The unexpected news from Europe this week was Turkey’s about-face on the issue of admitting Sweden to the NATO Alliance. As recently as the weekend, Turkey’s President Erdogan was saying that he opposed this move; on Monday, NATO announced that Sweden would be joining it.
It’s useful to remember the history of America’s approach to international relations. Through the first 150 years of the nation’s existence, the US pursued a policy generally described as isolationis, or America First. This was not universally adhered to, but it provided the underlying mindset of decision-makers. The geographic isolation of the country allowed it to decide how involved it wanted to be in the rest of the world. However, the 20th century proved that developments in transportation and communication meant that isolation was illusory and that the maintenance of a stable world community meant that the US had to be involved with other countries. After World War II, this impulse became even more compelling, as it was clear that the threat from the Axis powers could be stifled only by collective action.
The Venn Diagram above illustrates the tangled combination of alliances that define Europe today. The following maps provide a snapshot of these alliances.
NATO was formed first, in 1949. Designed to counter the growing presence of the Soviet Union in Europe after World War II, its membership expanded from 12 to 30 before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in March 2021. Since then, Finland joined, and now Sweden has become a member. This map summarizes the history of NATO expansion.
The OSCE (The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) began in 1973, although its mission changed significantly after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Its early mission was defined by the Helsinki Act of 1975, and its later evolution was framed by the Lisbon Declaration on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the Twenty-First Century, which affirmed “the universal and indivisible nature of security on the European continent.” It now has 57 member states. This map says it all:
The European Union also evolved after the end of World War II. From its roots in the 1949 Council of Europe, by the 1990s it had expanded to include 27 nations. It allows for virtually unencumbered movement of people and goods among the member nations, making Europe a much more powerful actor in the world economy. The EU provides a meaningful competitor to the economic influence of both China and the US; it is now the third most important actor in international trade and commerce. Before the formation of the EU in its current, most powerful, form, the individual nations of Europe were weak in the face of global economic pressures. This is why the EU exists.
Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine is a direct result of the failure of post-Soviet Russia. It offers nothing to counter the appeal of democratic and free-market impulses in Europe. The Soviet Union was never an economic power, even at the height of the Cold War era. It is less of an economic power today. Vladimir Putin, a fading despot in a failing regime, is attempting to hold on to power in the face of the seemingly inevitable continuation of this pattern.
Rather than blame Putin for his aggressive behavior at the periphery of Russia (including but not limited to Chechnya a few years ago and Ukraine today), some right-wing politicians in both the US and Europe want to blame Putin’s behavior on the “provocation” of the gradual expansion of western-style democracies in the parts of Europe where the Soviet Union once held sway. Yesterday, Congressional gadfly Marjorie Taylor Green introduced a resolution in Congress to withdraw the US from NATO, saying that NATO is “not a reliable partner.” Putin has spoken more than once about his desire to “recreate the Soviet Union,” whose demise he laments. Just yesterday, he stated that NATO expansion would force him to re-create the 1955 Warsaw Pact – an agreement among the nations of Eastern Europe to form a collective defense alliance in response to the formation of NATO. The post-World War II web of alliances makes this unreasonable – all six nations of the Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania) are participants of all three treaties I’ve talked about. As the fledgling and struggling democracies of the former Soviet bloc of nations grow and align themselves with nations Putin perceives to be his enemies, his reactions will become increasingly unpredictable. This will all get worse before it gets better. And I don’t agree with the maxim that “the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice.” Not unless we jump up and down on the free end.
As we continue to follow events in Ukraine and continue to witness the public arguments over how much aid the US and other countries should provide Ukraine, it’s important to recognize the pattern of the past 60 years and understand the implications of the changes we have seen.
It’s also useful to remember that the US interest in collective defense in Europe is not entirely altruistic. Remember the old World War I song, Over There? Although our geographic position no longer protects us from the influence of European politics, it does allow us to escape the horror of war on US soil. The only time the US has seen this was during the Civil War, and we didn’t want to do that again. During the Cold War, US troops stationed in Europe served two purposes: to bolster the defense capabilities of our allies, and to ensure that any war would be fought “over there.” US troops in Europe were stationed near the Fulda Gap, identified strategically as the most likely site for a Soviet incursion into a NATO nation.
The strategy actually had a name: the “tripwire” strategy. If invading Soviet forces encountered American soldiers immediately upon violating NATO territory, this would bring about the involvement of the entire US military, then (and now) the strongest in the world. We wanted to make sure that the first soldiers killed in such an encounter would be Americans. A few American soldiers killed “Over There” meant that any further conflict would destroy German towns and kill American soldiers. It would destroy Europe, not the US. This should not be reassuring to those of you whose fathers were stationed in Germany at some point while you were growing up.
I remember reading one article about what a nuclear war in Europe would look like. The title of the article? “A Smoking Radiating Ruin at the End of Two Hours.”
I’m just gonna leave this right here.
Noooooo………
I had not studied the first map but I will review the new map. I am still processing what you have written, especially the last sentence. Powerful!
I look forward to seeing you Monday. Safe travels!!