I guess you need to change US Security Council to UN :)
What do you think about Bolton's idea to globalize NATO and include Japan, Korea and Australia? I tend to agree. Except Israel, maybe in future but for now they are too messed up to ally with.
I don't know how effective would NATO be spread across the planet. It seems that it's rather a second pact that's being built. Currently it's AUKUS, but it surely can be expanded to WPTO (West Pacific Treaty Organisation), should the common security interest is acknowledged in wider scope.
I don't trust Bolton, I remember him from the days when ICC was being created, he was quite frantic in trying to block it (and keep USA out of it). I'm more for the "rule based" world order, when war crimes are prosecuted by international bodies. Including, of course, Western crimes (if they happen).
I don't trust him either (for fuck's sake, he was Trump's national security advisor), it's just example what "deep state" in Washington may have in mind, how to deal with Russian and Chinese treat together. It may be actually beneficial - not even Trump would dare to compromise NATO which would have anti-chinese spear. It may be actually a way to save NATO in case if (god forbid) anti-russian would become not attractive enough for USA, comparing to anti-chinese.
Apr 14, 2023·edited Apr 16, 2023Liked by Eastsplaining
It is interesting how two hegemons involved in the current war (one directly, one indirectly) projected own approach within their own alliances (CSTO and SCO) onto NATO. And how it has backfired.
Russian decision makers probably assumed that all these Molvanias in NATO will behave as Belarus or Kazakhstan in CSTO: they will simply follow big brother's lead with fear and/or reluctance, showing little or no own initiative. And NATO hegemon was presumed too busy to react, licking wounds from Afghanistan, or planning new hits in the trade war/decoupling with China. Had Ukrainian army fail in three days as Orcs calculated, this line of thought would probably prove dxmn right.
Chinese general idea about CEE is even more vague, as they simply do not understand countries with populations smaller than 3rd tier provincial cities in China. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is just discussion club (with occasional joint military drills) where Chinese verkhushka dreams that someday CCP will follow Soviet example to create some kind of Nursultan or Tashkent Pact. Therefore, it was shock that village-countries could unite, respond, and even lead more powerful NATO members into helping Ukraine more proactively.
> 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.
"The International Court of Justice ordered Azerbaijan to take all measures at its disposal to ensure unimpeded movement along the Lachin corridor. To date, Azerbaijan has ignored the order of the court. Since the ICJ order, there have been very little efforts made by the international community to compel Azerbaijan to lift the blockade." And not surprisingly, because Azerbaijan is our new gangster gas supplier: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/18/eu-signs-deal-with-azerbaijan-to-double-gas-imports-by-2027
So, very little upside for poor Armenia, but lots of downside. It demonstrates how brittle the security systems based on a single hegemon & a bunch of small guys are: when the hegemon gets distacted, the small guys can start fighting and beating up the weaker among them. Which is what happened in some parts of Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union...
"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."
But that's another issue - Iraq was not a NATO operation. It would happen without NATO anyway.
If NATO was disbanded tomorrow, not only it would be replaced by different system of alliances, but this system would allow USA much more aggressive stance, with small countries being demoted to vassals from partners.
NATO makes USA less aggressive - if there is an option to intervene as NATO, with higher pretense of legality, that means that intervention outside of NATO is automatically harder to justify.
You cannot invoke article 5 while invading another country. Maybe you may use NATO to shield yourself from retaliation if you are Turkey, but Israel is using USA in the same way without NATO.
Being anti-USA is understandable.
Being anti-NATO just show complete ignorance of what NATO is.
"No one enters the "hegemon" alliance by choice. One enters it when one is too weak to refuse (and then one looks for the first opportunity to escape)".
You are as simplistic about the CSTO as Chomsky is about NATO. Countries have joined and left this Russian-led military alliance in the past for various reasons. Azerbaijan was a member between 1994 and 1999, the same period as Georgia. Uzbekistan also joined in 1994, left in 1999, rejoined in 2006 and left again in 2012 (while still conducting bilateral military exercises with Russia and attending CSTO political meetings as a 'guest'). Of course, the CSTO is not an alliance of equals (nor is the NATO). But neither is it imposed on its smaller members in the way that the Warsaw Pact was. The authoritarian regimes of Central Asia choose to join the CSTO because it serves their needs. Tokayev would not have remained in power in Kazakhstan without a Russian intervention in January 2022 that crushed a popular uprising against him. Tajikistan's Rahmon is completely dependent on Russia for the country's military defences and economic stability. Administrating a weak crisis-prone economy with GDP figures at the level of sub-Saharan African countries, he would not survive three decades in power without Putin's backing. And no, turning to China as an alternative source of support is not among his realistic options for a number of reasons, starting with China's unwillingness to compete militarily with Russia in the region.
That is why your assertion that the CSTO is a mere front for Russian colonial hegemony is wrong. Rather, it should be seen as a military framework used by autocratic regimes in both the centre and the periphery of the post-Soviet sphere to advance their various interests. And, as I point below, NATO may well become a similar autocratic framework in parts of its territory, notably Poland, if current trends continue.
"The CSTO is strangely absent not only from the Ukrainian war, but also from recent conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan or Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan."
This is how the CSTO has always operated. Russia opportunistically uses military conflicts to extend its influence, providing or withholding its military assistance, and acting with or without a formal CSTO mandate. However, the other members of the alliance have a similarly opportunistic approach - they repeatedly use threats (and actual instances, as cited above) of leaving the pact or not participating in specific military exercises, obstructing new political initiatives, etc., to extract concessions from the Kremlin. It is a game played by power elites, sometimes to the advantage of the periphery, as is currently the case in Kazakhstan, where Tokayev is able to consolidate power, and sometimes to the advantage of the centre, as in the case of Belarus, where Moscow is using its large military presence in the country to tighten the grip on Lukashenko.
"The former Warsaw Pact countries are more pro-NATO than the old NATO countries".
Being "pro-NATO" simply means in this case that the populations of these countries want to remain net recipients of military security in view of the Russian threat. Some of these populations are also trying to provide a reciprocal “democratic return” to the alliance, notably the Baltic states, whose credible democratic transitions have earned them respect and stronger security guarantees in the current context of Russian aggression.
But this is by no means the rule. Most importantly, Poland extracts a stability rent from NATO in the form of increased US military assistance, at the time when it is unable to meet conditions for the parallel EU post-COVID subsidies, that are stronger tied to democratic standards, such as upholding the rule of law and backing away from recent "reforms" destructing the country’s judiciary branch. Put simply, more NATO for Poland means less EU, less democratic guarantees and less social progress for its population.
And I do not think I am making too sweeping a point here. "More NATO, less EU" became in fact all but an official position of the Polish government in recent days. Earlier this week, Poland's foreign minister, Zbigniew Rau, delivered a parliamentary exposé on "Principles and Objectives of Poland's Foreign Policy in 2023". In it, he spoke warmly of Poland's "transatlantic" alliance with the US, and rather coldly of Poland's relations with the EU, an organisation that, in his view, has abandoned its proper function as a loose customs union enterprise that Margaret Thatcher would approve of (a common right-wing political myth: the EU or EEC was never limited to that). Mr Rau mentioned the need to "ensure that EU institutions, in their undesired advocacy, do not undermine the diversity of Member States" and reinforced this point with the same rhetoric of "defending the rights of smaller states" that you adopted in your substack piece above. As I am sure you know, the Polish government's understanding of such "rights of smaller states" refers to the "right" to destroy the country's independent judiciary in open defiance of the country's constitution, the "right" to restrict media freedom, the "right" to uphold legal discrimination against sexual minorities, the "right" to illegally deport immigrants caught at the border, or the "right" to deprive women of their actual reproductive rights through ever more draconian abortion rules.
Unfortunately, Minister Rau's desire to secure these 'rights' is not without a realistic chance of success. Poland's NATO membership could sadly have a similar autocracy-boosting effect as CSTO membership has had in Central Asia. The increased military and political support that the US is currently providing to Poland in the context of Russian aggression provides the Polish autocratic government with a convenient lever to resist and dilute the democratic standards defined in the EU treaties. It may well help this government win its third term in the upcoming parliamentary elections, which are expected to be marred by relentless state propaganda and other forms of manipulation. The Western European countries (joined by some Eastern European states, such as the Baltic trio) defend themselves against this type of democratic dilution by tacitly assigning their neighbours such as Poland or Hungary to an internal EU "buffer zone" of second-tier "nearshoring" economies with lowered democratic and social norms. The Polish government practically agrees to this arrangement, as in Minister Rau's statement suggesting “temporary or permanent return of some euro zone Member States to their national currencies”. No euro area member actually wants that. It is the Polish government that wishes to stay out of the EU’s economic integration and common democratic values, in a kind of informal Polexit, relieving it from the Treaty duties.
“All I’m saying is: Warsaw is better off in NATO than in neutrality”
As I try to show above, Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime. This is sadly what comes out of Polish, possibly pre-mature, EU and NATO membership. And neither the EU nor NATO are better off as a result. The EU's internal anti-European forces will receive a powerful boost from their Polish and Hungarian partners, and the NATO's role as a sponsor of right-wing autocracies will make it hardly distinguishable from its Russian rival.
So, is this "the case for a stronger NATO" that you are making, my friend? Prove me wrong if you can, but please leave aside Chomsky's irrelevant ramblings and address the obvious failings of your own country's (I assume) political class. I mean the government that is undermining the European project for all of us EU citizens, and especially for women and LGBTQ people. And the opposition, which seems unable to come up with a workable game plan for restoring the country's commitment to the rule of law, let alone a much-needed promotion of human rights beyond the EU's eastern borders. Correct me if I make any "westplainer" errors, but please please do not "small country" me. The EU and NATO are not a blanket guarantee for any country, big or small, to stay safe and democratic. All these organisations give us is the chance to honestly work together to stay democratic and secure, despite all the external risks and our own shortcomings. Those who cannot commit themselves to such honest cooperation should perhaps do everyone a favour and leave the club, instead of abusing its rules and jeopardising its success for everyone else. My small country (the Netherlands) gets this. The Baltic countries get it. Now, my eastsplaining friend, is Poland up to the task?
Veerle, I will qualify my answer to you with the obvious: neither the author, nor any of his commentators support the current Polish government politically, or any of its antidemocratic policies regarding subjugation of the judiciary, women's reproductive health or treatment of the Belarus' borders crossers.
Having said which, I find the following really unbalanced and unjustified: "Poland extracts a stability rent from NATO in the form of increased US military assistance, at the time when it is unable to meet conditions (...) that are stronger tied to democratic standards (...) more NATO for Poland means less EU, less democratic guarantees and less social progress for its population"
It is preposterous, accusing a frontline country of "extracting a rent" at the same time when it's increasing its military budget to levels unheard of elsewhere in NATO save the US, and dealing with a mass influx of refugees. The providers of this "rent" should be really thankful that Poland is there to take it.
And your second assertion, that NATO is overall bad for those good things like EU, democracy and social progress is laughable, because the _only_ argument you have to support it is the rhetoric of Polish government. In actual fact, Poland had to first of all clean up its act to even join the NATO and EU, and a completely opposite argument could easily be made: that the NATO and EU memberships backstopped further democratic sliding. It may be the population's support for the NATO and EU that we have to thank for Poland not devolving to the level of Hungary or Turkey.
You write « Correct me if I make any "westplainer" errors » and in the same breath lecture us about NATO and EU being paragons of both democratic virtue and good governance... as if undemocratic Turkey wasn't in NATO since forever, as if NATO cared when Greece's colonels misruled the country, as if the EU didn't bungle countless crises in recent history, the global financial crisis and it's euro-crisis aftermath for example. We like the EU and NATO too, but it sounds like you're getting a little too high on your own propaganda.
Finally, to propose for countries like Poland (or even Turkey or Hungary) to "leave the club" now is not only self-serving, but simply shows the complete inability to think ahead. What do you think would happen if Poland and the other Eastern European countries were left alone to fend off Russia, without the economic support of the EU and without the nuclear umbrella of the US? Those that wouldn't fall outright, or be bought off by Putin, would be scrambling to set up their own alliance and to obtain their own nuclear weapons, because this would be the ultimate defence. There's plenty of nuclear physicists in our countries, it would be a matter of months before we had a good couple of bombs and maybe 2-3 years for the means to deliver them to Moscow. Nuclear non-proliferation would be a thing of the past.
By having us hillbillies in the club, an enlightened westsplainer like you can rein us in when we get too much ahead of ourselves. Think about it.
Sorry for these ad personam questions, (you may leave them rethorical, if you like) but are you Dutch, Russian Dutch or anything else?
Do you know anyone who had a friend or relative onboard of MH17?
I have Dutch friends and colleagues and none of them would propose throwing Poland away out of the EU or NATO in the historical moment like this. It simply doesn't make sense (for Netherlands, as well), at least not before this piteous war Mr. Putin has started is somehow finished.
Thank you for your comment - I appreciate the work you put into it. I agree that CSTO is not an exact copy of the Warsaw Pact (but I don't think I claimed that, I just say that they both fall into the "hegemon-client" scheme). There is no law of physics saying that Belarus or Tajikistan must be ruled by dictators - so when you say "these regimes choose to be in CSTO because they see it as a safeguard against democracy", I will rather say "Russia blocks the democratic aspirations of Belarussian people, forcing them to stay within the Russkiy mir".
About my country: it goes without saying, I didn't vote for these guys. I'm more critical of Rau than you are. But unlike Orban or Erdogan, they never won by a landslide. They keep winning by 51% vs 49% (that was literally the last presidential election in 2020). So I just hope at some point luck will be on our side - for instance, this autumn. At least (unlike in Turkey or Hungary) elections in Poland are still contested and the outcome is unpredictable until the very last exit poll.
I don't want to defend THEM, but please notice that the biggest blow to EU in this century was not done by Poland or other "new member", but by the oldest (or so they claim) democracy in the world, shooting itself in it royal foot by Brexit. With a lot of collateral damage. And the war in Ukraine demonstrated that in the Eastern matters, the leaders of France and Germany are like clueless kids lost in the fog (to paraphrase an old Polish proverb).
"Belarus, where Moscow is using its large military presence in the country to tighten the grip on Lukashenko." - after crushing pro-democracy protest together
"Tokayev would not have remained in power in Kazakhstan without a Russian intervention in January 2022 that crushed a popular uprising against him. Tajikistan's Rahmon is completely dependent on Russia for the country's military defences and economic stability."
"The increased military and political support that the US is currently providing to Poland in the context of Russian aggression provides the Polish autocratic government with a convenient lever to resist and dilute the democratic standards defined in the EU treaties" (translation: NATO is not expelling Poland for not obeying EU rules what is used by PL government as excuse for internal purposes)
Those are both exactly the same.
Basically "NATO's role as a sponsor of right-wing autocracies will make it hardly distinguishable from its Russian rival."
"As I try to show above, Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime."
This is a very simplistic picture of Poland (and probably also of Turkey, but I know very little about Turkish domestic politics). There's lots of people in rural Poland who are against the current government, and it seems to be losing popularity among farmers in particular (hence the current panic about Ukrainian grain imports, pardon me, transit). Polish sociologists have been arguing for many years already about the question "why do people vote for populist right in Poland", and it's way more complicated than the crude picture of urban liberals vs rural authoritarians. It's about social welfare, about religion, about nationalism, attitude to Germany, etc.
As for the equally simplified picture of EU being pro-democracy vs NATO not giving a toss about it: it really depends. Orban in Hungary has been the protege of the German right for years, in return for favourable investment conditions for the German industry, and this protection has been channeled via the institutions of the EU. It is the particular feature of Polish right wing - their inability to play the foreign relations game - that they have never built such a relationship with any powerful players in the EU. They keep backing the wrong horses (Le Pen, Melloni before her swing to the centre).
"As I try to show above, Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime. This is sadly what comes out of Polish, possibly pre-mature, EU and NATO membership. And neither the EU nor NATO are better off as a result."
Poland joined the EU in 2004. Minister's Rau party came to power over a decade later, in 2015. You will need to do a lot more work to demonstrate that their coming to power was a direct consequence of Poland's EU accession.
As to NATO, if Poland were not a member then the current war would be taking place in Poland, several hundred kilometers closer to the Netherlands. How would that be better for you?
The current Polish government's rhetoric did not cause the war, Putin did. Populist and nationalist governments come and go, this applies to Western Europe as well. Homicidal maniacs like Putin are a different phenomenon entirely, there is no symmetry here.
"Being "pro-NATO" simply means in this case that the populations of these countries want to remain net recipients of military security in view of the Russian threat.", ""Poland extracts a stability rent from NATO in the form of increased US military assistance,"
I find this sentences troubling and offending. Which country in Europe is not net recipient of stability rent from military security from NATO outside of russia, Belarus, Serbia and discussion may be held over Ukraine and maybe France?
You think Germany would be safer without Poland in NATO? You think Netherlands would be better equipped to deal with possible China/russia espionage and destabilization effort without NATO or that russia/China would not increase their attempt to saw division in Europe?
You think risk of international war in Europe would be lower without NATO?
If Switzerland magically switched places with Belarus, both countries would apply to join NATO in a month. So even neutral countries like Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland benefit from US military assistance to NATO.
"more NATO for Poland means less EU, less democratic guarantees and less social progress for its population"
That is interesting point of view. NATO is not perfect, but do you think PL would be more democratic outside of NATO? As what, subservient vassal of USA, another Belarus in CSTO or european pariah with nuclear weapons or second war torn country next to Ukraine?
Many governments do that to some extent, PiS more than others - treating international politics just as a place to score points for internal politics (like some conservative party that to keep internal unity decided to play with one famous referendum). I don't think NATO is the reason here, it is more of excuse for own playerbase.
Maybe it would be good for EU to have a way to exclude members. Maybe real possibility of HunKickOut Orban would not be able to keep power and WypierPol (amalgamation of polish words meaning Poland beign thrown the fuck out) would stop Kaczyński. I ususally think I would like that.
But your annoyance that PL and HUN are safe in NATO - I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Dutch guy claiming "I don't like politics in those small countries and I wish we could tell them do as we want or we will push them into russia's hands".
"The EU's internal anti-European forces will receive a powerful boost from their Polish and Hungarian partners, and the NATO's role as a sponsor of right-wing autocracies will make it hardly distinguishable from its Russian rival."
Really? So Le Pen, AfD, 5 stars, those islamophobic guys in Netherlands, Brexiteers and whatever is going on in Austria are all Polish and Hungarian fault? Without NATO russia wouldn't support them?
All of them are taking inspiration from Poland, following those immatures from the East?
Macron got 58.55%, Trzaskowski got 48.97%, it is less than 10% difference. I'm not sure Le Pen government would be better than PiS one. It's not like Western European countries are perfect and Poles are antidemocratic bigots. All societies are divided and the difference is not so big.
Seriously NATO is no better than CSTO?
CSTO is designed to promote fellow autocrats (because this is the best way to keep sphere of influence) and then be military alliance, NATO is designed to be military alliance that also promotes democracy when it has spare time, but this is secondary goal.
NATO is not promoting or preferring right wing autocracies, but it works with what it has.
"Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime. This is sadly what comes out of Polish, possibly pre-mature, EU and NATO membership. And neither the EU nor NATO are better off as a result."
It is usually interesting to see how what I observe from inside looks from outside in, but unfortunately not this time. I'd guess you don't speak polish, so you are limited to whatever news are interesting enough to foreign audience to break through the noise, that's why you see it as "urban liberal elite vs authoritarian rural power base", a simplification designed to feed superiority complex of polish anty-pis to click more news. Yes, this is common misconception in Poland too, but it is still misconception, not simplification.
Poland in EU and NATO may be bad for EU and NATO but it doesn't make EU or NATO bad.
Correlation doesn't imply the causation. Why do you think PL in NATO and EU caused Poland to slide into authoritarian populist regime? Maybe it stopped PL from already being beyond Turkey?
You seem to mistake the topic.
It's about NATO being better than CSTO, being force for good and stronger NATO being better than weaker NATO.
Your criticisms of Poland are (at least in part) correct, but
"The EU and NATO are not a blanket guarantee for any country, big or small, to stay safe and democratic. All these organisations give us is the chance to honestly work together to stay democratic and secure, despite all the external risks and our own shortcomings."
for me sounds like calling for stronger NATO and EU, not weaker. By stronger I mean having more cooperation and influence over it's members, not having more members.
The purpose of NATO: To keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down - Hastings Lionel Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO.
I guess you need to change US Security Council to UN :)
What do you think about Bolton's idea to globalize NATO and include Japan, Korea and Australia? I tend to agree. Except Israel, maybe in future but for now they are too messed up to ally with.
I don't know how effective would NATO be spread across the planet. It seems that it's rather a second pact that's being built. Currently it's AUKUS, but it surely can be expanded to WPTO (West Pacific Treaty Organisation), should the common security interest is acknowledged in wider scope.
Such treaty kind-of existed but it was not a stellar success - it was once again the trusted "hegemon and his clients" formula. Disbanded in 1977. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization
I don't trust Bolton, I remember him from the days when ICC was being created, he was quite frantic in trying to block it (and keep USA out of it). I'm more for the "rule based" world order, when war crimes are prosecuted by international bodies. Including, of course, Western crimes (if they happen).
I don't trust him either (for fuck's sake, he was Trump's national security advisor), it's just example what "deep state" in Washington may have in mind, how to deal with Russian and Chinese treat together. It may be actually beneficial - not even Trump would dare to compromise NATO which would have anti-chinese spear. It may be actually a way to save NATO in case if (god forbid) anti-russian would become not attractive enough for USA, comparing to anti-chinese.
No US administration is going to support ICC in the foreseeable future: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/08/pentagon-international-criminal-court-russia-war-crimes
US already has legislation what to do in case any US service member gets arrested by ICC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=820%2C%20enacted%20August%202%2C%202002,criminal%20court%20to%20which%20the
American Service Members Protection Act is already known as Invade the Hague Act and it's not hyperbole.
Does anyone else not see the pictures including Chomsky's quote?
I tried to re-upload...
It worked in 2 out of 3. Now I can enjoy Chomsky's brilliance.
I tried to change screen for trailer with "Ghost Writer", maybe that's what Substack didn't like?
It is interesting how two hegemons involved in the current war (one directly, one indirectly) projected own approach within their own alliances (CSTO and SCO) onto NATO. And how it has backfired.
Russian decision makers probably assumed that all these Molvanias in NATO will behave as Belarus or Kazakhstan in CSTO: they will simply follow big brother's lead with fear and/or reluctance, showing little or no own initiative. And NATO hegemon was presumed too busy to react, licking wounds from Afghanistan, or planning new hits in the trade war/decoupling with China. Had Ukrainian army fail in three days as Orcs calculated, this line of thought would probably prove dxmn right.
Chinese general idea about CEE is even more vague, as they simply do not understand countries with populations smaller than 3rd tier provincial cities in China. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is just discussion club (with occasional joint military drills) where Chinese verkhushka dreams that someday CCP will follow Soviet example to create some kind of Nursultan or Tashkent Pact. Therefore, it was shock that village-countries could unite, respond, and even lead more powerful NATO members into helping Ukraine more proactively.
> 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.
Armenia is a really bad example here, because Russia being busy in Ukraine doesn't create any "opportunities" for it, rather risks. They've been left alone facing Azerbaijan, with whom they've already lost a war recently (during which both sides committed similarly gruesome war crimes (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/12/armenia-azerbaijan-decapitation-and-war-crimes-in-gruesome-videos-must-be-urgently-investigated/) as the Russians are committing now in Ukraine), and which is now reigniting. Oh, and Azerbaijan is trying starve the Armenian enclave with a blockade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Republic_of_Artsakh_(2022%E2%80%93present)
"The International Court of Justice ordered Azerbaijan to take all measures at its disposal to ensure unimpeded movement along the Lachin corridor. To date, Azerbaijan has ignored the order of the court. Since the ICJ order, there have been very little efforts made by the international community to compel Azerbaijan to lift the blockade." And not surprisingly, because Azerbaijan is our new gangster gas supplier: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/18/eu-signs-deal-with-azerbaijan-to-double-gas-imports-by-2027
So, very little upside for poor Armenia, but lots of downside. It demonstrates how brittle the security systems based on a single hegemon & a bunch of small guys are: when the hegemon gets distacted, the small guys can start fighting and beating up the weaker among them. Which is what happened in some parts of Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union...
"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."
But that's another issue - Iraq was not a NATO operation. It would happen without NATO anyway.
If NATO was disbanded tomorrow, not only it would be replaced by different system of alliances, but this system would allow USA much more aggressive stance, with small countries being demoted to vassals from partners.
NATO makes USA less aggressive - if there is an option to intervene as NATO, with higher pretense of legality, that means that intervention outside of NATO is automatically harder to justify.
You cannot invoke article 5 while invading another country. Maybe you may use NATO to shield yourself from retaliation if you are Turkey, but Israel is using USA in the same way without NATO.
Being anti-USA is understandable.
Being anti-NATO just show complete ignorance of what NATO is.
"No one enters the "hegemon" alliance by choice. One enters it when one is too weak to refuse (and then one looks for the first opportunity to escape)".
You are as simplistic about the CSTO as Chomsky is about NATO. Countries have joined and left this Russian-led military alliance in the past for various reasons. Azerbaijan was a member between 1994 and 1999, the same period as Georgia. Uzbekistan also joined in 1994, left in 1999, rejoined in 2006 and left again in 2012 (while still conducting bilateral military exercises with Russia and attending CSTO political meetings as a 'guest'). Of course, the CSTO is not an alliance of equals (nor is the NATO). But neither is it imposed on its smaller members in the way that the Warsaw Pact was. The authoritarian regimes of Central Asia choose to join the CSTO because it serves their needs. Tokayev would not have remained in power in Kazakhstan without a Russian intervention in January 2022 that crushed a popular uprising against him. Tajikistan's Rahmon is completely dependent on Russia for the country's military defences and economic stability. Administrating a weak crisis-prone economy with GDP figures at the level of sub-Saharan African countries, he would not survive three decades in power without Putin's backing. And no, turning to China as an alternative source of support is not among his realistic options for a number of reasons, starting with China's unwillingness to compete militarily with Russia in the region.
That is why your assertion that the CSTO is a mere front for Russian colonial hegemony is wrong. Rather, it should be seen as a military framework used by autocratic regimes in both the centre and the periphery of the post-Soviet sphere to advance their various interests. And, as I point below, NATO may well become a similar autocratic framework in parts of its territory, notably Poland, if current trends continue.
"The CSTO is strangely absent not only from the Ukrainian war, but also from recent conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan or Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan."
This is how the CSTO has always operated. Russia opportunistically uses military conflicts to extend its influence, providing or withholding its military assistance, and acting with or without a formal CSTO mandate. However, the other members of the alliance have a similarly opportunistic approach - they repeatedly use threats (and actual instances, as cited above) of leaving the pact or not participating in specific military exercises, obstructing new political initiatives, etc., to extract concessions from the Kremlin. It is a game played by power elites, sometimes to the advantage of the periphery, as is currently the case in Kazakhstan, where Tokayev is able to consolidate power, and sometimes to the advantage of the centre, as in the case of Belarus, where Moscow is using its large military presence in the country to tighten the grip on Lukashenko.
"The former Warsaw Pact countries are more pro-NATO than the old NATO countries".
Being "pro-NATO" simply means in this case that the populations of these countries want to remain net recipients of military security in view of the Russian threat. Some of these populations are also trying to provide a reciprocal “democratic return” to the alliance, notably the Baltic states, whose credible democratic transitions have earned them respect and stronger security guarantees in the current context of Russian aggression.
But this is by no means the rule. Most importantly, Poland extracts a stability rent from NATO in the form of increased US military assistance, at the time when it is unable to meet conditions for the parallel EU post-COVID subsidies, that are stronger tied to democratic standards, such as upholding the rule of law and backing away from recent "reforms" destructing the country’s judiciary branch. Put simply, more NATO for Poland means less EU, less democratic guarantees and less social progress for its population.
And I do not think I am making too sweeping a point here. "More NATO, less EU" became in fact all but an official position of the Polish government in recent days. Earlier this week, Poland's foreign minister, Zbigniew Rau, delivered a parliamentary exposé on "Principles and Objectives of Poland's Foreign Policy in 2023". In it, he spoke warmly of Poland's "transatlantic" alliance with the US, and rather coldly of Poland's relations with the EU, an organisation that, in his view, has abandoned its proper function as a loose customs union enterprise that Margaret Thatcher would approve of (a common right-wing political myth: the EU or EEC was never limited to that). Mr Rau mentioned the need to "ensure that EU institutions, in their undesired advocacy, do not undermine the diversity of Member States" and reinforced this point with the same rhetoric of "defending the rights of smaller states" that you adopted in your substack piece above. As I am sure you know, the Polish government's understanding of such "rights of smaller states" refers to the "right" to destroy the country's independent judiciary in open defiance of the country's constitution, the "right" to restrict media freedom, the "right" to uphold legal discrimination against sexual minorities, the "right" to illegally deport immigrants caught at the border, or the "right" to deprive women of their actual reproductive rights through ever more draconian abortion rules.
Unfortunately, Minister Rau's desire to secure these 'rights' is not without a realistic chance of success. Poland's NATO membership could sadly have a similar autocracy-boosting effect as CSTO membership has had in Central Asia. The increased military and political support that the US is currently providing to Poland in the context of Russian aggression provides the Polish autocratic government with a convenient lever to resist and dilute the democratic standards defined in the EU treaties. It may well help this government win its third term in the upcoming parliamentary elections, which are expected to be marred by relentless state propaganda and other forms of manipulation. The Western European countries (joined by some Eastern European states, such as the Baltic trio) defend themselves against this type of democratic dilution by tacitly assigning their neighbours such as Poland or Hungary to an internal EU "buffer zone" of second-tier "nearshoring" economies with lowered democratic and social norms. The Polish government practically agrees to this arrangement, as in Minister Rau's statement suggesting “temporary or permanent return of some euro zone Member States to their national currencies”. No euro area member actually wants that. It is the Polish government that wishes to stay out of the EU’s economic integration and common democratic values, in a kind of informal Polexit, relieving it from the Treaty duties.
“All I’m saying is: Warsaw is better off in NATO than in neutrality”
As I try to show above, Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime. This is sadly what comes out of Polish, possibly pre-mature, EU and NATO membership. And neither the EU nor NATO are better off as a result. The EU's internal anti-European forces will receive a powerful boost from their Polish and Hungarian partners, and the NATO's role as a sponsor of right-wing autocracies will make it hardly distinguishable from its Russian rival.
So, is this "the case for a stronger NATO" that you are making, my friend? Prove me wrong if you can, but please leave aside Chomsky's irrelevant ramblings and address the obvious failings of your own country's (I assume) political class. I mean the government that is undermining the European project for all of us EU citizens, and especially for women and LGBTQ people. And the opposition, which seems unable to come up with a workable game plan for restoring the country's commitment to the rule of law, let alone a much-needed promotion of human rights beyond the EU's eastern borders. Correct me if I make any "westplainer" errors, but please please do not "small country" me. The EU and NATO are not a blanket guarantee for any country, big or small, to stay safe and democratic. All these organisations give us is the chance to honestly work together to stay democratic and secure, despite all the external risks and our own shortcomings. Those who cannot commit themselves to such honest cooperation should perhaps do everyone a favour and leave the club, instead of abusing its rules and jeopardising its success for everyone else. My small country (the Netherlands) gets this. The Baltic countries get it. Now, my eastsplaining friend, is Poland up to the task?
Veerle, I will qualify my answer to you with the obvious: neither the author, nor any of his commentators support the current Polish government politically, or any of its antidemocratic policies regarding subjugation of the judiciary, women's reproductive health or treatment of the Belarus' borders crossers.
Having said which, I find the following really unbalanced and unjustified: "Poland extracts a stability rent from NATO in the form of increased US military assistance, at the time when it is unable to meet conditions (...) that are stronger tied to democratic standards (...) more NATO for Poland means less EU, less democratic guarantees and less social progress for its population"
It is preposterous, accusing a frontline country of "extracting a rent" at the same time when it's increasing its military budget to levels unheard of elsewhere in NATO save the US, and dealing with a mass influx of refugees. The providers of this "rent" should be really thankful that Poland is there to take it.
And your second assertion, that NATO is overall bad for those good things like EU, democracy and social progress is laughable, because the _only_ argument you have to support it is the rhetoric of Polish government. In actual fact, Poland had to first of all clean up its act to even join the NATO and EU, and a completely opposite argument could easily be made: that the NATO and EU memberships backstopped further democratic sliding. It may be the population's support for the NATO and EU that we have to thank for Poland not devolving to the level of Hungary or Turkey.
You write « Correct me if I make any "westplainer" errors » and in the same breath lecture us about NATO and EU being paragons of both democratic virtue and good governance... as if undemocratic Turkey wasn't in NATO since forever, as if NATO cared when Greece's colonels misruled the country, as if the EU didn't bungle countless crises in recent history, the global financial crisis and it's euro-crisis aftermath for example. We like the EU and NATO too, but it sounds like you're getting a little too high on your own propaganda.
Finally, to propose for countries like Poland (or even Turkey or Hungary) to "leave the club" now is not only self-serving, but simply shows the complete inability to think ahead. What do you think would happen if Poland and the other Eastern European countries were left alone to fend off Russia, without the economic support of the EU and without the nuclear umbrella of the US? Those that wouldn't fall outright, or be bought off by Putin, would be scrambling to set up their own alliance and to obtain their own nuclear weapons, because this would be the ultimate defence. There's plenty of nuclear physicists in our countries, it would be a matter of months before we had a good couple of bombs and maybe 2-3 years for the means to deliver them to Moscow. Nuclear non-proliferation would be a thing of the past.
By having us hillbillies in the club, an enlightened westsplainer like you can rein us in when we get too much ahead of ourselves. Think about it.
Sorry for these ad personam questions, (you may leave them rethorical, if you like) but are you Dutch, Russian Dutch or anything else?
Do you know anyone who had a friend or relative onboard of MH17?
I have Dutch friends and colleagues and none of them would propose throwing Poland away out of the EU or NATO in the historical moment like this. It simply doesn't make sense (for Netherlands, as well), at least not before this piteous war Mr. Putin has started is somehow finished.
Thank you for your comment - I appreciate the work you put into it. I agree that CSTO is not an exact copy of the Warsaw Pact (but I don't think I claimed that, I just say that they both fall into the "hegemon-client" scheme). There is no law of physics saying that Belarus or Tajikistan must be ruled by dictators - so when you say "these regimes choose to be in CSTO because they see it as a safeguard against democracy", I will rather say "Russia blocks the democratic aspirations of Belarussian people, forcing them to stay within the Russkiy mir".
About my country: it goes without saying, I didn't vote for these guys. I'm more critical of Rau than you are. But unlike Orban or Erdogan, they never won by a landslide. They keep winning by 51% vs 49% (that was literally the last presidential election in 2020). So I just hope at some point luck will be on our side - for instance, this autumn. At least (unlike in Turkey or Hungary) elections in Poland are still contested and the outcome is unpredictable until the very last exit poll.
I don't want to defend THEM, but please notice that the biggest blow to EU in this century was not done by Poland or other "new member", but by the oldest (or so they claim) democracy in the world, shooting itself in it royal foot by Brexit. With a lot of collateral damage. And the war in Ukraine demonstrated that in the Eastern matters, the leaders of France and Germany are like clueless kids lost in the fog (to paraphrase an old Polish proverb).
"Belarus, where Moscow is using its large military presence in the country to tighten the grip on Lukashenko." - after crushing pro-democracy protest together
"Tokayev would not have remained in power in Kazakhstan without a Russian intervention in January 2022 that crushed a popular uprising against him. Tajikistan's Rahmon is completely dependent on Russia for the country's military defences and economic stability."
"The increased military and political support that the US is currently providing to Poland in the context of Russian aggression provides the Polish autocratic government with a convenient lever to resist and dilute the democratic standards defined in the EU treaties" (translation: NATO is not expelling Poland for not obeying EU rules what is used by PL government as excuse for internal purposes)
Those are both exactly the same.
Basically "NATO's role as a sponsor of right-wing autocracies will make it hardly distinguishable from its Russian rival."
"As I try to show above, Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime."
This is a very simplistic picture of Poland (and probably also of Turkey, but I know very little about Turkish domestic politics). There's lots of people in rural Poland who are against the current government, and it seems to be losing popularity among farmers in particular (hence the current panic about Ukrainian grain imports, pardon me, transit). Polish sociologists have been arguing for many years already about the question "why do people vote for populist right in Poland", and it's way more complicated than the crude picture of urban liberals vs rural authoritarians. It's about social welfare, about religion, about nationalism, attitude to Germany, etc.
As for the equally simplified picture of EU being pro-democracy vs NATO not giving a toss about it: it really depends. Orban in Hungary has been the protege of the German right for years, in return for favourable investment conditions for the German industry, and this protection has been channeled via the institutions of the EU. It is the particular feature of Polish right wing - their inability to play the foreign relations game - that they have never built such a relationship with any powerful players in the EU. They keep backing the wrong horses (Le Pen, Melloni before her swing to the centre).
"As I try to show above, Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime. This is sadly what comes out of Polish, possibly pre-mature, EU and NATO membership. And neither the EU nor NATO are better off as a result."
Poland joined the EU in 2004. Minister's Rau party came to power over a decade later, in 2015. You will need to do a lot more work to demonstrate that their coming to power was a direct consequence of Poland's EU accession.
As to NATO, if Poland were not a member then the current war would be taking place in Poland, several hundred kilometers closer to the Netherlands. How would that be better for you?
The current Polish government's rhetoric did not cause the war, Putin did. Populist and nationalist governments come and go, this applies to Western Europe as well. Homicidal maniacs like Putin are a different phenomenon entirely, there is no symmetry here.
"Being "pro-NATO" simply means in this case that the populations of these countries want to remain net recipients of military security in view of the Russian threat.", ""Poland extracts a stability rent from NATO in the form of increased US military assistance,"
I find this sentences troubling and offending. Which country in Europe is not net recipient of stability rent from military security from NATO outside of russia, Belarus, Serbia and discussion may be held over Ukraine and maybe France?
You think Germany would be safer without Poland in NATO? You think Netherlands would be better equipped to deal with possible China/russia espionage and destabilization effort without NATO or that russia/China would not increase their attempt to saw division in Europe?
You think risk of international war in Europe would be lower without NATO?
If Switzerland magically switched places with Belarus, both countries would apply to join NATO in a month. So even neutral countries like Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland benefit from US military assistance to NATO.
"more NATO for Poland means less EU, less democratic guarantees and less social progress for its population"
That is interesting point of view. NATO is not perfect, but do you think PL would be more democratic outside of NATO? As what, subservient vassal of USA, another Belarus in CSTO or european pariah with nuclear weapons or second war torn country next to Ukraine?
Many governments do that to some extent, PiS more than others - treating international politics just as a place to score points for internal politics (like some conservative party that to keep internal unity decided to play with one famous referendum). I don't think NATO is the reason here, it is more of excuse for own playerbase.
Maybe it would be good for EU to have a way to exclude members. Maybe real possibility of HunKickOut Orban would not be able to keep power and WypierPol (amalgamation of polish words meaning Poland beign thrown the fuck out) would stop Kaczyński. I ususally think I would like that.
But your annoyance that PL and HUN are safe in NATO - I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Dutch guy claiming "I don't like politics in those small countries and I wish we could tell them do as we want or we will push them into russia's hands".
"The EU's internal anti-European forces will receive a powerful boost from their Polish and Hungarian partners, and the NATO's role as a sponsor of right-wing autocracies will make it hardly distinguishable from its Russian rival."
Really? So Le Pen, AfD, 5 stars, those islamophobic guys in Netherlands, Brexiteers and whatever is going on in Austria are all Polish and Hungarian fault? Without NATO russia wouldn't support them?
All of them are taking inspiration from Poland, following those immatures from the East?
Macron got 58.55%, Trzaskowski got 48.97%, it is less than 10% difference. I'm not sure Le Pen government would be better than PiS one. It's not like Western European countries are perfect and Poles are antidemocratic bigots. All societies are divided and the difference is not so big.
Seriously NATO is no better than CSTO?
CSTO is designed to promote fellow autocrats (because this is the best way to keep sphere of influence) and then be military alliance, NATO is designed to be military alliance that also promotes democracy when it has spare time, but this is secondary goal.
NATO is not promoting or preferring right wing autocracies, but it works with what it has.
"Poland is sadly on course to become another Turkish style broken democracy, stuck in a perpetual political split between an urban liberal elite and an authoritarian rural power base of a corrupt populist regime. This is sadly what comes out of Polish, possibly pre-mature, EU and NATO membership. And neither the EU nor NATO are better off as a result."
It is usually interesting to see how what I observe from inside looks from outside in, but unfortunately not this time. I'd guess you don't speak polish, so you are limited to whatever news are interesting enough to foreign audience to break through the noise, that's why you see it as "urban liberal elite vs authoritarian rural power base", a simplification designed to feed superiority complex of polish anty-pis to click more news. Yes, this is common misconception in Poland too, but it is still misconception, not simplification.
Poland in EU and NATO may be bad for EU and NATO but it doesn't make EU or NATO bad.
Correlation doesn't imply the causation. Why do you think PL in NATO and EU caused Poland to slide into authoritarian populist regime? Maybe it stopped PL from already being beyond Turkey?
You seem to mistake the topic.
It's about NATO being better than CSTO, being force for good and stronger NATO being better than weaker NATO.
Your criticisms of Poland are (at least in part) correct, but
"The EU and NATO are not a blanket guarantee for any country, big or small, to stay safe and democratic. All these organisations give us is the chance to honestly work together to stay democratic and secure, despite all the external risks and our own shortcomings."
for me sounds like calling for stronger NATO and EU, not weaker. By stronger I mean having more cooperation and influence over it's members, not having more members.
The purpose of NATO: To keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down - Hastings Lionel Ismay, the first Secretary General of NATO.