I have a few comments about this exchange. While everyone at the Unpopulist is committed to the values of liberal democracy, we have to treat the means of pursuing them on an empirical rather than an ideological basis. To that end:
1. Shikha under-rates the deterrence value of the NATO alliance. The fact that Article 5 has only been invoked once is a sign of NATO’s success, as Berny argues (great cornerback analogy!). The structure of NATO is largely predicated upon the danger that Russia might pick off countries to its west one by one, where they, individually, aren’t able to resist on their own, but could prevent Russia from starting war in the first place with collective support from Europe and America. There is no evidence that this strategy has been anything but a smashing success since WWII. The argument, therefore, shouldn’t be about this form of alliance as an effective security strategy for Europe, but whether it should be constituted by NATO, with the US as a member, or whether it should be an EU-only alliance. The deterrence value of NATO is plainly larger than an EU-only alliance. Frankly, we should be discussing a Pacific Rim alliance against Chinese aggression that included Taiwan.
2. Regional military alliances like NATO foster economic development by reducing the potential for regional conflict. The US’s prosperity and security has a lot to do with its economic power and the dominance of the US dollar, and this is underwritten by such alliances and our military strength. Our economy is orders of magnitude more globalized than in 1796, and it’s a practical necessity for the US to engage in the global order in a way that just wouldn’t have been imaginable or even relevant in the 18th century. We have to accept this changed reality.
3. This idea that US can nimbly “pivot” to helping out democratic countries anywhere in the world whenever a conflict appears on the horizon misunderstands how our political institutions function. It’s not the NATO alliance that is sclerotic – it’s the US government. International politics rarely upstages domestic politics on its own terms, and stable alliance structures and programs help the US advance its interests abroad on a business-as-usual basis. Rather than being able to "pivot" quickly to different circumstances, without NATO, my prediction is that the US would simply be less engaged. For instance, the main barrier to helping Ukraine now is Donald Trump, not the nations of France or Germany. If the US weren’t part of NATO, maybe we would be more involved in the war in Ukraine, but maybe we would be involved less or maybe the war would also be in Estonia; in any case, we wouldn’t be doing more to intervene in Sudan or Armenia.
4. I would argue that NATO has helped foster liberal values in Europe by reducing the risk of conflict with Russia and other powers to the east. But it’s a security structure, not a political or cultural construct that can enforce a certain set of values. Each country has to do the work in its own domestic politics to promote liberal values. Getting rid of NATO is not going to do this work for us – there are no cheat codes to a better, more peaceful future for humanity.
I don’t have time or patience to listen, and so appreciate the transcript.
A very thoughtful discussion with many valid points and arguments. Thanks.
I have a few comments about this exchange. While everyone at the Unpopulist is committed to the values of liberal democracy, we have to treat the means of pursuing them on an empirical rather than an ideological basis. To that end:
1. Shikha under-rates the deterrence value of the NATO alliance. The fact that Article 5 has only been invoked once is a sign of NATO’s success, as Berny argues (great cornerback analogy!). The structure of NATO is largely predicated upon the danger that Russia might pick off countries to its west one by one, where they, individually, aren’t able to resist on their own, but could prevent Russia from starting war in the first place with collective support from Europe and America. There is no evidence that this strategy has been anything but a smashing success since WWII. The argument, therefore, shouldn’t be about this form of alliance as an effective security strategy for Europe, but whether it should be constituted by NATO, with the US as a member, or whether it should be an EU-only alliance. The deterrence value of NATO is plainly larger than an EU-only alliance. Frankly, we should be discussing a Pacific Rim alliance against Chinese aggression that included Taiwan.
2. Regional military alliances like NATO foster economic development by reducing the potential for regional conflict. The US’s prosperity and security has a lot to do with its economic power and the dominance of the US dollar, and this is underwritten by such alliances and our military strength. Our economy is orders of magnitude more globalized than in 1796, and it’s a practical necessity for the US to engage in the global order in a way that just wouldn’t have been imaginable or even relevant in the 18th century. We have to accept this changed reality.
3. This idea that US can nimbly “pivot” to helping out democratic countries anywhere in the world whenever a conflict appears on the horizon misunderstands how our political institutions function. It’s not the NATO alliance that is sclerotic – it’s the US government. International politics rarely upstages domestic politics on its own terms, and stable alliance structures and programs help the US advance its interests abroad on a business-as-usual basis. Rather than being able to "pivot" quickly to different circumstances, without NATO, my prediction is that the US would simply be less engaged. For instance, the main barrier to helping Ukraine now is Donald Trump, not the nations of France or Germany. If the US weren’t part of NATO, maybe we would be more involved in the war in Ukraine, but maybe we would be involved less or maybe the war would also be in Estonia; in any case, we wouldn’t be doing more to intervene in Sudan or Armenia.
4. I would argue that NATO has helped foster liberal values in Europe by reducing the risk of conflict with Russia and other powers to the east. But it’s a security structure, not a political or cultural construct that can enforce a certain set of values. Each country has to do the work in its own domestic politics to promote liberal values. Getting rid of NATO is not going to do this work for us – there are no cheat codes to a better, more peaceful future for humanity.