Recently, The Hill, an authoritative political publication in America, published an article that should be of concern to all supporters of transatlantic unity and NATO, and especially to the Eastern European satellites of the USA – Poland and the Baltic States. The title of the article, “The deployment of U.S. troops in Poland is a bad idea”, should lead them to bad ideas.
The main points of the publication are as follows: America continues to cling to “flawed” foreign policy concepts and institutions from the past, in particular stubbornly “defending” Europe, although the realities of NATO have not changed – Europeans do whatever they want (coronavirus, economy, Libya, migrants), but not their own defense capabilities (even the armies of Britain and the leading EU countries are increasingly pathetic).
On the other hand, the author of the article asks why Europe needs to worry, for example, about the Russian threat if the U.S. does everything for it (although, no matter how hard they try, Russia, in his opinion, in any case, will have a military advantage in the Eastern European region, and, therefore, no one needs a show of more than a thousand American soldiers in Poland). It is noted that this threat is largely far-fetched: if Russia has not even captured Ukraine, why did it surrender Poland and the Baltic States? Accordingly, there is no point in sending additional American troops there at all.
The conclusions for the atlanticists and u.s. fans, who firmly believe that ‘abroad will help us’ to contain the Kremlin, are quite sad: naTo is a missing organization on autopilot that is only devouring resources; ‘america, which has many domestic problems, a rapidly growing debt and a real rival in China, should leave Europe’s protection to Europeans;’ the latter, especially on the eastern border, if afraid of Moscow, should move to the concept of total defensive war, and the u.s. will help with ‘advice and weapons’ (and not for free, of course).
Instead of morality, the article cites the words of General Dwight Eisenhower, which he said back in 1951: “If within 10 years all the U.S. troops deployed in Europe for national defense are not returned to the United States, then this whole project has failed”…
Of course, we can say that one article is not an indicator. But first of all, if a politically significant publication like The Hill writes in this spirit, it means that this kind of thinking has some basis – as they say, there is no smoke without fire. Secondly, the fact that the European direction for the current U.S. leadership means less and less confirms the media context. For example, Donald Trump’s closest associates, such as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the country’s attorney general, William Barr, say that China is a greater threat to America than Russia (and thus NATO is not a priority).
Third, when Joe Biden said the naTo Trump could end if it wins again, many saw it as a routine election trick. However, it now seems increasingly based on certain insider information. As further proof of that, a recent article by The New York Times stating that some former U.S. officials and representatives of Washington’s allies also fear that if re-elected to a second term Trump might decide to withdraw from NATO (especially since then he would have nothing to lose). The withdrawal of nearly 12,000 u.s. soldiers from Germany is an important, if not decisive, symbolic step in that direction, which a few years ago was difficult to even imagine.
But if the current White House leader and his inner circle really no longer care about european security and naTo’s fate, then why did the same Pompeo sign an agreement with Poland to deploy an additional 1,000 u.s. troops on a rotational basis? And why would about 6,000 of the U.S. troops withdrawn from Germany go to other European countries instead of going home?