Rolling Back NATO

 Rolling back NATO is not proof of weakness, but of the existence of superior American statecraft skills, as well as a willingness to avoid nuclear catastrophe.

In the fall of 2008 I happened to be in Toulouse studying in the city's library. It is there that I saw a poster announcing a public conference organised at Sciences po on the 11th of November, featuring the Estonian ambassador to Paris. I decided to attend, only to realise that for the ambassador, the conference was an exercise in Russia-bashing, intended to elicit French sympathy for the poor Estonian people having to put up with life next door to their vastly bigger neighbour.

The Science po conference came only a few short months after the Georgian war from August 2008, during which another minuscule European country hoping for NATO accession dared to attack the Russian army stationed in Abkhazia and Ossetia. I also knew that the Estonians had previously stoked up inter-ethnic tensions in their country, including by provoking the Russian minority in Tallinn with the removal of the monument erected in honor of the Soviet soldiers from the centre of the city to its outskirts.

At the end of the conference I was allowed to speak to the audience, reminding them that the 11th of November was Armistice Day, marking the end of the First World War, which resulted in more than 50 million victims. I also reminded the Estonian ambassador that WWI was sparked by an incident provoked by Serbs, who had wanted to expand into Bosnia-Herzegovina but couldn't because it was administered at the time by the Austro-Hungarian empire. The cataclysmic event which followed, I said on that occasion, made large countries in Europe, like France, become extra cautious about being dragged into conflicts with other large nations by insignificant countries, like Serbia, Georgia or Estonia. Naturally, as an historian I knew that behind the bellicose stance of such stamp-size nations are some circles of freemasonry who use them as triggers for starting wars with enemies whose countries they intend to destroy or take over. In our nuclear age, however, this practice does not justify repeating the errors of the past, allowing major European nations to be tricked into yet another major conflict with Russia.

When it comes to Russia, what American policymakers fail to realise is that this country is currently engaged in an existential fight for survival as a state, with the US and its NATO allies. This fight is not about the preservation of its status as global hegemon, as is the case of the United States, or about any desire of Russia's to acquire such a status. No, this is a fight that Russians cannot afford to lose and will not lose. 

Furthermore, for American policymakers it would be an illusion to think that Russia, in order to defend itself, will use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, or in any other European country for that matter. It follows that the most effective strategy to eliminate the threat posed by NATO on Russia's doorstep would be to deal a mortal blow to the country chiefly responsible for the problem, which is the United States. The 2 "generals" who always protected the US against invasion, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, make America more vulnerable to a nuclear attack than any other continent except Australia or South America, which do not possess nuclear capabilities and are not a target of Russia's ire. The experts who think this is a repeat of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis are, therefore, dead wrong. A comprehensive nuclear attack against the US is very much on the table if it continues to be on a collision course with Russia over NATO expansion. 

The current predicament in US-Russia relations, however, should not have to reach that point. American policymakers have the option of announcing a rollback of NATO from the Baltic states, preventing the Russians from starting another military conflict with the same objective. By extending an olive branch to Russia in this way, the US would prove that it does have the statecraft skills needed to correct its mega errors in the field of geopolitics, made by State Secretaries from the euphoric nineties, and that it finally understands the importance of Russia's security. (Unfortunately for the Anglo-Saxon powers, Spykman elaborated his Rimland theory before the end of the Second World War and the existence of nuclear bombs or guided missiles. )

From time immemorial, small nations like the Baltic states have had to learn to live in peace with their much larger neighbours, regardless of whether they succeeded in preserving their independence or not. In the case of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, including them into NATO was a catastrophic mistake which should be corrected as soon as possible. After all, a status of neutrality similar to that of Finland or Sweden and membership of the EU are sufficient to guarantee their safety and prosperity.

By now everyone agrees that: first, NATO is overextended, and second, that there is no place for the US and its NATO allies in Russia's backyard. By formally acknowledging this through the announcement of a NATO rollback, US policymakers would show the world that their country still has what it takes to act as a responsible and peace-loving nation. This shouldn't be regarded as a sign of weakness on America's part, but rather as proof that the US has the ability to manage international crises, like the one we are going through right now. This is so because not assisting Ukraine militarily in this conflict is just a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough to prevent a future nuclear conflict with Russia.