The North Atlantic Treaty Organization came into being on April 4, 1949, in Washington, DC. NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, described its purpose with rare candor: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”1
Today, some 67 years after the signing of the treaty and 77 years after the war that precipitated it, it is time to take a hard look at NATO and reach an inevitable conclusion—_it has to go._
The geopolitical enemies that justified the creation of NATO—National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union—have long since disappeared from the world stage. They have been replaced by new threats, both conventional and unconventional, that cannot be adequately faced through NATO and are, indeed, exacerbated by NATO’s antiquated defense orientation. There is a great deal of truth to Richard Sakwa’s caustic assessment that Washington is trapped in a “fateful geographical paradox—that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence.”2
For the good of the United States and our allies in Europe, NATO must be dismantled and replaced with a new, updated organization prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
The Origins of “Atlanticism”
NATO, like most treaties, is inescapably a product of its time. The Atlanticist school of thought was based on the idea of a strategic bond between the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe.3 But this no longer has the hard geopolitical grounding it did in the days of the Interwar and Cold War periods. There is no longer a hostile superpower on the eastern edge of the Atlantic sphere. And the familiar binary of “Freedom vs. Socialism” is no longer a useful model for describing the ideological and political divisions in today’s world.
Reality has moved on, but Atlanticism has stayed put.
1. Hitler’s Germany
Adolf Hitler’s Germany was the main threat to Atlanticist (that is, British, French, and American) power up until the end of the Second World War in 1945. Despite Germany’s leniency towards retreating British forces in the early days of the war, and its attempts at a reconciliation with London, Churchill’s Britain was fundamentally unable to accept a peace agreement.4
The continuation of the war required a willing ally in the United States, provided by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Lend-Lease and the Atlantic Charter of 1941 were early indications of this Atlantic alignment against continental power (centered in Berlin). The “Allies” coalition and United Nations followed, and were crystallized in postwar NATO. The Atlantic Charter was ratified by Washington and London on August 14, 1941—months before the attack on Pearl Harbor and the United States’ full entrance into the war. Lend-Lease, which supplied materiel to the UK, France, China, and Soviet Union, was begun even earlier, in March of that year. While Lend-Lease demonstrated Washington’s commitment to defeating Germany, the Atlantic Charter outlined the Atlanticist vision of the world after the war: free trade, freedom of the seas, “self-determination” of individual nation-states (with echoes of The League of Nations and Woodrow Wilson), and global cooperation for social welfare and the disarmament of “aggressor states.”5
While the Allies were assembled primarily to defeat Germany, NATO was designed to keep it defeated. And after near-total physical destruction in 1944–45, the replacement of existing German political institutions with U.S.-created ones, and an extensive policy of “de-nazification,” West Germany became a U.S. protectorate. (An analogous process with East Germany occurred in the Soviet sphere.) Put bluntly, Germany was humiliated, divided, and neutered. And even after reunification in 1990, it has never presented a real threat to Washington’s objectives.
2. Stalin’s Russia
While Germany inspired NATO’s precursors, Stalin’s Soviet Union inspired NATO itself.6 After extensive cooperation with the Atlantic powers during the Second World War, the USSR became the chief competitor to the United States, Britain, and France immediately following 1945. In the wake of the annihilation of Hitler’s Germany, the Soviet Union became such a threat that the Allies developed a contingency plan “to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire.”7 Though this plan remained unimplemented due to its low odds of success—and potentially catastrophic consequences—the geopolitical balance of power between the two superpowers (the U.S. and the USSR) was set in stone for the next four decades. The Cold War had begun.
Predictable economic, political, and moral problems eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the chaotic period of 1989–91.8 The Russian Federation, the legal successor state to the USSR, was half the size of its predecessor in population. American interests quickly waged economic war on a weakened Russia, manipulated major elections9, and expanded the influence of NATO and U.S.-backed organizations like the European Union, all the way into former Soviet states on Russia’s border.
In February 1990—after the Berlin Wall had been dismantled but before the Soviet Union had dissolved—Washington and Moscow negotiated the reunification process for Germany. West Germany would effectively absorb East, and the new state would enter NATO; however, James Baker (George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State) offered “ironclad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward,” according to declassified transcripts.10
Baker’s “Not one inch eastward” was a promise Washington was unwilling to keep. By the turn of the century, NATO membership had been offered to Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, followed a few years later by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. This was accompanied by NATO’s “humanitarian” bombing campaign in Yugoslavia (a traditional Russian ally), and Washington’s attempts, in conjunction with various non-governmental organizations, to inspire changes of regime in various countries in the former Soviet sphere (the “Color Revolutions”).11
It is understandable that Russian foreign-policy makers view NATO, not as a “defensive” organization, but as one bent on encircling Russia, perhaps even engaging in regime change in Moscow. Moreover, despite the American and Western European media’s depiction of Russian military activity in Ukraine and Syria as “aggressive,” the geopolitical reality is that they are last-ditch attempts to prevent U.S. encroachment into Russia’s remaining circle of influence around its own borders and few foreign military bases. A Russian invasion of Western Europe, let alone the American mainland, is the stuff of a fever dream or Hollywood blockbuster.
New Enemies, New Threats
While Germany has been remade into a vassal and Russia, displaced from superpower status12, threats to the United States and Europe have not subsided—they’ve multiplied. The new threats do not come from traditional European great powers, however, but from a number of non-European states and unconventional non-state actors. History has not ended, as Francis Fukyama imagined in the 1990s13, but has taken unforeseen and unpredictable turns.
1. The Specter of Radical Islam
The morning of September 11, 2001, marked a turning point in America’s place in the world. Radical Islamic terrorism— inspired by Wahhabi Islam out of Saudi Arabia—established itself as a major threat to Western hegemony and set the stage for the next decade of American foreign policy.14
Islamic terrorism, as it is understood today, did not exist during the creation of NATO in 1949, and was effectively unthinkable. Arab states spent the Cold War mostly aligned with the atheist Soviet Union, and they flirted with secular pan-Arab nationalism (the Ba-ath Party, founded in 1947 and existing to this day, being a prime example). It was not until the late 1970s that the seeds of contemporary Islamic terrorism were sown, ironically, largely by the U.S. and its NATO allies.15
Even before the Soviet Union’s ill-advised entrance into Afghanistan in 1979, Washington had funded and trained radical Muslim insurgents in the region.16 During the 10-year Soviet-Afghan War, the U.S. used these non-state actors (“the Mujahideen”) as pawns to be played against a greater power. It was a strategy with terrible unintended consequences, as the networks and individuals (which included none other than Osama bin Laden) would soon exchange one “Great Satan” for another.
After two major U.S. wars in the Muslim world and an international “War on Terror” that has stretched on more than a decade, radical Islamism has not been defeated; it has exploded. Buoyed and supported discreetly by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Western (particularly U.S.) intelligence agencies playing fast-and-loose with Islamic proxy groups, Islamic terrorists have attained a greater position than ever before. This dangerous strategy is particularly obvious in the current Syrian war.
Their reach is evidenced by more frequent, more violent, and more brazen attacks on civilian and military targets in France, Germany, Belgium, and the U.S. mainland, such as the recent atrocities committed in Paris, Nice, and San Bernardino. NATO’s conventional military structure is ill suited for dealing with non-state threats like these, to put it mildly. Garrisons stretched across the European continent—which made NATO powerful in confronting the Soviet Union—are close to useless in addressing the challenge of Islamic terrorism.
2. Turkey—A Dangerous Ally
In 1951, Turkey joined NATO as a junior partner. Today, an increasingly Islamist and assertive Turkey, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, dreams of re-creating the Ottoman Empire.17 Erdogan’s moves have directly supported and emboldened radical Islamic terrorist groups, destabilized the Middle East, and threatened the safety of millions of Europeans who are supposedly under U.S. protection.
Turkey’s substantial support of the Islamic State (IS) and other criminal groups in Syria is an open secret.18 Moreover, Turkey’s complicity in the 2015–16 “refugee” crisis continues to endanger Europeans and Americans. Its control over the flow of millions of non-European migrants who want to reach Europe is an unacceptable bargaining chip that has corroded European sovereignty and security. Ankara has exploited its geographic location, promising to cut the refugee flow for billions of Euros in aid and accelerated EU membership talks.19 Attempts by Turkey to reassert its erstwhile dominance over the Balkan Peninsula (which includes Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, and Greece) can be expected if NATO remains as it is.
3. Managing the Rise of China
Enmeshed in a brutal civil war until 1950, China was not an immediate threat to U.S. or European interests, despite the eventual victory of Mao Zedong’s Communist forces over the nationalist Kuomintang and the alignment of China with the Soviet Union.
China’s fortunes turned around considerably in the 1970s under the reign of Deng Xiaoping, following the death of Chairman Mao. China was on the rise as early as 1971–72, with the transfer of the permanent Chinese seat on the United Nations Security Council from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the People’s Republic of China and U.S. President Richard Nixon’s famous “visit to China.”20
Today, with the world’s largest population, China’s economy is greater than the United States by some measures.21 The Chinese leadership is putting its newfound might to use militarily, testing their reach in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
Speculation about a Chinese superpower has not been unfounded. Though economic relations are good and military confrontation is unlikely, China’s trajectory puts it on a direct collision course with the U.S. presence in Asia, in the form of military installations in Japan and South Korea. Indeed, being that America and China have achieved such economic interdependence —a relationship commonly known as “Chimerica”–Washington should seriously consider continuing such a presence, which can only be viewed by Beijing as a threat or expression of superiority.
Chinese intelligence operations and cyber-warfare will only intensify in the United States and NATO-aligned countries as time goes on. Much as with terrorism, NATO is neither equipped nor designed to deal with this kind of threat coming from this region of the world.
4. The Collapse of Mexico
Mexico has never been a paragon of stability and security, but the total collapse of the Mexican state and surrender to narco-terrorists and drug cartels in the last 20 years is unprecedented. With a relatively unguarded 2,000-mile border with the United States, Mexico’s colossal drug trade and the associated violence have spilled over into the U.S.22 Such chaos has rendered some areas of the United States effectively controlled by Mexican drug cartels, according to local law enforcement.23 This violation of national sovereignty should be of paramount concern, but goes unaddressed, while Washington pursues spectacular boondoggles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
The outdated, Eurasian orientation of NATO has more than a little to do with this failure of defense policy. The threat posed by non-state actors in Mexico to the United States homeland is not just outside the bounds of NATO but unrecognizable to it. Without a major change in defense and foreign policy, particularly policy regarding NATO, incursions across the U.S. border will only increase without any way for U.S. defense forces to reorient themselves away from Eurasia and towards Central America.
In the seven decades since the formation of NATO, the greatest threats to U.S. and European security have shifted from Russia and Germany to the Middle East, China, and Mexico. The dissolution of NATO would require a new treaty or set of treaties to formalize a foreign policy current with the latest geopolitical developments.
This new defense orientation would require the following three key principles.
1. Cooperation with Russia
American policy towards Russia since 1991 has consistently been one of aggression, typically cloaked under the guises of economic and political “development.” Based largely off Cold War inertia, this policy culminated in the 2013–14 U.S.-backed coup in neighboring Ukraine, which threw the country into chaos and prompted a military response from Russia.24
The threat of nuclear war—Russia inherited the Soviet Union’s entire arsenal—precludes an attempt to intimidate or force Russia into submission. The threats from Islamic terrorism, a rising Turkey, and an ascendant China require cooperation with the only significant power in the region with major exposure to all three—Russia.
Recognition of the changes in the security situation since 1949 requires sincere cooperation with Russia and the cession of Russia’s traditional sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, the Caucuses, and Central Asia. A stable power equilibrium will need to be reached to defend against external threats common to both the U.S. and Russia.
2. Reviving Western Europe
Western Europe has depended heavily on the U.S. military for defense since the end of the Second World War. Size and spending of the U.S. military dwarf those of Washington’s closest European allies and former colonial powers.25
With the Soviet Union broken up and Russia returned to its traditional status, it is time to also break up the unnecessary American “empire” in Europe. The dissolution of NATO must send a strong message to Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and the rest of Europe that they must defend themselves.
The defense of Europe from Soviet Communism required tremendous American might and a unified military command, but the threats faced by Europe today require strong national militaries, intelligence services, and borders. Cooperation between the U.S., Europe, and Russia must be done on the basis of sovereign states with mutual interests, not clients servicing behemoths and far-off imperial capitals.
Europeans, in turn, must get tough and recognize that the American shield they have lived under for some 70 years will, eventually, vanish, due to Washington’s unwillingness to maintain Cold War-era military structures or its bankruptcy.
3. An Eye to Common Threats
The threats to Atlantic security outlined above—Islamic terrorism, Turkey, and China—also directly threaten the states of Europe and Russia. (Mexico is a North American problem.)
Europe and Russia26 are prime targets of Islamic radicals in the Middle East, both due to interventions in the Middle East and large, troubling Muslim minorities at home that provide safe haven to terrorists. Russia’s bipolar relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey is well-known, as is Europe’s combative and losing diplomatic war against him. China, though a tentative ally of Russia, is eyeing sparsely-populated Siberia.27 Chinese money flows freely into Europe, buying property and influence.
A post-NATO U.S. foreign policy needs to be based on countering the common threats faced by the U.S., our European allies, and the Russian Federation.
The change in the geopolitical situation since 1991 demands the dissolution of NATO and a common pan-European defense policy that allows the United States, Europe, and Russia to work as allies against clear and rising threats from across the globe, rather than repeat the unsustainable and outdated dynamics of the Cold War.
While the 20th century might have demanded NATO, the 21st century requires something very different. In this regard, it’s helpful to return to Lord Ismay’s famous trinity of “out,” “down,” and “in.” The U.S. needs to keep, not Russians, but Islamic radicals out of Europe. The Germans do not need to be kept down, but the Turks and Chinese most certainly do. And it’s debatable whether America needs to be in Europe at all.
Originally published at Radix Journal.
- Jospeh Nye, The Paradox of American Power (London: Oxford University Press, 2002), 33. ↩︎
- Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands (London: I.B.Tauris, 2015), 4. ↩︎
- Tim Dunne, “‘When the shooting starts’”: Atlanticism in British security strategy,” International Affairs, Vol. 80, October 2004, 893–909. DOI: 10.1111/j. ↩︎
- Benjamin Schwarz, ”Rethinking Negotiation With Hitler,” New York Times, November 24, 2000, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/25/arts/rethinking-negotiation-with-hitler.html. ↩︎
- Douglas Brinkley and David Facey-Crowther (Eds.), The Atlantic Charter, The World of the Roosevelts (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994). ↩︎
- “A Short History of NATO,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html. ↩︎
- David Reynolds, From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006), 250. ↩︎
- Leon Aron, “Everything You Think You Know About the Collapse of the Soviet Union Is Wrong,” Foreign Policy, June 20, 2011, accessed October 1, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/. ↩︎
- Michael Kramer, “Rescuing Boris: The Secret Story of How Four U.S. Advisors Used Polls, Focus Groups, Negative Ads and All the Other Techniques of American Campaigning to Help Boris Yeltsin Win,” Time, July 15, 1996, Vol. 148, Issue 4, accessed October 1, 2016, http://people.bu.edu/tboas/Kramer.pdf. ↩︎
- Mary Elise Sarotte, “Not One Inch Eastward? Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher, Gorbachev, and the Origin of Russian Resentment toward NATO Enlargement in February 1990,” Diplomatic History, Vo. 34, No. 1, January 2010. Joshua Shifrinson, ““Not an Inch East”: How the West Broke Its Promise to Russia,” November 3, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, http://russia-insider.com/en/germany_military_politics_ukraine_opinion/2014/11/05/04–31–59pm/not_inch_east_how_west_broke_its. ↩ ↩︎
- See Andrew Korybko, “Hybrid Wars: Syria & Ukraine,” Oriental Review, March 11, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, http://orientalreview.org/2016/03/11/hybrid-wars–2-testing-the-theory-syria-and-ukraine/. ↩︎
- Ashley Wiederhold, “Russia: Not The Super Power It Once Was,” World Policy Journal, World Policy Institute, April 25, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/04/25/russia-not-super-power-it-once-was. ↩︎
- Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992). ↩︎
- George Friedman, “9/11 and the 9-Year War,” Stratfor Geopolitical Weekly, Stratfor Enterprises, September 8, 2010, accessed October 1, 2016, https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100907_911_and_9_year_war. ↩︎
- Deepak Tripathi, Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamic Terrorism (Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2011). ↩︎
- Robert Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 145–46. ↩︎
- Ishaan Tharoor, “Why Turkey’s President Wants to Revive the Language of the Ottoman Empire,” Washington Post, December 12, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/12/why-turkeys-president-wants-to-revive-the-language-of-the-ottoman-empire/. ↩︎
- Nafeez Ahmed, “The elephant in NATO’s room: state-sponsorship of Daesh,” Medium, July 22, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/turkeys-secret-pact-with-islamic-state-exposed-by-operative-behind-wave-of-isis-attacks–6b35d1d29e18#.nu9tjjkv7. ↩︎
- “EU, Turkey: In Search of a Lasting Migrant Deal,” Stratfor, June 9, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/eu-turkey-search-lasting-migrant-deal. ↩︎
- Margaret MacMillan, Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World (New York: Random House, 2007). ↩︎
- Ben Carter, “Is China’s Economy Really the Largest in the World?” BBC News, British Broadcasting Corporation, December 16, 2014, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine–30483762. ↩︎
- Yelena Tuzova, “Cartels at war: Mexico’s drug-fueled violence and the threat to US national security,” Small Wars & Insurgencies, Vol. 24, Issue 4, 2013, 769–70. ↩︎
- Jerry Seper and Matthew Cella, “Signs in Arizona Warn of Smuggler Dangers,” Washington Times, August 31, 2010, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/31/signs-in-arizona-warn-of-smuggler-dangers/. ↩︎
- Conn Hallinan, “NATO’s Dangerous Game: Bear-Baiting Russia,” Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies, May 2, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, http://fpif.org/natos-dangerous-game-bear-baiting-russia/. ↩︎
- Adam Taylor and Laris Karklis, “This Remarkable Chart Shows How U.S. Defense Spending Dwarfs the Rest of the World,” Washington Post, February 9, 2016, accessed October 1, 2016, http://fpif.org/natos-dangerous-game-bear-baiting-russia/. ↩︎
- Gillis, Charlie. “Unwanted Exposure.” Maclean’s 127.2 (2014): 28–29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Sept. 2016. ↩︎
- Frank Jacobs, “Why China Will Reclaim Siberia,” International New York Times, January 13, 2015, accessed October 1, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia. ↩︎
Outstanding article. Hope some of the geniuses in DC pay attention to at least some of these points
All of this should have been implemented in 1990.
The United States could have the foreign policy of a large Switzerland and 98% of Americans would be better off. But the 2% who benefit by the existence of the Empire are in control of American foreign and military policy. If the rest of Europe cannot cope with what passes for the Russian threat these days after 300 years of dealing with Russia (I count modern Russia from the time of Peter the Great) it never will be able to cope–no North American involvement is justified. Similarly the low level threat of China to South Korea and Japan is a matter for the Koreans and the Japanese to handle–there’s no need for U.S. involvement. Muslims cannot hurt anyone unless they are permitted into the country and that is a domestic immigration/visa issuance policy–the U.S. involvement in the Middle East is serving Israeli, not American interests. The U.S. faces an existential question of whether it will remain primarily a country of the descendants of European settlers and immigrants, or whether it will be transformed into a North American version of Brazil. Foreign involvement is a diversion from this overriding issue.
Is it going to happen? No.
“The morning of September 11, 2001, marked a turning point in America’s
place in the world. Radical Islamic terrorism— inspired by Wahhabi Islam
out of Saudi Arabia—established itself as a major threat to Western
hegemony and set the stage for the next decade of American foreign
“Not The Onion.”
You know its realy funny that one of the linked articles i see here is “Flynn did nothing wrong”.
Have you read Flynns book? Did anyone here?
I’ve read some of the content from the book and it’s intellectually retarded. If anyone in the alt right thinks “radical islam” is a threat they are delusional. This whole radical islam threat is a Zionist/neocon narrative.
Of course muslim immigration is bad, but why is it happening? Zionist/neocon wars plus government immigration policy is to blame, not “radical islam”. These people aren’t a threat if they are in their own countries. All we have to do is stop this invade,invite the world ideology.
I’d also like to add that I’m glad the author (s?) mentioned the failed state of Mexico and its drain on America. The Mexican Question and the wide open border was an issue recognized by Paul Kennedy 30 years ago in his Rise and Fall of the Great Powers! Kennedy said America was unique among modern great powers in having a large, basket case country right next door that caused immense headaches in the form of unstable governments, a poor economy, and a constant influx of uneducated, poor immigrants.
Excellent essay with a solid realpolitik outlook rather than humanitarian nonsense that passed fore great power strategy over the past 25 years.
Rapprochement with Russia is needed. Russia is more of a natural ally with America than it is with China, as the article mentions Russia and China have ongoing and centuries old land disputes in the Amur Region of Siberia. America must think in terms of Bismarckian foreign policy, since there are now three great powers in the world (America, Russia, China) with Europe perhaps being counted as a fourth power. Bismark always wanted to be in the stronger and greater alliance. After Bismarck died, Germany was pushed into a weaker alliance with Austria-Hungary and Turkey. America must avoid Germany’s mistake and seek an alliance with Russia. Make no mistake, a Euro-American alliance contra Russia and China will be the weaker bloc in the long run. We must peel Russia off from China and guarantee Russian sovereignty in the Far East.
But we have to be realistic about Russia. There are still some potential flashpoints that could arise in Europe. Primarily in the Baltic states where there are large Russian populations. Agreements will need to be made respecting both Baltic sovereignty and Russian minority rights.
The state of the German Bundeswehr is pathetic and the Germans spend less than 1 percent of GDP on defense. Trump needs to tell Merkel that this will have to increase to 2 percent of GDP spending on defense. If Europe has to spend more on defense, that means less money for Muslim invaders and the migrants will be sent home.
Turkey is not an ally. Let Turkey go hang out with her ally the Jews and see how well things work out. Obviously Israel was ignored in this piece and the needs of Our Greatest Ally color any decisions that are made in this piece.
” Russia is more of a natural ally with America than it is with China,”
Why? Cause the white russians look kinda like you or what?
Russia is Asia, not the West. I urge you to live in russia for a while.
China is diametrically opposed to American interests and allies (Japan, South Korea, Phillipines) in the Pacific. Duterte even lashed out at the USA and wants an alliance with China. That may change now that Trump is President, I can see him solidifying relations with Duterte and the Philippines.
America really has no beef with Russia’s recognized borders. China does, China wants the Amur region back, it was essentially stolen from them in the 19th Century. Russia and China allying with each other is as weird as Austria and Italy allying before WWI.
China is opposed to american interests, that doesn’t make the Russians an Ally.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Realist foreign policy. Not idealistic pie in the sky.
The enemy of my enemy is often my enemy too. Russia and China are not enemies. They are two asiatic dictatorships where human life has no value and they hate you both. Read some dostoevsky. They despise you for your pandering.
I don’t care that Russia is a Eurasian dictatorship. Do you think the French and British cared in WWI? You sound like a Jewish neocon with your “muh human life.”
The fact is that America has no designs on Siberia. China does. That makes America a stronger partner for an alliance with Russia than China. We also have no reason to oppose Russian influence in places like Belarus and the Crimea.
The article answered the question of keeping Russia out of Western and Central Europe. Europe needs to spend money to defend itself rather than housing migrants. If Western Europe isn’t willing to spend money to defend itself, then they probably will fall under the Russian sphere. Because history shows that the weak are not long to survive in great power military and diplomatic strategy.
Read some dostoevsky and stop larping, there is nothing in it for you.
That’s a naïve maxim, ISIS and Iran are enemies yet neither are our friend.
I’m opposed to American ”interests”…so what? China is doing what most countries before have done…and they know their history(Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion) other than some bullshit narrative of WWII.
The reason Russia and China are allies is due to American hostility to both.
You are dealing with either (((one of them))) or their fake natsoc ukie lackeys.
“Hello fellow White people….”
“Hellow fellow White people…”
As much as frustrated westerners love to larp about an alliance with russia, there is no such thing. Russias grievances with the west are endless. If its not NATO pushing its borders(on demand) to the countries russia considers its sphere of influence, meaning vassals, its something else. Russia is in the Land empire dilemma where an empire with massive land borders and traditional enemies always needs to push its frontier further. Also people who daydream about these things don’t know the social culture of the average russian and should from time to time visit the chatrooms of russian nationalist plattforms, where they dream about occupying europe and ruling it in their asian fashion, because westerners are weak and unworthy of life regardless their tolerance for gays and such.
Its exactly this kind of meaningless daydreaming that pushes the Altright into the focus of FBI counter-espionage messures and rightly so.
Here’s why an American alliance with Russia makes more sense than a Russo-Chinese alliance. We have no beef with Russia’s recognized borders, and over time we would probably recognize Russian possession of Crimea in exchange for some strong concessions and guarantees from the Russians.
China sees empty and erstwhile Chinese land in Siberia that it wants back.
“in exchange for some strong concessions and guarantees from the Russians.”
A thug like Putin has nothing but contempt for the people who believe his own lies. You can’t pander to them, you can’t get guarantees from them, you will be confronted with a bloc that hates you and one day will make demands about giving back Alaska. There is nothing to win in this for you.
“you will be confronted with a bloc that hates you and one day will make demands about giving back Alaska”
Look how fast you hit the end of your own imagination when dealing with such issues. The russians are active in south america and build anti-western alliances around the world and you are not able to grasp their way of thinking or their long term strategy.
You didn’t answer the question. And you haven’t proposed any bloc of nations to take on Russia and China. Easy to advocate a neocon solution for a third Cold War from a keyboard, not so easy to deal with the consequences. See the Iraq War.
I don’t answer your phony question cause its not even a question, its some low-tier rhetorical play to push this issue down to a basic identity level where you can’t objectivly judge issues cause they all need to have some sort of explanation in being an ukrainian or neocon-jew. The next point you are trying to make is the one of the protection money racketeer, where the threat consequences are painted more horrible then the case they shall prevent. Overall youre not able to understand these matters and yet you bring in another case youre not able to grasp, the iraq war, to make another phony point which is basicly just virtue signaling.
“its some low-tier rhetorical play to push this issue down to a basic identity level”
Everyone I have ever seen express Russophobia to the degree you exhibit has been one of three things.
A. Neocon Jew whose ancestors were Pogrommed.
B. Ukrainian whose ancestors/cousins were/are fucked over by the Russians.
C. Useful Idiot of Neocon Jews like Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
Its not likely you’re A so I’m going with B or C.
So the ideological base for your daydreaming and countersignaling me can be broken down to ‘my privilege’ and -phobia. Also you disprove your own arguments by acknowledging that the Russians fucked over the Ukrainians, their slavic bretheren, which shows that you can’t make appeasing deals with them and they will fuck you over.
Also the sowing of constant paranoia is something populare among russian social engineers.
“Also you disprove your own arguments by acknowledging that the Russians fucked over the Ukrainians”
I said in my original post that we need to be realistic about Russian intentions. I have no illusions that Russia is some noble ally of America. But Ukraine should not get in the way of a possible rapprochement with great power Russia. Allowing stupid issues in a backwater like the Ukraine to prevent an understanding with Russia is the very definition of foreign policy idealism based on garbage humanitarian concerns that typified the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years.
You know, the toppled President of Ukraine Yanukovych made some deals with Royal Dutch Shell company about natural gas exploitation in ukraine which would supply western europe with natural gas independent of russian pipelines, undermining russias possibilities to blackmail europe over their energy supplies. Other then that Ukraine was a wrecked state before Putin got his hands on crimea, but there is no such thing as a backwater anymore. Yet you are ready to throw the white slavs of ukraine under the bus to appease the asiatic hordes of russia who literaly send mongolic mercs to kill them so that their oligarchs don’t loose their energy market position.
You’re not looking at the big picture. Ukraine is not as important as fixing our terrible relationship with Russia.
Hitler wasn’t going to sacrifice an alliance with Mussolini over some of his own Germans in the South Tyrol. Hitler was prepared to move the South Tyroleans.
Kennedy wasn’t happy with the Berlin Wall, but understood that it was probably a good solution because it prevented nuclear war, preserved the status quo, and provided good optics for the West.
If Kennedy or Hitler had your mentality and were so rigid in their outlook they would have utterly failed at statecraft and forming alliances.
“If Kennedy, Kissinger, or Hitler had your mentality… they would have utterly failed”
Isn’t that why we are here in the first place? xD
So what is your nationality Para State? I don’t mean passport. But your blood nationality, your ancestral homeland and your ancestral religion?
It’s easy. And very relevant to your posts.
Funny I meet Russians all the time, and have been there, and been to Ukraine three times on extended stays and I don’t see lots of these Mongolic Russians you claim (though they are there).
My money is on Ukranian and after that I’d go with Yid. But if your a Yid we know you would never tell us as the Yids thrive in the dark, slivering around on their greasy bellies.
Ofcourse your money, that you just lost, is on ukrainian or jew or ukrainian jew, cause youre a dumbass and your ideology makes you highly disfunctional when it comes to the basics of human nature and politics.
Most posters here don’t have a problem revealing their ethnic background. Spencer posted his 23 and Me. But you signal against identitarian arguments on an identitarian site. Quite strange.
From the whole debate we just had going on you could have learned that Spencers phantasies about a white roman empire is a load of horseshit and doesn’t mean anything to him, that he just panders to the russians who attack the white ukrainians while their goons in syria wear Hezbollah badges on their uniforms, but still you can’t get over the meaningless topic of my ethnic background, which makes, as i said, this ideology of pseudo-identitarianism highly disfunctional. You don’t make identitarian arguments, you bring the very same instant arguments you find in subversive russian active messures manuals and who are the same in every language spoken in the spheres they were ment to subvert.
Guilty as charged! I’m a Russian agent like Trump! And if ethnic background is meaningless, why are so many commentators on TV Jewish? That doesnt matter either, right?
I didn’t say you were a russian agent and i would never claim Trump was one. Agents accusing others to be the real agents is something the russians do since the Ochrana. But you don’t know that, you don’t know how they think or work and thats why you just dig yourself deeper into a hole untill someone puts a lid on it. The reaction a patriot would show is to point out the real russian agents instead of doing exactly what the russians would want, meaning thinking the liberals must realy hate russia and so the right has to play footsy with them to create leverage against the left. But hey, who needs that when we can circle jerk about 23 and me all day.
Why not just answer the question? I mean, if I were talking to a parrot I would want to know. Who you are is totally relevant to what you say. If you don’t realize that you are in the wrong place. You see, we took the red pill and your Jew semantics don’t work on us. We are immunized. Back to the yeshiva with you and air fucking the wailing wall.
Cause an answer is meaningless cause i just can make up everything. Yet it is something clowns like you revel on cause you can avoid the points i make this way without losing face to your purity signaling co-drones.
A is obviously the most likely and almost absolutely certain. He’s claimed multiple different ethnicities on different occasions. Quite the shapeshifter.
BTW, there is no such thing as an “ukrainian” nation, the region is Russian clay, period.
The Polish-Lithuanian Empire tried to split the Russian lands they occupied from the rest, Austro-Hungary and later the Bolcheviks (1922) took over this division politic.
The “ukrainian nationalists” pretends they are National-Socialists but they are really aligned with the (((NWO))).