A longer comment on the US in Europe item. I'm an amateur observer of this issue. Responses very welcome, maybe I should post this somewhere else on FX or American Prestige?
"Military alliances, by definition, are an agreement on the use of force against a rival. But this is not their only, or even primary role. Ensuring internal order, encouraging commerce and disseminating ideology are additional alliance activities, far from exhaustive. As well as offering a framework for collective defence, and thus for coercive diplomacy, they may also serve as pacts of restraint, through which a strong power manages its weaker allies, potential adversaries seek conciliation or contracting parties pledge mutual forbearance. Since its inception in 1949, nato has assumed all of these functions; each, however, has not been equal in significance, and their relative weight has shifted with time."
The FP article on US military/defense (alliance) commitments in Europe is almost only about this commitment's straightforward military/defense/war purpose in support of Europe, which is of course not the only purpose as the article does briefly mention (but only regarding military concerns again) in contradiction to the article's overal thrust and somewhat rosy view of US purpose in Europe. US commitment in Europe is "self-interested" and transactional of course, as foreign relations are. US commitment in Europe is not just about "defense of Europe", and even that supposed defense under US hegemony is self-interested.
From the FP article:
"... long suppressed the development of homegrown European defense capabilities and hindered defense cooperation among European states. ... it was a goal. ... post–Cold War security system, H.W. Bush and Clinton sought to prevent Europe from building military capabilities that would duplicate those of the United States or displace its leadership in NATO. U.S. officials wished to sustain U.S. military primacy, worrying that European states could not be trusted to manage their own affairs.
...
Acting as Europe’s protector fuels U.S. hubris and allows Washington to discount the often valuable advice of its friends. ... Iraq in 2003 ... If Europe had greater strategic autonomy, Washington would be less prone to [fantasy of global US dominance]
...
The original goal of U.S. policymakers in the decade after World War II was to help Europeans get back on their feet and defend themselves.
..."
On what the article does discuss however, Mazarr's response seems an apt criticism within this narrow discussion of US purpose in Europe and elsewhere (though I doubt I agree with Mazarr on anything about results/morality/benefits of the purpose):
"... and as late as the mid-1980s, it had over 300,000. In 2021, there were about 60,000. By contrast, non-U.S. NATO members in 2021 fielded over 1.9 million military personnel, including over 500,000 active-duty forces from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom alone. Nor are the U.S. expenditures as onerous as the authors imply; the direct cost of U.S. forces in Europe—between $30 billion and $40 billion according to IISS—was roughly a tenth of what other NATO members collectively spent on defense in 2022.
...
But if critical U.S. interests are indeed at stake, as I believe they are, then Washington must take the necessary steps to maintain NATO unity and European stability. The authors do not come down on one side of this issue.
Hi, suggestion: Is there some space and time for a few words of context on news items like the one about East Timor, about places that we mostly hear little about, so it's a little more than "there was an election; names; coalitions"? There's a link to Reuters, guess I should register since I've "run out of free articles".
I’d say Zelensky snubbed Lula because Lula is a leftist and Modi is well a fascist.
A longer comment on the US in Europe item. I'm an amateur observer of this issue. Responses very welcome, maybe I should post this somewhere else on FX or American Prestige?
From a broader view of NATO's history and purpose: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii140/articles/grey-anderson-weapon-of-power-matrix-of-management
"Military alliances, by definition, are an agreement on the use of force against a rival. But this is not their only, or even primary role. Ensuring internal order, encouraging commerce and disseminating ideology are additional alliance activities, far from exhaustive. As well as offering a framework for collective defence, and thus for coercive diplomacy, they may also serve as pacts of restraint, through which a strong power manages its weaker allies, potential adversaries seek conciliation or contracting parties pledge mutual forbearance. Since its inception in 1949, nato has assumed all of these functions; each, however, has not been equal in significance, and their relative weight has shifted with time."
The FP article on US military/defense (alliance) commitments in Europe is almost only about this commitment's straightforward military/defense/war purpose in support of Europe, which is of course not the only purpose as the article does briefly mention (but only regarding military concerns again) in contradiction to the article's overal thrust and somewhat rosy view of US purpose in Europe. US commitment in Europe is "self-interested" and transactional of course, as foreign relations are. US commitment in Europe is not just about "defense of Europe", and even that supposed defense under US hegemony is self-interested.
From the FP article:
"... long suppressed the development of homegrown European defense capabilities and hindered defense cooperation among European states. ... it was a goal. ... post–Cold War security system, H.W. Bush and Clinton sought to prevent Europe from building military capabilities that would duplicate those of the United States or displace its leadership in NATO. U.S. officials wished to sustain U.S. military primacy, worrying that European states could not be trusted to manage their own affairs.
...
Acting as Europe’s protector fuels U.S. hubris and allows Washington to discount the often valuable advice of its friends. ... Iraq in 2003 ... If Europe had greater strategic autonomy, Washington would be less prone to [fantasy of global US dominance]
...
The original goal of U.S. policymakers in the decade after World War II was to help Europeans get back on their feet and defend themselves.
..."
On what the article does discuss however, Mazarr's response seems an apt criticism within this narrow discussion of US purpose in Europe and elsewhere (though I doubt I agree with Mazarr on anything about results/morality/benefits of the purpose):
"... and as late as the mid-1980s, it had over 300,000. In 2021, there were about 60,000. By contrast, non-U.S. NATO members in 2021 fielded over 1.9 million military personnel, including over 500,000 active-duty forces from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom alone. Nor are the U.S. expenditures as onerous as the authors imply; the direct cost of U.S. forces in Europe—between $30 billion and $40 billion according to IISS—was roughly a tenth of what other NATO members collectively spent on defense in 2022.
...
But if critical U.S. interests are indeed at stake, as I believe they are, then Washington must take the necessary steps to maintain NATO unity and European stability. The authors do not come down on one side of this issue.
..."
Hi, suggestion: Is there some space and time for a few words of context on news items like the one about East Timor, about places that we mostly hear little about, so it's a little more than "there was an election; names; coalitions"? There's a link to Reuters, guess I should register since I've "run out of free articles".
Thanks for your work.