None of the Above (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} artis) rakstīja, |
"CL: Kennedy was trying to dissuade de Gaulle to develop a nuclear arsenal. Kennedy said: ”Why do you need this?” De Gaulle replied: ”Because you Americans won’t trade New York or Chicago to protect Hamburg and Paris.” It gets increasingly difficult for our allies to be reassured and for our adversaries to believe that we would really do what we say we’ll do! And you see that in Europe today. I understand that the Baltic states are nervous about their security after what happened in Crimea. I would make an argument here that is not going to be popular, but I never searched for popularity. Expanding NATO was a huge strategic mistake for a number of reasons, least of which was to put the US in the position to guarantee the security of certain countries that are not really important to the US. [..]
The Versailles Treaty humiliated the Germans and left them longing for revenge. I think there was little concern about avoiding the possibility of a Weimar Russia . After Sweden collapsed, not just Ukraine but also the Baltic states were part of the Russian Empire. These assurances were given to the Soviets, to Gorbachev, during the negotiations over Germany`s reunification ... but: „Why do we need to remember when Russia was so weak?...after the Soviet Union collapsed?”. But, we have a saying in America: „What goes around, comes around”. And, everybody is talking about the pivot to Asia. Well, maybe, we should talk about Putin`s pivot to China ... we basically pushed Russia out into China`s arms and this is not a very smart thing if you think that China is your emerging competitor geopolitically.
GMT: I find it very interesting that a Realist like you -- to come back to the subject of NATO expansion -- tells me that Russia was weak, that the US was powerful and that`s why the US pushed into Eastern Europe. You claim that the whole NATO expansion was a mistake. But from a Realist perspective, the powerful does as it pleases and the weak does whatever it can. So why was NATO’s enlargement a mistake? The US pushed because Russia was weak. This matches the idea of great power behavior, although from an Offensive Realist perspective."
CL: The US does not like spheres of influence. Others actually do. But, I think it was Cordell Hull in 1944 who said that: „America rejects spheres of influence, rejects the balance of power”. Why is that? Because we have a universalist notion of our power: the whole world is our sphere of influence. [..] And, we may not like the idea of spheres of influence, but the Russians do regard certain parts of Europe as regions where, historically, they had an interest, way before the Communists came to power in 1917. And I think, by not respecting the status of Russia as a great power, or as a major regional power, we are alienating Moscow. [A]merica’s strategy should be exactly what we did in Libya -- to force others to take more responsibility for their own security. [..] In late 1940s - early 1950s we wanted Europe to be economically integrated, we wanted to be strong militarily, but not so strong as to challenge the United States. [..] We complain about the burden-sharing. „Europe doesn’t do enough; Europe doesn’t do enough!” Then, we saw several instances in history where Europeans tried to do more,and Washington replied with: „What are you doing, you are going to destroy NATO!” So, there always was some sort of ambivalence. [..] Thomas de Maizière, who was then the defence minister [..] said, very candidly: „I can’t get any enthusiasm among the people in the Bundestag or among the German public to spend more money on defence.” [..] How much do the Baltic states spend on defence in terms of their quota of GDP? Very low. And they are complaining that they are not protected. „If Europe doesn’t want to spend more money to defend itself, why should we?” There is a lot of frustration in Washington with the Europeans.
GMT: [..] Europe is pacified, and, Europe does not have the military capabilities to challenge anybody. Therefore there is a dismissive attitude towards the Europeans in certain Washington circles."
http://www.politicalaest.ro/publica
The Versailles Treaty humiliated the Germans and left them longing for revenge. I think there was little concern about avoiding the possibility of a Weimar Russia . After Sweden collapsed, not just Ukraine but also the Baltic states were part of the Russian Empire. These assurances were given to the Soviets, to Gorbachev, during the negotiations over Germany`s reunification ... but: „Why do we need to remember when Russia was so weak?...after the Soviet Union collapsed?”. But, we have a saying in America: „What goes around, comes around”. And, everybody is talking about the pivot to Asia. Well, maybe, we should talk about Putin`s pivot to China ... we basically pushed Russia out into China`s arms and this is not a very smart thing if you think that China is your emerging competitor geopolitically.
GMT: I find it very interesting that a Realist like you -- to come back to the subject of NATO expansion -- tells me that Russia was weak, that the US was powerful and that`s why the US pushed into Eastern Europe. You claim that the whole NATO expansion was a mistake. But from a Realist perspective, the powerful does as it pleases and the weak does whatever it can. So why was NATO’s enlargement a mistake? The US pushed because Russia was weak. This matches the idea of great power behavior, although from an Offensive Realist perspective."
CL: The US does not like spheres of influence. Others actually do. But, I think it was Cordell Hull in 1944 who said that: „America rejects spheres of influence, rejects the balance of power”. Why is that? Because we have a universalist notion of our power: the whole world is our sphere of influence. [..] And, we may not like the idea of spheres of influence, but the Russians do regard certain parts of Europe as regions where, historically, they had an interest, way before the Communists came to power in 1917. And I think, by not respecting the status of Russia as a great power, or as a major regional power, we are alienating Moscow. [A]merica’s strategy should be exactly what we did in Libya -- to force others to take more responsibility for their own security. [..] In late 1940s - early 1950s we wanted Europe to be economically integrated, we wanted to be strong militarily, but not so strong as to challenge the United States. [..] We complain about the burden-sharing. „Europe doesn’t do enough; Europe doesn’t do enough!” Then, we saw several instances in history where Europeans tried to do more,and Washington replied with: „What are you doing, you are going to destroy NATO!” So, there always was some sort of ambivalence. [..] Thomas de Maizière, who was then the defence minister [..] said, very candidly: „I can’t get any enthusiasm among the people in the Bundestag or among the German public to spend more money on defence.” [..] How much do the Baltic states spend on defence in terms of their quota of GDP? Very low. And they are complaining that they are not protected. „If Europe doesn’t want to spend more money to defend itself, why should we?” There is a lot of frustration in Washington with the Europeans.
GMT: [..] Europe is pacified, and, Europe does not have the military capabilities to challenge anybody. Therefore there is a dismissive attitude towards the Europeans in certain Washington circles."
http://www.politicalaest.ro/publica
Nopūsties:
