Since he started work as NATO secretary-general almost two years ago, Mark Rutte has spent much of his time trying to keep the United States anchored to the world’s biggest military alliance.
That’s a great example, and it illustrates clearly my point here: Russia aside, the era of intra-European wars of conquest is over. Germany isn’t going to declare a thousand years Reich over Poland, and neither will Italy pick more fights with the Balkans, at least for a generation or two. This is a result of European integration and has nothing to do with NATO per se. So really the only military threat to the Pax Americana in Europe is Russia, which as I said don’t require anything as big as NATO to stop it, so the question becomes “what’s in it for (for example) Britain.”
This leads us to my other point: Britain and France didn’t declare war in WWII because Germany was coming for them. Not that they shouldn’t have intervened, but that what they did was an intervention; they didn’t want Germany to have hegemony over continental Europe and so they declared war. The existence of the Allies wasn’t defensive. Similarly, any war Britain fights with Russia would be offensive, not defensive, because there’s no plausible reality where Russia tries to cross the English Channel. British participation in such a conflict would be to protect a status quo that serves its interests, not to preemptively defend British soil. This means it’d be wrong to say British is in NATO for defensive reasons; its membership in NATO is both unnecessary for its not-quite-stated goal (defending against Russian aggression) and this goal wouldn’t be any more defensive than America declaring the Gulf War on Iraq. There’s a lot more mutual back scratching to keep states not directly threatened by Russia in the alliance than just mutual defense, even if we assume that NATO’s primary goal is defending member states (which is certainly arguable considering NATO hasn’t conducted a defensive operation in its entire history).
That’s a great example, and it illustrates clearly my point here: Russia aside, the era of intra-European wars of conquest is over. Germany isn’t going to declare a thousand years Reich over Poland, and neither will Italy pick more fights with the Balkans, at least for a generation or two. This is a result of European integration and has nothing to do with NATO per se. So really the only military threat to the Pax Americana in Europe is Russia, which as I said don’t require anything as big as NATO to stop it, so the question becomes “what’s in it for (for example) Britain.”
This leads us to my other point: Britain and France didn’t declare war in WWII because Germany was coming for them. Not that they shouldn’t have intervened, but that what they did was an intervention; they didn’t want Germany to have hegemony over continental Europe and so they declared war. The existence of the Allies wasn’t defensive. Similarly, any war Britain fights with Russia would be offensive, not defensive, because there’s no plausible reality where Russia tries to cross the English Channel. British participation in such a conflict would be to protect a status quo that serves its interests, not to preemptively defend British soil. This means it’d be wrong to say British is in NATO for defensive reasons; its membership in NATO is both unnecessary for its not-quite-stated goal (defending against Russian aggression) and this goal wouldn’t be any more defensive than America declaring the Gulf War on Iraq. There’s a lot more mutual back scratching to keep states not directly threatened by Russia in the alliance than just mutual defense, even if we assume that NATO’s primary goal is defending member states (which is certainly arguable considering NATO hasn’t conducted a defensive operation in its entire history).