Is It Time For The U. S. To Exit NATO?

by Syme Antipathic
Posted on January 23, 2022June 9, 2023

Brussels Treaty Organization: Fear of Reprisal

One of the fears of post-World War II Europe was military retaliation by German forces, or their sympathizers, for its defeat. Exacerbating that fear were the ideological differences between democratic nations, such as Great Britain, France, and the Benelux countries, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Recall that the Soviet Union’s military forces advanced through eastern Europe into eastern Germany, and Berlin. A concern for western Europe was if they would return to their motherland. That concern was exacerbated by the division of post-war Berlin, and the Soviet Union’s refusal to abandon East Germany. The former nations through which the Soviet Union fought became socialist republics allied with the Soviet Union, largely through the decimation of democratic resistance leaders by German military occupiers during the war, and Joseph Stalin’s subsequent ruthless purges of pro-democracy survivors in the USSR’s western campaigns to defeat Germany.

From Brussels Treaty Organization to NAT to NATO

The United States joined the Brussels Treaty Organization (NATO’s predecessor) comprised of Great Britain, France, and the Benelux countries in 1949, which then became the North Atlantic Treaty. The Korean War provided the impetus for the North Atlantic Treaty signatories to construct an organization with an integrated military structure. Thus, NATO was born.

Not to be undone by a western European hegemony, the Soviet Union created a mutual defense treaty with the former central and eastern European countries, now socialist republics, commonly called the Warsaw Pact. Ironically, the only military aggression by the Warsaw Pact was against one of its own members, Czechoslovakia.

Western Europe feared a return of German militarism fomented by the USSR, and the eastern socialist republics. The USSR feared a return of German militarism fomented by signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty. An interesting standoff. Mutual distrust between European countries, including central and eastern Europe, and Russia still exists.

As the influence of the USSR waned, the Warsaw Pact began to erode. It was finally dissolved in 1991, essentially by mutual consent, and the imminent demise of the Soviet Union.

While NATO military forces were never used on the European continent during the Cold War, military forces under NATO auspices have been deployed using military force in varying roles since 1991.

Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea

Russia and Three Oceans

Arguably, except for Napoleon’s France, and Hitler’s Germany, many of Russia’s altercations with its neighbors have been over access to navigable waters. Although it has the distinction of being one of two countries that have borders on three oceans. Two of them, the northern Pacific and Arctic, present shipping difficulties in winter. The third, the Atlantic Ocean, is only accessible through the Baltic and Black (and subsequently Mediterranean) Seas. Thus, access to the Atlantic is vulnerable to the political vagaries of states bordering the estuaries.

Crimea and Ukraine

Crimea is a peninsula connected to Ukraine by a narrow land bridge in the north, and separated from Russia in the east by a narrow straight that connects the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea. With a tumultuous past, it has seen Greek, Byzantine, Mongol, Ottoman, and Russian over-lordship. Russia wrested Crimea from the Ottoman Empire in 1783. In 1954, the USSR, under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

§ After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine (“the most Russian of the non-Russian Soviet Republics”) became an independent nation. Most of Crimea was declared an autonomous republic. Christopher Caldwell noted, “But while Crimea was administratively Ukrainian, it was culturally Russian.”¹ Treaties concluded at the breakup of the Soviet Union granted Russian naval forces continued access to Sevastopol (and the Black Sea), a seaport on the peninsula’s southwestern coast.

Taking advantage of the Ukrainian revolution of 2014, Russia, aided by pro-Russian separatists. and a Russian invasion force, annexed Crimea and Sevastopol as federal subjects of Russia. Of special interest are its numerous natural gas fields, and its strategic importance, geographically.

Crimean Brouhaha, Part Un: Russia v. et al

Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire fought a war with Russia (1853-1856) on the Crimean peninsula, from which Russia was forced to capitulate. Ironically, one of the grounds for disagreement between the belligerents was over the rights of Palestinian Christians, over which the Ottoman Empire had control. France promoted Roman Catholicism protectionism, while Russia promoted Eastern Orthodox interests. Perhaps the most immediate disagreements had their ground in the “Concert of Europe.”

Following the Napoleonic wars, the European heads-of-state strove to create a multi-national coalition, called the “Concert of Europe,” to offset fears of further Napoleonic-like aggression. Britain and post-Napoleonic France wanted a stable Ottoman Empire. Russia’s claim and aggression to re-annex Crimea threatened the stability of a nearly crumbling, and critically unstable, Ottoman Empire. In an attempt to buttress the Ottoman Empire, and maintain a stable “Concert of Europe,” Britain and France sided with the Ottomans.

Crimean Brouhaha, Part Deux: Russia v. NATO

One of the ironies of the present NATO-Russian tension is the similarity of the players to that of the nineteenth century. The primary difference is the strength (and resolve?) of the belligerents. One aspect that makes the tension more ominous is the availability of “tactical” nuclear weapons-on both sides.

As the political map of Ukraine, Crimea, and Russia stand right now, Russia’s only unfettered access to Crimea is across the Straight of Kerch. Russia completed a bridge across the span (11.8 miles) in 2018. Ukraine contends the design of the bridge is intentionally close to the strait’s water level to act as a barrier to maritime trade to Ukraine’s ports on the Sea of Azov.

It is possible that Russia’s presence on the Ukrainian border is part of a destabilization campaign aimed at Ukraine to gain a land-based corridor between Russia and the Crimean peninsula rather than over a vulnerable, and easily destroyed, bridge. Such access would allow a land-based natural gas pipeline between Crimea and Russia. Energy, it seems, is Putin’s strategic weapon for political coercion.

§ Arguably, as one of the least stable of the former Soviet Socialist Republics, Russia may also be trying to further destabilize Ukraine in order to re-annex it into the Russian sphere of influence.

NATO: A Contemporary “Concert of Europe?”

On the surface, the Ukrainian brouhaha is over Ukraine’s entry into NATO. Interestingly, there are reports that Ukraine, itself, is not interested in a NATO alliance, and that there are NATO signatories that also are uncertain or opposed to Ukrainian entry (which may be connected with energy-related Russian arm twisting). So, what’s the beef?

To me, it seems more like Ukrainian proponents (of which the U.S. is the major player) within NATO are arguing the point to weaken an ancient European nemesis–Russia–and the entrenched leadership in the United States is joining the fray like dogs joining in during a dog fight. Not because they truly want to, but because they enjoy the baying, gnashing, and destroying the pack’s victim without any real risk of becoming a target themselves.

The European continent has been at war with itself since Martin Luther. The U. S. joined in in World War I and World War I, Part II (also known as WWII). I suspect Wilson joined WWI to prevent a German-Austrian victory, and the hegemony it may have produced.

Aiding the European Allies in World War II was a no-brainer. If you think Joseph Stalin’s USSR, and his population purges were bad, the likely outcome of a German victory would have been at least as bad.

Although Stalin’s purges were abominable, they were politically motivated to secure his position. Make no mistake, they were abominable! Hitler’s purges were much more personal: Not to eliminate political opposition, but simply to eliminate ethnic groups because he thought them inferior to the Germanic ideal. After all, interbreeding with inferior races serve only to pollute the ideal, right?

The U. S. joining the Brussels Treaty Organization after WWII was a logical step, especially in light of the destruction of physical infrastructure throughout Europe, and the millions of displaced people due to Germany’s pogroms. Creating a military structure within the North Atlantic Treaty alliance, although understandable in the face of a perceivable, world-wide communist threat (USSR, China, and their satellites), may have been overreach. Nationally sponsored political bureaucracies rarely die of their own accord (perhaps the USSR being the only known exception). More often, they are eliminated by external forces.

Now, the U. S. Senate voted to approve the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO. The necessity of U. S. force projection onto a post-World War II continent destroyed militarily and economically by that war no longer exists. Is the U. S. going to be a co-conspirator in yet another conflict on the European continent, or shall we abstain? I vote we abstain. It may be time for the U. S. to reconsider the organization of the North Atlantic Treaty and withdraw from its integrated military command structure, as the French did in 1966 (although France reintegrated into the command structure in 2009).

Of course, it may be too late. Our political-security-intelligence-industrial complex may be too addicted to the power it craves to influence world events to abandon it. Conceivably, part of the corruption of absolute power may be the craving for more power.

(Added 1/25/2022)
Europe comprises about 10% of the world’s GDP. Asian nations contribute several orders of magnitude more. Many in leadership positions in the U. S. have target fixation over Russia. Why do we obsess over Russia? Could it be a generational memory thing? After all, the USSR (Russia’s political predecessor), Communist China, and communism were the enemy during the Cold War.

Nixon’s overtures to China, and the subsequent move on China’s part to allow a faux “free-market economy” seems to have removed China as a “communist threat.” After the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, only Russia remains as a “traditional” enemy. Yet, China’s unabashed goal is to replace the U. S. as the reserve currency leader, and institute a Chinese-led hegemony worldwide.

Russia seems to have a generational, perhaps national, inferiority complex. Peter the Great and Catherine the Great went to great lengths to “westernize” Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia became an also-ran on the world stage. Part of its aggression against former socialist republics in eastern and central Europe may be to recapture, thereby prove, its influence, and significance, in world affairs, especially Europe.

It may be that an inhibitor to Russian hegemony in Europe is for the United States to become an energy producer, again. It seems that Putin views energy strategically. If so, then one mechanism to reduce the threat of strategically-used energy is to create alternative energy sources. Were the U. S. to become an energy exporter, especially of natural gas, then Russia efforts to influence Europe through energy dependence would be greatly diminished.

Christopher Caldwell, “Complications of the Ukraine War,” Imprimis, Vol. 51, No. 9, September 2022.