Interesting article! I have some mixed feelings about NATO.
NATO is still relevant, if imperfect; nations might perceive strength in numbers. Maintaining alliances and pledging to Article 5 serves not only a functional purpose, but a symbolic one. It's important that we maintain communication and try to find solutions together, particularly during this uncertain time.
That being said, for NATO to continue functioning as a peacekeeping organization, it's imperative that other nations are willing to commit their forces on a scale equal to the U.S's. I think its function has devolved a bit from the original intentions behind Article 5.
I can't help but wonder if President Trump was advised to reconsider, or reconsidered the implications of turning his back on NATO (even if these implications were purely symbolic; I know many nations are extremely angry and concerned). It's also interesting to consider President Trump's complex relationship with President Putin, given NATO's inclusion of former Soviet States. I can't begin to predict how this will turn out, but it's certainly a murky situation.
Thanks for your response 2LT Galland! I agree with you 100% that NATO is still relevant. In fact, I would argue that it's as relevant now as its ever been in light of Russian aggression in Europe.
The most successful Alliance in history has been so successful because it has served as an actual deterrent against Soviet and now Russian aggression against NATO member nations. The additional benefits of the Alliance after the fall of the Soviet Union have served their purposes well in terms of enabling coalitions to take action against common threats outside the former Soviet Union as was so clearly demonstrated in the Balkans and after 9-11. But invoking Article 5 after the 9-11 attack to mutually defend the United States against a terrorist threat is very different than invoking Article 5 against a Russian Federation attack on a NATO member.
The credibility of the alliance is only as real as the willingness of the member nations to live up to their Article 5 commitments. This is where I believe the issue on relevancy is very real. It is also where I believe President Putin is working his hardest to erode the strength of the Alliance by pitting member nations against each other in areas such as refugee migration, trade, and defense policy. President Trump's lukewarm embrace of NATO has played very well into President Putin's intent and seemed to weaken the Alliance instead of strengthen it.
The U.S. and other NATO members must focus on those areas that will strengthen the Alliance and keep it relevant moving forward or risk playing into President Putin's intent to fracture NATO.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article! I have some mixed feelings about NATO.
ReplyDeleteNATO is still relevant, if imperfect; nations might perceive strength in numbers. Maintaining alliances and pledging to Article 5 serves not only a functional purpose, but a symbolic one. It's important that we maintain communication and try to find solutions together, particularly during this uncertain time.
That being said, for NATO to continue functioning as a peacekeeping organization, it's imperative that other nations are willing to commit their forces on a scale equal to the U.S's. I think its function has devolved a bit from the original intentions behind Article 5.
I can't help but wonder if President Trump was advised to reconsider, or reconsidered the implications of turning his back on NATO (even if these implications were purely symbolic; I know many nations are extremely angry and concerned). It's also interesting to consider President Trump's complex relationship with President Putin, given NATO's inclusion of former Soviet States. I can't begin to predict how this will turn out, but it's certainly a murky situation.
Respectfully,
2LT Galland
Thanks for your response 2LT Galland! I agree with you 100% that NATO is still relevant. In fact, I would argue that it's as relevant now as its ever been in light of Russian aggression in Europe.
ReplyDeleteThe most successful Alliance in history has been so successful because it has served as an actual deterrent against Soviet and now Russian aggression against NATO member nations. The additional benefits of the Alliance after the fall of the Soviet Union have served their purposes well in terms of enabling coalitions to take action against common threats outside the former Soviet Union as was so clearly demonstrated in the Balkans and after 9-11. But invoking Article 5 after the 9-11 attack to mutually defend the United States against a terrorist threat is very different than invoking Article 5 against a Russian Federation attack on a NATO member.
The credibility of the alliance is only as real as the willingness of the member nations to live up to their Article 5 commitments. This is where I believe the issue on relevancy is very real. It is also where I believe President Putin is working his hardest to erode the strength of the Alliance by pitting member nations against each other in areas such as refugee migration, trade, and defense policy. President Trump's lukewarm embrace of NATO has played very well into President Putin's intent and seemed to weaken the Alliance instead of strengthen it.
The U.S. and other NATO members must focus on those areas that will strengthen the Alliance and keep it relevant moving forward or risk playing into President Putin's intent to fracture NATO.