A new monthly feature — I will go live the first Wednesday of every month (and more frequently if events warrant — to answer your questions and reflect on your thoughts.
I appreciate your call for a more European NATO, but this passage from an op-ed by Alexander Gabuev in today’s NYT about a recent German war game raises some questions:
"Once the U.S. president stood down, NATO was effectively deactivated: Absent America’s buy-in, allies couldn’t use the organization’s collective defense plans or command-and-control system. They could do little other than watch as Mr. Trump agreed to high-level talks with the Kremlin."
Cannot the U.S. as a member of NATO always sabotage efforts to respond to a future Russian attack in this manner, even if the organization becomes “more European”? Even worse, could Europeans use such a NATO to coordinate a defense against a U.S. invasion of Greenland, if it came to that? Or does Europe need to develop entirely separate institutions?
As structured today, with the US as the core — the skeleton and DNA — of NATO, it would be very difficult if not impossible to launch a coherent response if the US were to abstain from participating. That’s why it is necessary for Europeans collectively to replace the US at the core so they are no longer dependent on the US. That will take years — and would be much easier to do if the US cooperated in the effort.
As for the Greenland question, there are other structures (eg the JEF) that could take the lead in responding to a US attack on Greenland (and, legally, the EU treaty’s art 42.7 provides the basis for that). It won’t be as effective, but it would still be a response.
To your larger point, though, for 76 years NATO has been how Europe has thought about its security. The US was not only committed to that end, but critical to ensuring it. It won’t be easy to replace the US at the core of these efforts, but if Washington can no longer be trusted, it’s necessary to do so. Building a separate defense from scratch will, however, prove more difficult, more costly, and take longer than transforming NATO.
I understand that a byproduct of President Trump's actions toward our NATO allies should eventually result in a stronger NATO, one where the United States has a less powerful influence as NATO countries become stronger. This will indeed lend itself to a stronger NATO. Over the next 5 years I believe the incongruity in our long-held identity and our position in the new world order will be a difficult transition for our leaders which could cause a lack of harmony for quite some time both internally and globally.
Great initiative! I do have a question:
I appreciate your call for a more European NATO, but this passage from an op-ed by Alexander Gabuev in today’s NYT about a recent German war game raises some questions:
"Once the U.S. president stood down, NATO was effectively deactivated: Absent America’s buy-in, allies couldn’t use the organization’s collective defense plans or command-and-control system. They could do little other than watch as Mr. Trump agreed to high-level talks with the Kremlin."
Cannot the U.S. as a member of NATO always sabotage efforts to respond to a future Russian attack in this manner, even if the organization becomes “more European”? Even worse, could Europeans use such a NATO to coordinate a defense against a U.S. invasion of Greenland, if it came to that? Or does Europe need to develop entirely separate institutions?
As structured today, with the US as the core — the skeleton and DNA — of NATO, it would be very difficult if not impossible to launch a coherent response if the US were to abstain from participating. That’s why it is necessary for Europeans collectively to replace the US at the core so they are no longer dependent on the US. That will take years — and would be much easier to do if the US cooperated in the effort.
As for the Greenland question, there are other structures (eg the JEF) that could take the lead in responding to a US attack on Greenland (and, legally, the EU treaty’s art 42.7 provides the basis for that). It won’t be as effective, but it would still be a response.
To your larger point, though, for 76 years NATO has been how Europe has thought about its security. The US was not only committed to that end, but critical to ensuring it. It won’t be easy to replace the US at the core of these efforts, but if Washington can no longer be trusted, it’s necessary to do so. Building a separate defense from scratch will, however, prove more difficult, more costly, and take longer than transforming NATO.
Thank you, Ivo, for that thoughtful reply. I will think on it for a while.
I’ll have more to say on this on Wednesday’s Ask Ivo
Great, I’ll try to tune in!
I understand that a byproduct of President Trump's actions toward our NATO allies should eventually result in a stronger NATO, one where the United States has a less powerful influence as NATO countries become stronger. This will indeed lend itself to a stronger NATO. Over the next 5 years I believe the incongruity in our long-held identity and our position in the new world order will be a difficult transition for our leaders which could cause a lack of harmony for quite some time both internally and globally.