Europe’s Reported Plan To Replace The US In NATO Ignores The Interests Of Five Key Countries
It’s strongly implied that Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania prefer to remain under the US’ security umbrella.
The Financial Times (FT) cited four unnamed European officials to report that “European military powers work on 5-10 year plan to replace US in Nato”. The UK, France, Germany, and the Nordic nations are named as those that want to present this proposal to the US during the next NATO Summit in June. They also reported that some countries have refused to participate in these talks either out of fear that this could encourage the US to move faster in this regard or due to their belief that it won’t abandon Europe.
FT is likely referring to Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania, the most important countries on NATO’s eastern flank, all of whom prefer to remain under the US’ security umbrella. Poland’s recent flirtation with France could herald a full-blown pivot if the ruling liberal-globalists win May’s presidential election, but for now it functions as an attempt to rebalance ties with the US amidst uncertainty over its future plans. It can also be seen as a misguided negotiation tactic to keep and expand the US’ military presence.
As for the Baltic States, they have a diehard pro-American elite, and they’ll only realign towards the EU in the event that they’re forced to do so by Trump unilaterally curtailing or even totally removing US troops from their territories as part of a grand deal with Russia. Meanwhile, Romania notably rebuffed France’s proposal to extend its nuclear umbrella over the rest of the continent, which can be interpreted as placing more faith in the US than in Europe in the scenario of a crisis with Russia over Moldova.
If these five countries continue perceiving their national interests in these ways, which would require Poland’s ruling liberal-globalists not to pivot to France if they win the presidency (their opponents are comparatively more pro-US), then an intra-NATO European rift would emerge. France and Germany, which are competing amongst themselves and with Poland for leadership of post-conflict Europe, could then find their envisaged influence over Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) challenged by the US.
From Estonia down to Romania and possibly as far as Bulgaria and even Greece, the penultimate of which pivoted to the US long ago against the will of its Russophilic population while the last needs the US to keep Turkiye’s maritime claims as bay, NATO’s eastern flank would fall under US influence. This so-called “cordon sanitaire” could then serve the dual purpose of retaining US influence in this geostrategic part of Europe as it “Pivots (back) to Asia” while also keeping Western Europe and Russia divided.
That scenario could be offset by Poland’s liberals as was explained, but barring that, it’s predicated on: 1) the CEE countries continuing to perceive Russia as a threat; 2) them considering the US to be more reliable of a security partner than the EU; and 3) the US not voluntarily ceding all its influence in Europe. If these variables remain constant, then Western Europe might militarily consolidate largely independently of CEE, which CEE might still appreciate since it’ll bolster their “deterrence” strategies.
After all, if America abandons them in the unlikely scenario of a hot NATO-Russian war that somehow stays below the nuclear threshold, then the CEE countries could rely on a militarily consolidated Western Europe to rush to their rescue if they can’t stop Russia on their own. That said, Russia has no intention to invade NATO, the US’ continued military influence in CEE could deter provocative actions by those anti-Russian countries, and the US’ reputation would be destroyed if it abandoned them during a hot war.
With this insight in mind, Europe might militarily bifurcate into a strategically autonomous western half and an American-aligned eastern one if FT’s report about the first’s plans to replace the US in NATO is true. The only factor that could realistically offset that scenario might be the outcome of Poland’s upcoming presidential election, thus drawing attention to its disproportionate influence in shaping Europe’s future security architecture, the subject of which is at the center of NATO-Russian tensions.
Interesting geopolitical times. And I think it is fair to say that many people, myself included, have long wanted the US out of "NATO", although that certainly raises questions about this organisation's raison d'être given that it is canonically stated as "keeping the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out" (i.e., of Europe).
So whence NATO? Could it conceivably morph into a common European defence alliance? But then against whom would its members ally? Is it immediately obvious, for example, that Turkey doesn't present as much of a long-term threat to Europe as Russia, especially if it continues to advance in the form of a "Caliphate" into Greater Syria and the South Caucasus? But Turkey is not only a NATO member, but, assuming the exit of the USA, currently has by far its largest standing army.
Not being a naive pacifist (albeit strongly pro "Russkiy Mir"), it seems obvious to me that Europe cannot simply renege on providing its own defence. If it becomes any weaker than it already is, then it will certainly be taken over by an entity stronger than it. Of course, that entity was and still is America, but it is becoming painfully obvious that America doesn't really need Europe for anything, since the latter possesses few natural resources and increasingly flabby consumer markets, only really offering value-added luxury goods that are more of a threat than an opportunity for competing American manufacturers and designers.
Still, if Europe disappears completely down the tubes, it won't be good for the rest of the multipolar world. Indeed, if there is to be a multipolar world in the long term, it will have to take the reality of mutually assured destruction into account, only then becoming able to reciprocally negotiate its continuing existence on the basis of strategically sincere communication.
So the optimistic scenario would see NATO either disbanding entirely or morphing into a common European defence force, whose nuclear powers (Britain and France) would necessarily (in the absence of the USA) pool their forces under a unified command.
How would US reputation be destroyed if they didn’t run to aid Europe? Europe and the EU have for decades undermined US civil liberties and now because we are finally standing up to their liberal nonsense our reputation will somehow be damaged? I’m thinking we could give 2 shits about our reputation in that regard. The US has saved Europe’s ass on more than one occasion and this is the gratitude we get in return? The US is pivoting towards China as we should have done a very long time ago. It’s time Europe stands on its own and the Russia Russia Russia hysteria Europe is lying to their citizens about go through the masses as they see that Putin and Russia have no designs to invade and European country. This war has always been about Ukraine and only Ukraine.