Trump and Rubio Confirm: NATO Is Cooked

Posted by:

By Bonchie

The divide between the United States and the other major NATO members continues to widen. Despite not being asked to directly participate in the conflict against Iran, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Spain, among others, have put up roadblocks, repeatedly shifting on something as simple as base usage, and even denying the use of airspace for cargo transit. 

As I said in my previous write-up on the matter, there is no point in being in such a one-sided, self-serving alliance.

France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have been asked to do very little in support of this mission. For the most part, the request has simply been for them not to get in the way. This constitutes getting in the way, and it's a betrayal that should not go unchecked. 

Keep in mind, it was the French who gave the Islamist extremists refuge during Iran's 1979 revolution. They then flew the Ayatollah into the country to take power. Aside from the regime itself, no one else is more responsible for the nearly half a century of death, destruction, and oppression in Iran than France. For them to now snub their noses at the United States, which has committed trillions of dollars over the years to make sure Russia doesn't run roughshod over Europe, is inexplicable. 

(...)

There is no point in being in such a one-sided alliance. America pays for the lion's share of NATO's defense spending, all while European nations refuse to reciprocate in any real way. We don't need France's support if Mexico decides to invade Texas, but France needs us if Russia marches through Ukraine and into the rest of Eastern Europe.

That latest move by France to block the use of its airspace appeared to be a breaking point. On Wednesday evening, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did an interview slamming the alliance as being one-sided.

RUBIO: It wasn't just about defending Europe. I said it also allowed us to have military bases in Europe that allowed us to project power into different parts of the world when our national security was threatened. If now, we have reached a point where the NATO alliance means we can't use those bases, that in fact, that we can no longer use those bases to defend America's interests, then NATO's a one-way street. 

That NATO is simply about us having troops in Europe to defend Europe, but when we need their help, not their help, we're not asking them to conduct airstrikes, when we need them to allow us to use their military bases, their answer is no? Then why are we in NATO? You have to ask that question. Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, trillions of dollars, and all of these American forces stationed in the region if we can only use, in our time of need, we're not going to be allowed to use those bases? 

So I think there's no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to reexamine that relationship, we are going to have to reexamine the value of NATO and that alliance. Ultimately, that's a decision for the president to make.

Alliances are supposed to be reciprocal. No, NATO isn't absolute in the sense that any conflict one member enters, the others must directly participate. Rubio clearly said that's not what's being asked here. But there is an expectation that NATO members won't deny base usage, transit, or arms sales in the event another member makes a move for its own national security. If an alliance can't guarantee something so basic, then Rubio is correct that it becomes a one-way street, offering little to no value to the United States. 

If American participation in NATO ends tomorrow, there is no risk of Russia invading Alaska because of U.S. military dominance. On the other hand, there is a risk of Russia continuing to push deeper into Europe without American support. Despite that cost-to-benefit ratio being so lopsided, the United States remains the backbone of NATO, making up about 65 percent of its total defense spending. If that doesn't at least buy base usage in Spain or the ability to transit French airspace, then it makes no sense to maintain the status quo. 

Take the Ukraine war as an example. Ukraine is not in NATO. There was no obligation for the United States to get involved, yet we did so because of the threat posed to Europe. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent funding the Ukrainians, and perhaps more importantly, America has provided best-in-class military technology in certain areas. If America can do that to protect the European NATO countries and their interests, I'm pretty sure they can manage to keep their airspace open. 

In a recent interview with The Telegraph, President Donald Trump reinforced that NATO is cooked if things don't change.

"Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us."

NATO now has a choice. These European members can keep going down this destructive road of petty gamesmanship with the United States, or they can keep the security umbrella that has kept them safe for decades and allowed them to funnel money to their social programs. They can no longer have both. If France, Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the rest truly believe their meager capabilities are enough, then America should oblige them. Enough is enough.

Original Here

Join the Conversation!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
We have a wonderful, active, and engaged community. Come join us in the comments section below! You'll need a Hyvor account (100% free) if you don't already have one. 
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
× Are you enjoying Tex's Place? Please consider making a contribution. Even $5, $10 or $20 goes a long way to keeping us online, and advertisement free. You can contribute by CLICKING HERE