A Force For Good

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was created in 1949 by 12 countries to provide collective security against the Soviet Union.  

To this day NATO's stated purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military deterrence.

Following Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine previously non-aligned and neutral Finland and Sweden requested, hand-in-hand, membership in the alliance.  As a consequence, NATO has expanded and strengthened as a direct consequence of Putin's aggression.  

At the present time NATO has 32 member countries.  These countries, called NATO Allies, are sovereign states that come together through NATO to discuss political and security issues and make collective decisions by consensus

Article 5, which stands at the heart of NATO's founding says that an attack on any member of the alliance would be viewed as an attack on all.  If such an attack does occur, each member will take measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.  Article 5 has been invoked only once; following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  NATO came to America's aid.

It's good to have friends.

NATO's recent expansion does not inherently threaten world peace or risk nuclear war.  It is a defensive alliance  focused on deterring aggression and protecting member states.   Any new memberships are driven by the voluntary decisions of sovereign nations seeking security.  Ukraine is not a NATO member; a potential for future membership would naturally be conditioned  on meeting specific criteria and the consensus of existing allies.  NATO has always emphasized responsible management of geopolitical dynamics and conflict prevention.

Contrast that with Russia's annexation of Crimea and expansionist designs over countries that it has historically considered part of the Russian sphere of influence.  To be clear, the alliance's doctrine aligns with the core belief that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought; prioritizing deterrence in order to prevent conflicts.

NATO has successfully integrated Eastern European nations without triggering a major conflict demonstrating a capacity for responsible enlargement of the pact members.  NATO support for Ukraine is primarily defensive, aiming to enhance Ukraine's sovereignty.

NATO is not a monolithic organization and its membership doesn't always agree.  Such is the nature of a diverse membership of democracies, nonaligned nations and tolerance for differing points of view.  

On balance I believe that NATO has been good for Europe and good for Canada and the U.S.  It has been good for our economies and good for our defense forces.  It has been good for the world.

There is a minority that will take issue with my view; nevertheless, in a world with dangerously bad actors, in my opinion for 75 years NATO has been a force for good and it's better to be aligned with the good guys instead of the bad guys.

There will be a presidential election in November, the outcome of which portends the role of the US in the alliance and the security of democracies that form this alliance.  In case you missed it there is an unholy alliance of Russia, China and North Korea and Iran. 

NATO is a vital counterweight to the destabilizing influences of these unstable dictatorships.  It is as relevant to our security as the venerable (almost as old) B-52 bomber.  A deterrence and a force for good.

European Militaries Lag

From time to time I talk about military world events here.  That's what armchair generals do.  Besides, anyone with half a brain is entitled to an opinion about world events. This news interests me a great deal considering the world is a dangerous place.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that some of Europe's best known armed forces are paper tigers.  

The United Kingdom is home to only about 150 deployable tanks along with maybe as many as a dozen long-range artillery pieces.  If you can believe it, the Brits considered sourcing multiple rocket launchers from museums to upgrade and donate to Ukraine; an idea that was promptly abandoned.

France, a bigger spender, had less than 90 heavy artillery pieces; the equivalent to what Russia loses each and every month on the Ukraine battlefield.  

Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems.

Germany's army has an inventory of ammunition sufficient for two days of battle. 

All of this is evidence of the deplorable readiness of Europe's armies and dependence on the US for home defense.

To be clear, this is only one publication's summation and not all NATO members are created equal.  In aggregate, NATO forces are considered technologically superior to Russia. although NATO's ability to engage successfully in joint operations is untested.  The Ukraine conflict is evidence that a smaller, better managed force can give the Russians fits.

If Western European nations aren't willing to spend sufficiently to defend themselves, why should we?  Looks like Donald Trump was on to something when he leaned on NATO members who were not living up to their minimum 2% of GDP defense authorization commitment.

Anyway, read the entire article, linked above, for full context.  This is likely ground-shaking enough that you can find a public link to the story that gets you past the paywall. 

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was created in 1949 by 12 countries to provide collective security against the Soviet Union.  

Commonly recognized as deterrance.

To this day NATO's stated purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

The Secretary General concluded the NATO Summit held in Vilnius, Lithuania on Wednesday of last week.  And following the requisite amount of drama President Erdogan of Turkey relented and agreed to Sweden's application for membership to proceed.  Holdout nation Hungary also followed.

This is interesting on several levels.  First, since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has more than doubled in size to include 28 European countries, Canada and the U.S.  Finland came on board in April of this year with Sweden now to follow.  

Second, it is possible that Vladimir Putin calculated his unprovoked invasion of neighboring Ukraine would lead to the fracturing of NATO.  Nope.  Previously non-aligned and neutral Finland and Sweden requested, hand-in-hand, membership in the alliance.  As a consequence, NATO has expanded and strengthened as an outcome of Putin's (not the Russian people's) aggression.  

And since the last presidential election we've learned that the former guy was going to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the NATO alliance in his second term of office.  Inasmuch as he may win the 2024 election there is bipartisan legislation that will likely come to a floor vote before then which would nullify executive action of this nature; instead, requiring an act of Congress or the Senate to exit the alliance.

War and elections have consequences.

Anyway, Article 5, which stands at the heart of NATO's founding says that an attack on any member of the alliance would be viewed as an attack on all.  If such an attack does occur, each member will take measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.  Article 5 has been invoked only once; following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  NATO came to America's aid.

It's good to have friends.

NATO is not a monolithic organization and its membership doesn't always agree.  Such is the nature of a diverse membership of democracies, nonaligned nations and tolerance for differing points of view.  

On balance I believe that NATO has been good for Europe and good for Canada and the U.S.  It has been good for our economies and good for our defense forces.  It has been good for the world.

For sure there is a minority that will take issue with my view; nevertheless, in a world with dangerously bad actors, in my opinion for more than 70 years NATO has been a force for good and it's better to be aligned with the good guys instead of the bad guys.