Is Estonia Worth A War? -- Justin Logan, National Interest
No one near the levers of power in Washington suggested that Ukraine’s territorial integrity was worth risking a war with Russia. That stark reality offers an opportunity to evaluate U.S. alliances. Which European countries should the United States be willing to go to war with Russia over?
It’s an important question, given that Washington has a formal treaty commitment to a number of countries that are less strategically important than Ukraine. Since no one in Washington favored fighting for Ukrainian sovereignty, would they really threaten it over, say, Estonia, just because the latter is a NATO member? Does the existence of an alliance commitment create an interest worth going to war over?
Over the second half of the twentieth century, the United States steadily accumulated allies. During the Cold War, we gathered allies in the name of containing the Soviet Union. After the Cold War, Washington parlayed its winnings, expanding its sphere of influence. In Europe, two rounds of NATO expansion brought the anti-Russian alliance up to the Russian border, accompanied by promises that NATO was no longer about Russia. Globally, more than a quarter of the world’s countries are now allies of the United States.
Read more ....
My Comment: This is a debate that is long overdue .... and with countries like China and Russia now engaged in border disputes with some of their neighbors who are also U.S. allies .... it is one that we should be having right away.
As to what is my take .... this is a debate where I find myself not sure of the answer. For example .... going to war over a country like Estonia is something that will be hard for me to accept. Estonia treats it's Russian citizens as second class citizens with some of the most discriminatory laws on the planet .... so why should I/we support them .... because they are a NATO member and we are committed to their defense? In the case of Estonia I need more motivation than just that. But if countries like Poland in Europe or Japan in Asia are in a conflict .... I can accept the rational and reasons on why we should to go to war in those cases .... they are strategic and critical allies of immense importance .... abandoning them would have worldwide implications that will last for generations and will (in all probability) ferment even greater wars. But then again .... one can argue that if Estonia falls and we do nothing .... will this expand into other wars .... escalating into a World War and/or a nuclear war that ends up exterminating hundreds of millions .... if not more .... and all because of our inaction.
Sighhh .... no easy answers.
Update: After thinking about it .... I think we should stick to our words, principles, and commitments. To do less in the face of an aggressor will only ferment greater wars and conflicts in the future .... a sad fact that has been proven throughout history.
1 comment:
"our words, principles, and commitments." Actually Mr. WNU the discussion is going to be and should be, what are our principles and commitments?
I wasn't that impressed with the article. He got some things right (NATO is a bluff), but all in all it was a fairly weak defense of "Nuanced Foreign Policy".
Where I really disagree with him is on creditability and faith. Those are two corner stones of all alliances. Lose one or both and the alliance loses all it's meaning. Also the people that lose them can never recover them, someone else might, but not them. That's why Leaders or Administrations trying re-establish their credibility are so dangerous.
Post a Comment