For reasons that remain unexplained, but likely have to do with money and a penchant for talk over action, the conventional wisdom will simply not admit that President Trump is in good company with his skepticism, none other than George Washington himself.
Last weekend, former President Donald Trump provoked somewhat bipartisan outrage in establishment circles simply for stating the obvious about NATO or indeed any alliance. At a campaign rally in Conway, South Carolina the President claimed “NATO was busted until I came along. I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.” From there, in typical Trumpian fashion, he proceeded to recount a conversation with the “one of the presidents of a big country” who asked him point blank if the United States would have defended a NATO country against a Russian invasion if the country in question had not lived up to the terms of the membership agreement, which amount to spending a relatively meager 2% on national defense. “No, I would not protect you,” he claimed to have told the foreign leader. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.” Within hours, the mainstream media, promoting the views of the diplomatic establishment, had gone figuratively ballistic, a veritable explosion of outrage. CNN, for example, followed up with article after article, “White House responds to what Trump said about NATO countries and Russia,” hint it wasn’t positive, “Rubio dismisses concerns about Trump’s NATO comments as backlash mounts,” and “Rubio defends Trump’s controversial comments about NATO and Russia.” “NATO chief says Trump’s comments on abandoning alliance endangers US and European troops,” “Trump’s NATO comments spark criticism from allies,” “Trump’s incendiary NATO remarks send very real shudders through Europe,” and a second article on “NATO chief responds to Donald Trump.” There was “NATO cannot be an ‘a la carte” alliance,” “Former ambassador to NATO reacts to Trump’s comments,” and “Trump will pull US out of NATO if he wins election, ex-adviser warns.” His chief opponent in the Republican primary was also cited, “Hear Haley’s reaction to Trump’s comments on NATO,” as was the Joint Chiefs Chairman, “US credibility is at stake,” and, of course, general “Alarm over Trump’s comments on NATO.” Analysts and opinion commentators were also pulled in, “How serious is Trump about pulling out of NATO? Very,” “CNN commentator draws ‘shocking’ parallels between Trump and Putin’s signals,” and an ex-British spy chief who said it was both “Shocking and worrying.” A fact check was required as well, “Debunking five false Trump’s claims about NATO.” A comparison to the revelation that the sitting US President, Joe Biden, was deemed not fit to stand trial that Thursday is illustrative. In two less days of coverage, there were a mere fraction of the number of articles, and even then, many were in defense of Biden. “Harris slams prosecutor’s report about Biden,” “Hur report ‘got a little personal’ on Biden’s age, says a former federal prosecutor,” and “Robert Hur’s personal and painful jabs at Joe Biden,” for example.
Perhaps the only thing the two stories have in common is a complete failure to engage with the substance of either, focusing on the reaction of people rather than the reality. In the case of former President Trump’s comments, many of the reactions they reported, from President Biden himself who has made a vague “restoring alliances” goal a significant part of his agenda to the NATO chief who clearly has a vested interest at stake, could be predicted before the story was even posted. Is anyone surprised that the Biden Administration responded with a completely inaccurate claim, insisting that “Trump’s admission that he intends to give Putin a greenlight for more war and violence, to continue his brutal assault against a free Ukraine, and to expand his aggression to the people of Poland and the Baltic States are appalling and dangerous?” Any more than it was a surprise the President defended his mental acuity rather than admitting Special Counsel Hur had it right? What were they going to say, former President Trump is correct and we’re wasting our time and money defending countries that do not live up to their end of the agreement, and yes, the current President can’t remember basic facts about his own life? Beneath the surface, however, President Trump’s NATO comment reveals a radically different worldview than the one currently embraced by the international establishment and the mainstream media, one that is in fact radically different than the United States as a whole embraced up until the end of the Cold War. Essentially, the former President is asking a fundamental question, that is why should we continue in an alliance that is not fully adhered to on both sides, and necessarily benefits one side far more than another? The goal of NATO in particular was to use the combined might of Western Europe as a whole against potential encroachments from communist Russia. When NATO was founded in 1949, the Soviet Union had rapidly expanded westward, scooping up countries Russian troops crossed through on the way to Berlin in World War II, installing puppet governments like the regime in Poland that so angered the Truman Administration, and creating an “Eastern Bloc” under totalitarian rule as opposed to the freedom enjoyed in Western Europe. There was every reason to believe Russia under Joseph Stalin would continue marching west, further infringing on free countries. The alliance’s declaration that an attack one is an attack on all was a preemptive defense against Russia attempting to infiltrate countries one by one, warning them that moving further west would start World War III.
In that regard, it was a smashing success, one of the most effective in history, but what role it was supposed to play after the collapse of the Soviet Union has never really been clear. Since then, two things have happened. NATO has pushed eastward itself, pulling in more and more countries so that the alliance now encroaches on Russia, and more and more countries are failing to live up to the terms of membership, specifically the requirement to spend at least 2% of GDP on national defense mentioned earlier. One can certainly debate whether NATO has a crucial role to play in the 21st century, but assuming it does, one still needs to answer the question, why should countries be allowed to continue in the alliance while breaking it by not conforming to the terms? Rhetorically, as well, how is someone going to convince them to conform to these terms without informing them there will be consequences otherwise? For reasons that remain unexplained, but likely have to do with large sums of money and a penchant for talk over the action, the conventional wisdom will simply not admit that President Trump is asking the right questions, making the right demands, and is in good company with his skepticism. None other than George Washington himself said much the same in his legendary farewell address to the nation, published on September 19, 1796 shortly before leaving office after his second term. “The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave,” he observed. “It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” He identified a fundamental principle that should guide our foreign relations, claiming “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” Europe, at it remains today, was a primary focus on foreign relations, and in Washington’s view “it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” Ultimately, he concluded, “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
President Trump, of course, is a radically different kind of communicator than George Washington, but the message is essentially the same. NATO has become a permanent alliance that is no longer founded on “perfect good faith.” Washington connects the public sphere with the personal, a “maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs,” which prompts an accurate analogy: If you loaned someone money and they failed to pay you back, would you continue to lend or would you insist they honor the agreement first? The establishment, however, has embraced both the permanent alliances Washington warned against and what we might call the idea that alliances should exist simply for the sake of saying we have an alliance. In their view, whether or not NATO is actually functioning as conceived, where each member does their part and the overall arrangement is meeting the stated goals should not be a chief concern. Instead, the existence of the alliance itself and the ability to talk about the supposed strength of the alliance is paramount above all other things. This is why President Biden and his enablers in the establishment and the mainstream media can insist our alliances have never been stronger than ever regardless of their effectiveness. For example, the combined might and money of thirty some odd nations arrayed against Russia in their effort to annex Ukraine have not been able to dislodge a country with an economy smaller than Texas, and have produced only a brutal stalemate. Under ordinary circumstances, this should prompt an evaluation of the alliance itself. The President, however, still insists, “Under my administration, the United States of America has stood shoulder to shoulder with our allies to build a NATO alliance that is bigger and stronger than ever and stands in defense of democracy against Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian aggression.” Questioning how this could be the case with limited – even no results over the past 18 months – prompts a “backlash” as CNN described, a backlash in my opinion that is designed to limit further questions more so than anything else. Chief among these questions should be: If a NATO country does not adhere to the commitment of 2% of their GDP for national defense, why would anyone believe they will go to war to protect another country and, should they even want to do so, how can they contribute without a properly funded military?
Alliances, at least as they were originally conceived and continued to be conceived until very recent history, were primarily transactional. Countries made common cause because of a shared interest and a mutual benefit. The establishment today refuses to explain how we benefit from extending the umbrella of American military might and protection to countries that do not reciprocate, nor do they acknowledge that fragile alliances, or alliances not founded on mutual benefit have resulted in wars that might have been avoided in the past. To a large extent, World War II was the direct result of a shifting network of alliances between Austria and Germany, and the United Kingdom, France, and Russia, but the war did not begin because of a direct conflict between any of these countries. Instead, it began because of unrest in Serbia, which led to the assassination of the Austrian heir, Austria declaring war on Serbia, and Russia coming to Serbia’s defense. Once that happened, the mutual defense pacts took effect, and the entire continent was engaged in a war no one really wanted. In other words, alliances have risks as well as benefits, and it’s certainly reasonable to question whether we are reaping the benefits if our partners are not conforming to the terms of the agreement.
Today, one of the reasons the war in Ukraine has been accompanied by renewed fears of a global conflict, potentially with nuclear weapons, is because we are bound to defend neighboring countries if the war spreads beyond its current borders. The idea that we are “defending democracy” sounds nice in principle, but in practice the question is whether we are willing to start a world war over any Russian incursion, even into areas that were formally under the control of the Soviet Union. Finland, for example, was admitted into NATO last year, but the country borders Russia and the western and northern regions are barely occupied outside of an indigenous group, the Sami people. Russia has already warned that they view Finland’s NATO membership as a threat, saying “They had lived calmly and in peace and suddenly ended up between Russia and NATO as a member of that alliance, but since they are our neighbors, if, God forbid there is some escalation, they will be the first to suffer.” If Russia were to send a small number of troops into Finland’s nether regions, can anyone seriously argue that the entire world should burn for it and does anyone seriously believe that Estonia or another smaller country is going to rally to defend the tundra? This is what NATO means, however, and why anyone interested in the strength of the alliance should be taking far more care in how it evolves. Even in Ukraine right now, which fortunately is not a NATO member, it is easy to depict Russia as having engaged in a war of aggression, but that requires a willful ignorance to two things. First, Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear that he viewed the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet Union as a provocation. We might disagree with that assertion, but our opinion on the matter isn’t relevant, as evidenced by his subsequent encroachments into Georgia and Ukraine. Second, Ukraine itself has regions with large Russian populations, many of whom would prefer to be a part of Russia. Russia has been successful in holding Crimea and the currently disputed provinces in Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolayiv, and Zaporizhzhya Oblasts because a significant percentage of the population prefers being Russian rather than Ukrainian. This does not make President Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine legal, moral, or just, but it does prompt the obvious question only President Trump and a few others dare to ask: Why are we risking a world war over territories that might well vote themselves as part of Russia given the opportunity?
The simple fact is that Ukraine isn’t France, Germany, Spain, etc. It’s a country we assembled after the fall of the Soviet Union, whose national identity has always been tenuous, as evidenced by experiencing two civil wars in less than 30 years after its founding. To act otherwise, is to exhibit a strategic blindness of the kind that started World War I, but we should not be surprised: The establishment was blind then and it remains so today, more intent to defend its dominance than acknowledge reality. President Trump is in better company than the establishment themselves, and as so often happens when he is involved, the American people probably understand it better as well.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 