The case for stronger NATO

Why Eastern countries are the most pro-Atlantic in Europe?

In my previous post I mentioned in passing the worst geopolitical nightmare scenario for the „small countries” of Eastern Europe. It is an alliance similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939 or theCongress of Vienna in 1815, where the European superpowers (notably Germany and Russia) jointly decided that the „small countries” should not exist and be partitioned / disbanded / puppeted by their bigger neighbours.

„Oh coitus! We forgot the Balkans...”, a BBC sketch from the „A Bit of Fry and Laurie” series lampooning the early post-Cold War Europe (ostensibly the Treaty of Westpfalia)

For this note, I will make a working assumption that the “small countries” are better off when they are independent. Some people will disagree - just as today there are some people claiming that Ukraine would be better off annexed by Russia (“since they speak the same language”, etc.).

Some people also claimed that colonialism was a good thing, because all those ungrateful natives were better off under the rule of the white men. It surprisingly often turns out to be the same people, from the “school of Realpolitik”.

A full scale debate with this argument will digress too far from the topic of this note (if requested, I can expand it in the future). Today I will simply say “bollocks” to all the Mearsheimers and Kissingers of this world and carry on.

Let me begin with stating the obvious, yet frequently forgotten, fact that NATO is designed with protection of small countries in mind. They can veto crucial decisions - and while Hungary is obviously abusing this right, I’m still glad they have it.

Both NATO and European Union (back then: merely Community) were largely designed by politicians coming from small countries. Belgian Paul-Henri Spaak can be credited as one of the founding fathers of both NATO and EU (EC).

The current secretary general of NATO is from Norway. The previous one was from Denmark. Petr Pavel, the president of Czechia, made his career in politics via his leadership position in NATO. I guess I don’t need more examples to show that NATO is generally a good place to be for small countries - we can veto or outvote the decisions of nuclear superpowers, our allies, our voices are heard and frequently answered by “yes sir!”.

This is unique. I can think of some similar military alliances in middle ages or antiquity, but not in modern times (“modern” as in: since the peace of Westphalia in 1648, so that’s a rather generous definition of modernity).

A typical modern military alliance consists of either one hegemon state accompanied by its client/puppet/vassal states (such as Warsaw Pact) or it’s an association of hegemons, who decide between them how to partition, colonise and dominate other nations. A typical example is the “concert of Europe” that evolved from the “Holy Alliance” I mentioned in the previous post - European superpowers happily dividing between each other Asia, Africa, Caribbean but also Eastern Europe, drawing the new borders without bothering to ask the locals how do they feel about it.

Now, since at least the times of Charlemagne, in Europe there has ALWAYS existed some system of alliances, from the medieval universalism of “Res Publica Christiana” to the present days. Assuming that we disband NATO tomorrow - SOMETHING will have to replace it, otherwise we will have a war of everyone versus everyone (as it has happened more than once in Europe).

From the point of view of a small country (some Polish authors like to emphasise that actually we qualify as “medium sized”, but I think the further you go into details with size, the more embarrassing it gets) the question is: will this new SOMETHING be equally good for us? What guarantee do we have that the new alliance system of Europe will not look like the traditional “concert of powers”?

The “big countries” always gravitate towards it. At the end of the World War II, it was the American president (Franklin D. Roosevelt) promoting the idea of “four policemen” as the warrant of future peace. With lots of modifications (the original four were enlarged by France) it was finally embedded in the UN Security Council.

What we call “Western betrayal” or “Yalta betrayal”, was actually a centuries old tradition of “big countries” trading us - small countries - between them. The four (five) policemen agreed among each other that we (small countries of Eastern Europe) will be forced to join the Soviet-dominated “hegemon alliance”. Nobody asked us if we like it or not.

via Facebook fanpage “In Ukraine”

We see NATO as the only thing that can protect us from this happening again. In NATO at least we have a vote.

The “new alliance” would have to borrow heavily from NATO, because NATO achieved a lot in standardisation & unification. There is always  a clear chain of command and communication.

In history of military alliances, this was always a serious issue. Both Axis and Allied war efforts suffered greatly from the lack of mutual trust and communication - Mussolini and Hitler were unable and/or unwilling to coordinate their efforts. It was perhaps a bit better in the Allied world, but the rivalry between Montgomery and Eisenhower also hindered the campaign on the Western Front.

The “new alliance” would either have to throw all this work away - and that would be simply a huge waste of resources. Or it would be using NATO standards, NATO manuals, NATO ammunition, NATO-trained staff, NATO buildings and of course the famous “whiskey tango foxtrot” NATO spelling system. We would end up with essentially a rebranded NATO, with a new logo and new stationery. So why bother?

A snippet of Noam Chomsky (via Truthout)

From all the stupid things Noam Chomsky ever said about NATO, the most stupid one is quoted above (from his February 2023 interview with C.J. Polychroniou). Even if he was being sarcastic, the very idea of “the left calling for the revival of the Warsaw Pact” is simply insane.

First of all, it’s not welcome in Warsaw. Poland was actually the first country to emancipate itself FROM the Warsaw Pact. This name is as stupid as “Jerusalem Association of Bacon Afficionados”. Former Warsaw Pact countries are more pro-NATO than the old NATO countries.

If Chomsky means “the need for anti-NATO”, then it exists, of course. It is called CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) and it consists of Russia and five other countries Russia forced to join in: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan.

This is the typical “hegemon state” alliance I mentioned before. So was the Warsaw Pact. Russia does not seem capable of forming other kind of alliances (time will tell, as always, but I don’t believe BRICS will be anything more than a debating club).

Nobody enters the “hegemon” alliance on their own will. You enter it if you are too weak to refuse (and then you seek for the first opportunity to break free). Kazakhstan and Armenia are already trying to emancipate themselves, sensing the opportunity in the fact that the hegemon’s forces are bogged down in the Ukrainian quagmire.

Chomsky seems to be unaware of the very existence of CSTO, and he can be excused for it. Unlike NATO, they are simply an extension of Russian policy. CSTO is strangely absent not only in the Ukrainian war, but also in the recent conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan or Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

The Ghost Writer - a 2010 Roman Polanski thriller (based on 2007 Richard Harris novel), where the British prime minister is indicted by the ICC for the criminal invasion of Iraq. Regrettably, it was only political fiction.

People who say they are “anti-NATO” usually mention war crimes committed by particular NATO countries. I don’t deny them, personally I think the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan were criminally stupid and I deeply regret ICC did not indict George W. Bush and Tony Blair. They encouraged Putin as a result.

But “is George W. Bush a war criminal?” is a DIFFERENT QUESTION from “is stronger NATO good for Poland, Belgium, Finland, Romania, etc”. I don’t think the former is even relevant for the latter.

I don’t always agree with the policy of all the particular NATO states. I frequently disagree with American policy, I frequently disagree with French policy, I frequently disagree with Turkish policy, I sure as hell disagree with Hungarian policy. I frequently disagree with my own government (and I kind of enjoy that I’m not in Russia, I am allowed to do so).

But I’m not saying the USA stands for “United States of Angels”. All I’m saying is: Warsaw is better off in NATO than in neutrality - let alone in some new “Warsaw Pact” with Russia.