-defense on their own territory. For those worried about losing moral high ground or making the war more vicious and collaterally damaging, I'd point out that I haven't heard or read about good alternatives to cluster bomb usage. Yes, we have more precise weapons but they're not reaching the Ukrainians in sufficient numbers or with needed speed.
The alternative to not sending cluster bombs could mean the failure of the Ukrainian offensive, the prolongation of this war, a stronger Russian hold over Ukrainian territory (and more territory) and eventual consolidation of Russian invading forces.
You can be upset about the ugly aspect of US involvement in this war, R_P, but the fact remains that the Russians invaded a peaceful neighbor and have committed just about every conceivable war atrocity. I don't think you can expect the Ukrainians and their allies to avoid the deadly use of force in response, even if it raises the risk of more civilian deaths.
You know, I think we have to question what the reality is here and where is it going to stop. The potential for civilian harm is just too high. You know, you spoke about the dud rate, right? And these munitions, the Pentagon is now saying, well, they only have a 2 percent dud rate.
That's 888 duds that are on the ground that potentially could kill civilians. And we're looking at DPICM that are fired from artillery shells, each shell would have 20 unexploded bomblets.
We had a meeting today with the National Security Council, and it was kind of one of these things where you get together and they try to make the NGOs feel happy and say, we have got a control on this, we have diplomatic assurances.
The reality is, when we asked them, how did you come to these new numbers, were there tests, how were the tests completed, did you have them done under hermetically sealed manner, or was it actually a field test in a war, as I have seen and covered in the past? And they were unable to answer our questions. It just was unacceptable.
However compelling it may be to use any available weapon to protect oneâs homeland, nations in the rules-based international order have increasingly sought to draw a red line against use of weapons of mass destruction or weapons that pose a severe and lingering risk to noncombatants. Cluster munitions clearly fall into the second category.
There is one big caveat. The Ukrainians are giving permission to use these munitions on targets in their own country and therefore sanctioning any negative long-term repercussions this may have in their own country.
good one
