NATO once served a valid purpose and did so admirably. That purpose, however, is long gone and with
it NATO’s reason for existence or, at least, the US’ reason for remaining a
member of NATO. Unfortunately, the mere
mention of the faintest possibility of the US exiting NATO seems to trigger
angst and panic among so many observers in Europe and the US.
Panic among European observers is especially ironic given
that so many in Europe despise the US to begin with and work to actively
undermine and obstruct any US action or desire.
Let’s examine some of the arguments against the US pulling
out of NATO.
Isolation.
Many seem to feel that pulling out of NATO would automatically lead to
the US being isolationists on the world stage.
This is ridiculous. Aside from
erasing our name from a piece of paper, we’re just talking about removing our
military presence from Europe. We would
still have extensive and intimate financial, trade, cultural, and scientific
interactions.
Russian Threat.
This argument has been forever laid to rest by the Ukraine war. If a single, small country with almost no
military to begin the war and a population a quarter the size of Russia can
fight Russia to a standstill, albeit with significant munitions resupply help
from the West, then the Russian threat is overblown to the point of
irrelevance.
Political Balance.
Some suggest that the US presence balances political and territorial
ambitions among the European countries as if our absence from NATO would
trigger all out wars between European countries. This seems patently absurd if for no other
reason than the European countries don’t have much in the way of extensive or
effective militaries, as evidenced by their very low defense expenditure levels
and nearly non-existent munitions inventories (remember Libya?)!
Mutual Military Support. The contention is that the US would lose the
military cooperation and support of European countries and access to
bases. Well, any country can assist the
US at any time and in any way they choose without the US needing to be part of
NATO. The reality, however, is that all
too often European countries already refuse to assist the US militarily. Overflight permissions have been refused
during US actions and foreign ships have pulled out of US naval task forces
when the possibility of US action has arisen.
Sometimes foreign countries assist us and sometimes they don’t. They have their political objectives and we
have ours. Short of invoking Article 5
of the NATO agreement, nothing would change the degree of cooperation with the
US.
Defense of Europe.
Some seem to think that if the US is not a member of NATO, that
precludes the US from helping to defend Europe.
This is absurd. If Europe is
threatened, the US will most certainly step in to help, treaty or no
treaty. It’s in our best interest.
Options
An option, for those too queasy about the US formally
pulling out of NATO, is that the US could simply pull out of Europe while
remaining a member of NATO. Nothing that
I’m aware of obligates us to be physically present on the continent. This would allow all the resources currently
devoted to Europe to be redirected at the real threat which is China.
Another option would be to use US withdrawal from NATO as a
major bargaining chip in a Ukraine-Russia peace settlement. For example, the US might agree to withdraw
from NATO if Russia returns Crimea and returns to pre-war borders and Ukraine
is granted NATO membership.
Conclusion
In summary, there is no valid argument for the US remaining
in NATO and every reason for the US to leave NATO. The world faces an extreme threat from China
and US resources need to be focused on that threat not babysitting a Europe
that faces no realistic threat. It is
past time for Europe to stand on its own.
It's not so much an issue that we are part of NATO, but the billions of dollars wasted each year on unneeded city-bases over there. Most should be turned over to host nations to operate for visiting American units and all families returned home. I did a short mini-doc about this issue a few years back:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/RtKcOzc0b-A?t=22
G2mil
I have to agree with the idea of packing up and coming home. We can remain a member, share info, train together, etc...fine!! Current European trends are showing a new willingness to increase their defense spending, so we are needed even less now. So, if someday, Russia magically rebuilds and armor comes streaming west, ala' Red Storm Rising, well, they can give us a call. But til then, a big chunk of 2nd/6th Fleet, including all but one CVBG, and a majority of AF assets, can move to the Pacific, and NATO can take responsibility for the Med/Middle East.
ReplyDeleteWe could not only save billions, but be much more postured for a WestPac dustup...
Spent a bit of time in Sweden and Denmark and Finland too.
ReplyDeleteYou’re right - the people there don’t have a lot of good things to say about America and Americans.
So when they find they’ve got themselves a problem of their own making, what do we do? Tell them clean up their own back yard? No - come and join NATO we say, so now we’re on the hook for their defense too.
"there is no valid argument for the US remaining in NATO and every reason for the US to leave NATO."
ReplyDelete-> US should close down redundant bases in Europe, bring troops back home and place some of them on southern border
"Russian threat is overblown to the point of irrelevance" -> I Agree
"Some suggest that the US presence balances political and territorial ambitions among the European countries as if our absence from NATO would trigger all out wars between European countries."
-> correct, Europeans don't go along with each other. Last 2 World War are stark examples.
War-Torn Europe will lead to lost of valuable market for American Business.
"US would lose the military cooperation and support of European countries and access to bases"
-> This is a false Statement, I agree with you
As we leave NATO, give our nukes to Poland.
ReplyDeleteThat way we don't have to worry about the Russian or
the Germans.
If we shipped all the military personnel we currently have in Europe back to the US, then:
ReplyDeleteProbably we wouldn’t save much expense since they’re still all going to be paid pretty much the same, and get the same scale of benefits. We’d also lose the couple billion dollars the host countries pay us in support costs - they should pay more of course.
If we rebased them in the Pacific (not sure where) we’d incur billions of dollars in establishing new bases - family housing, medical facilities, schools, local support, etc. Also Europe is a popular posting so helpful to recruiting. Guam or Okinawa - where the locals really don’t like us already - probably not so much.
And then if we needed to reinforce and support European allies (say if the Russians moved across their border with Estonia) by the time we got there from the US it would be too late to help - ie fait accompli Russia.
And we’d no longer have the existing facilities in place - army and air bases, hospitals, barracks, stores, munitions, civilian contracts and infrastructure generally, so a slow and hazardous process moving infantry and armored divisions and everything else across the Atlantic in the face of Russian interdiction attempts and then nowhere much to operate from when we got there, assuming we did.
If we needed to intervene militarily in Africa or the Middle East then easier, quicker and safer to do this out of bases in Europe than anywhere else.
Also imo if we really packed up and left, the Europeans - except maybe for the Poles and the little Baltic statelets - wouldn’t or couldn’t pick up the slack anyway because there’s zero constituency anywhere in Europe for increased military spending at the cost of reducing welfare benefits, or at all really.
So we need to ask ourselves whether - tempting though it would be to tell the Europeans ‘Goodbye and good luck and don’t say we didn’t warn you’ - our interests would be best served by packing our bags and going home, or maybe better another couple of rounds of the same old, same old. They pay us more, increase their spending a bit, promise to buy more stuff from us … probably what will end up happening anyway.
"We’d also lose the couple billion dollars the host countries pay us in support costs"
DeleteIncorrect.
"FIrst, 97 percent of the $2.5 billion in NATO support came from what are called indirect costs -- things like rent and foregone taxes and customs duties. Such streams of support are important in evening out the books, but they are not reimbursements for outlays that the United States has made. Rather, they enable the United States to sidestep things they would have otherwise had to pay for, and they are harder to characterize numerically."
"And second, NATO member support covers only about one-third of the U.S. military costs. The U.S. still pays two-thirds of the burden."
Above quotes from: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jul/12/nicholas-burns/do-european-allies-pay-us-25-billion-yearly-keep-t/
"wouldn’t or couldn’t pick up the slack anyway"
DeleteNot our problem. If they opt not to defend themselves then they deserve whatever they get.
Correct. Host nation support in Europe and Asia is greatly overestimated, something backed by Generals and Admirals who want to keep overseas estates to rule. They count not taxing the income of our troops and civilian employes, no import taxes or sales taxes on equipment and commissary goods. A huge chunk is for land rent paid to locals for the bases, and lost property taxes. It's a huge racket. We also ship personal cars and dogs and cats overseas and back, and we have vets overseas to treat them.
DeleteNot on cent is ever paid to the US military for host nation support. In Germany we even pay for German security firms to guard our bases.
I came up with a detaled OBRAC of recommended closures years ago, but Army Generals greatly expanded bases in Europe, with ten new ones in Poland that we began building years before the conflict in Ukraine!
https://www.g2mil.com/obcl.htm
A follow up of you post of the 6th january :-) Wikipedia says there are around 100.000 personnel inc. naval forces (+20.000 since the Russian invasion). A Rand report from july 23th, 2023, says "even advocates of reduction agree that the concrete costs of the United States' European presence are small—on the order of hundreds of millions, not billions—relative to the overall defense budget. Further, that the primarily light infantry and armored formations present in Europe would probably not add as much value in the primarily naval and air contingencies imagined in a conflict with China..."
ReplyDeleteFrom Wiki,
Delete"Maintaining troops in Europe costs the United States $4.5 billion1. The largest American base in Europe is located in Germany1. The United States' European allies pay the U.S. $2.5 billion a year to keep their forces in Europe3. Germany spent $118 million last year on hosting foreign forces4. The cost of stationing military overseas is estimated to be $10,000-$40,000 per person per year, with an additional $55 billion per year to build and maintain overseas bases5."
Given that, what would be the real impact of the US leaving Nato and shifting to Pacific / China ? In cas of a conflict, it would be mainly naval / air / space, there would be no real need for a US army.
ReplyDelete"there would be no real need for a US army."
DeleteIt depends on what our geopolitical objectives are. For example, if we opt to defend Taiwan, it would likely require our entire Army to defend Taiwan from Chinese troops on the ground.
Similarly, if the Philippines becomes a battleground, several divisions of Army troops would be required as evidenced by the troop requirements in the Philippines in WWII.
Everyone seems to be focused on costs, however, the larger issue is focus. Every troop, aircraft, and ship based in Europe is focused on European requirements rather than training for the coming China war. Every piece of equipment in Europe is one that is failing to be maintained back in the US for the coming war with China. We need our entire focus to be China. Russia is simply not a credible threat, as proven by Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteThe UK should leave NATO too. It can only drag us into wars that are none of our business. The talk of making Ukraine and Georgia members of NATO show what a nonsense it has become.
ReplyDeleteRecent examples of stupid NATO wars have been the NATO attack on Serbia and the ludicrous war of occupation in Afghanistan.
You might prefer to blame those two on appalling US Presidents (Slick Willie and Bush the Younger) but appalling Presidents and appalling Prime Ministers will come along from time to time. Their effects should not be amplified by unwise treaties.
NATO's purpose vanished when The Wall came down; keeping it in being is just a pointless risk, at least for the USA and UK. And probably Spain and Portugal. And perhaps Canada ...
"It can only drag us into wars"
DeleteFrom my non-legal understanding, the ONLY mandatory war action for NATO members is an Article 5 attack. If NATO, as a group, opts to pursue a non-Article 5 action, the member countries have no obligation to follow. Am I wrong about this? I don't actually know. If I'm right, then UK/US involvement in the Kosovo conflict was voluntary rather than mandatory.
In England which doesn’t have an actual written constitution for some reason the King via the Prime Minister declares war and tells everyone about it afterwards (like Chamberlain did in 1939). Parliament doesn’t get a say in it. Kinda weird imo but whatever..
DeleteIn America only Congress can declare war and the last time it did that was in 1944 against Romania.
If America was directly attacked the President can act unilaterally as Commander in Chief but only for a limited time. Oversimplifying here.
The United States Constitution is the document that matters and Congress's decision on whether or not to go to war can’t be preempted by a Treaty.
"Congress's decision on whether or not to go to war can’t be preempted by a Treaty."
DeleteThis is incorrect from both a historical precedent perspective and, potentially, a legal/legislative perspective.
Historically, the US has entered into wars in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Kosovo, and others without Congressional approval so, clearly, the President can, and often does, commit the country to war.
Legally and legislatively, treaties are ratified by Congress so if a ratified treaty sets the conditions to commit the country to war, that is, essentially, Congress declaring war, if in a slightly indirect manner.
There is no ‘mandatory war action’ under Article 5.
ReplyDeleteThis is a widely held but incorrect belief (as a reading of the article makes clear).
Yes, there is a mandatory war action. Here is Article 5:
Delete"“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
The form of the war assistance is up to the various parties but every member is required to respond to repel an attack. If you want to play lawyer, go somewhere else.
Yes. Russia is no threat. But I think they are more competent than the site owner gives them credit for. Russia has fought a different war in the Ukraine than the US say in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteAmerica needs her men at home to secure the southern border.
American forces would probably better deployed to defend Australia to protect her resources from China and Indonesia.
I am hoping Trump ends Starmer's dealings over the Chagos Islands. The arrogance of man who basically is handing over a strategic base to a China backing country because his friend is their leading lawyer is beyond hubris it is pure treason.
Diego Garcia like many other US outposts in the Pacific that could be vital in a war with China (Midway, Johnston Atoll, Roi-Namur and others) is heavily threatened by rising sea levels, with Wake and Roi-Namur both flooded in 2024. Further there is a risk of erosion.
DeleteBritish Government report on climate change in the BIOT an Pitcairn areas:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6075bc82d3bf7f401046b70b/CEFAS_Blue_Belt_climate_change_impact_on_corals_report_card_for_BIOT_and_Pitcairn.pdf
Heavily threatened by rising sea levels? Utter rubbish.
Delete"British Government report"
DeleteDid you read the report you cited? The supposed sea level rise was measured in millimeters. If any structure is threatened by that then that's stupidity on human's part for building something within millimeters of sea level.
"I think they are more competent than the site owner gives them credit for"
DeleteFeel free to cite examples of competence. Lacking that, the overwhelming evidence of the Ukraine war is all the proof that's needed.
Rising sea levels are such an important problem that Tuvalu has actually increased in area.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nzgeo.com/stories/tuvalu-rising/
P.S. I found that article using Chrome: ordinary Google search failed to find it for me. Vot can it mean?
What does this have to do with either the topic of the post or naval matters in general?
Delete"What does this have to do with either the topic of the post or naval matters in general?"
DeleteI suspect it was intended as a reply to the previous comment, where one of the replies talked about rising sea levels threatening island bases and others were disagreeing. I suspect he was trying to support those with another example.
Realistically we can’t pull out of Europe until the conflict in Ukraine has been settled, but after that, we can and may do so.
ReplyDeleteThe Europeans really really want us to remain in Europe, not because they seriously think the Russians will invade Poland or something, but because Russia will move into the vacuum created by the departure of US military forces.
They are concerned with good reason that Russia will bully both a defeated and neutralized Ukraine and the strategically important Baltic states under the pretext of protecting their Russian minority populations, and more generally coerce and leverage a weakened Europe away from its US alliance.
They’re also concerned about the loss of the stabilizing force that America exercises on an inherently quarrelsome and unstable Europe by virtue of its military presence on the European continent. Without American boots on the ground it would take only a small spark for the conflict in the former Yugoslavia to reignite, and spread across the region.
For these reasons we see them doing all they can to put roadblocks in the way of the new President’s efforts to find a peaceful way out of the Ukrainian debacle in which we find ourselves embroiled.
Similar situation on the Korean Peninsula where the South Korean government is so strongly opposed to any sort of outreach by the United States to the North Koreans, as once there’s a peace settlement there’s no reason for US troops to remain in the South.
Cynical business, politics.
"Realistically we can’t pull out of Europe until the conflict in Ukraine has been settled"
DeleteWhy not? We aren't contributing troops, aircraft, or ships so whether we're physically present somewhere on the European continent or not is irrelevant.
"because Russia will move into the vacuum created by the departure of US military forces."
What vacuum? Are you suggesting that if we left, Russia would immediately march troops into bases in, say, Germany, to garrison the bases we left? I don't see any 'vacuum'. Please offer examples.
"stabilizing force that America exercises "
There is zero evidence that this is true. If you have any evidence or examples of our stabilizing force preventing internal wars, please present it. If not, don't make unsubstantiated claims.
Historically, the US has entered into wars in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Kosovo, and others without Congressional approval so, clearly, the President can, and often does, commit the country to war.
DeleteThe use of military force in all these conflicts was authorized by joint resolutions of Congress. Since Congress elected not to declare war, they were technically International Police Operations (particularly in Korea) and not wars. Check the War Powers Act to understand the limits of Presidential authority in this area.
Legally and legislatively, treaties are ratified by Congress so if a ratified treaty sets the conditions to commit the country to war, that is, essentially, Congress declaring war, if in a slightly indirect manner.
That is incorrect. An international Treaty is always inferior to the Constitution, and creates no enforceable obligations under domestic law. As a general principal Congress can't legislate to create obligations on a future Congress that cannot be remediated or undone. This is basic High School Civics (or used to be).
Are you suggesting that if we left, Russia would immediately march troops into bases in, say, Germany..?
No, I'm not suggesting that.
"Stabilization. of security environment in Europe" There is zero evidence that this is true ...please cite examples.
Quite obviously the presence of US troops as part of KFOR is stabilizing the situation in the Balkans by preventing a conflict between ethnic Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo, and deterring the Serb military from intervening. Plenty of other examples, but hopefully that will suffice.
Thanks for your Blog. Clearly you have a very broad and comprehensive knowledge and understanding of Navy matters.
"technically International Police Operations"
DeleteWho cares? That's a distinction without a difference. Since we have repeatedly entered into wars without Congress declaring war, your contention is false. This is "lawyering" that serves no purpose.
"An international Treaty is always inferior to the Constitution, and creates no enforceable obligations under domestic law."
Again, false. We routinely are bound by treaties and act accordingly. Yet another example of a distinction without a difference. There are other sites you can go to if you wish to argue legal technicalities. Please don't waste time doing it here.
"As a general principal Congress can't legislate to create obligations on a future Congress that cannot be remediated or undone."
This is true but is not a point of contention so is irrelevant.
"Quite obviously the presence of US troops as part of KFOR is stabilizing the situation in the Balkans"
This is not even a little bit obvious. Without actually leaving and observing the result, we have no way of knowing so don't try to present it as fact. You may believe it to be so and are free to present as your opinion but do not present it as fact.
"Thanks for your Blog."
Thank you. You write well and I invite you to contribute but please do so in a meaningful, productive way rather than arguing irrelevant, lawyer-ish technicalities. I look forward to more substantive comments from you!
I believe it is hardly fair to fault South Korea for the lack of success of the new president's previous attempt with North Korea.
ReplyDeleteWe're not going to get into politics. Thanks for your cooperation.
DeleteThe point is that it in the interest of both Europe and South Korea that the status quo continues unchanged.
ReplyDeleteIf the conflict in Ukraine is resolved through a compromise peace then the United States can pack its bags and go home. This is Europe’s worst nightmare; better then that the conflict continues indefinitely, regardless of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians.
Do you seriously think that the South Korean government wants a peaceful reunification with the North? That would cost them trillions of dollars and decades of social upheaval. And then the Yankees would actually go home, just like the demonstrators have been demanding for years.
Not gonna happen…
Let's shy away from politics and stick to naval/military matters.
DeletePeople, we are NOT going to descend into politics. I've deleted a few posts that address politics with no connection to naval/military matters. Politics are permissible only as the directly relate to military matters. You know this so stop interjecting politics into discussions. There are plenty of political websites you can discuss politics on.
ReplyDeleteWhen two gangs fight, each side lines up as many combatants as possible. Article 5 mandates Europeans come to US side, whether they like it or not. If US leaves NATO, then Europeans (and Canadian) will sit this one out (because most won’t die over Taiwan which is about the limit of Chinese militarism), and the entire China-Russian front will not have to worry about NATO, just us only. Then who do we have? S.Korea will sit out due to self preservation. Japan is right under China’s continent based A2AD threat and can’t dodge it. That leaves Australia, willing, able, but not significant materially.
ReplyDeleteNo one sheds teammates just before the fight.
The Pacific falls outside of NATO's coverage zone. Assuming that China doesn't attack the US in North America, NATO would not be obligated to come to the US's defense under Article 5.
DeleteIn short, NATO is practically useless when it comes to China.
On another post (https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2025/01/nato-spending.html#comment-form), I outlined reforms to NATO that I believe would make it an alliance worth staying in for the US. One of those reforms would be to expand NATO's coverage area to Pacific possessions (i.e. Guam, Hawaii) and an alliance-wide decrease in ties with China (economic and diplomatic).
-Huskers1995
"Article 5 mandates Europeans come to US side"
DeleteArticle 5 is limited to attacks on member nations IN EUROPE OR NORTH AMERICA. Any Pacific conflict the US might engage in is not covered by Article 5. Read the Article.
The only reason Canada got involved in Afghanistan was article 5. Worst decision is recent history was backing the US there. Article 5 was not invoked for Iraq, so no Canadian participation, thank God. Last time I looked neither Iraq or Afghanistan was anywhere near the North Atlantic.
Delete"Last time I looked neither Iraq or Afghanistan was anywhere near the North Atlantic."
DeleteAre you trying to piss me off or are you too lazy to READ ARTICLE 5? Article 5 was invoked after the September 11 attack against the US - WHICH IS LOCATED IN NORTH AMERICA AND THUS COVERED BY ARTICLE 5.
I guarantee your next comment will be deleted unless it's much higher quality than you've shown thus far.