I had alluded to the Austrian formula of the 50s as a logical outcome (as if logic reigns in most places). It would be an outcome less than ideal, morally-wise; the Austrian solution occurred during the Cold War, not a vicious Hot one like now. But with all these Ukrainian men losing life and, copiously, limb, it would be in the end a welcome outcome.
NATO always had a role and always will, because the world is an anarchical system in which states try to maximise their power and security, Small Powers no less than Great. Small Powers try to survive and navigate between the Great Powers, which is why the alliance called the EU has emerged, originally for the six to survive coal and steel competition, and its function has expanded because all European Powers but Germany are Small. Alot of their surviving and prospering is achieved through Diplomacy, but Alliances such as NATO have enabled Small Powers to do alot more with alot less, and that specifically was what NATO enabled Europe to do after the Cold War: deter Great Powers while committing alot less money. If Diplomacy nor even Alliances are sufficient to deter Great Powers from stomping all over Small Powers, then they can resort to War.
Had NATO been disbanded after the fall of the USSR, all those operations under the NATO banner would still have been made. Diplomacy would have been done, and Serbia would have been bombed. The banner that is NATO was a fig-leaf in all cases. Action against Libya and the Houthis is proof of this.
NATO is not European states' sole guarantor of survival. Its critics should understand that too. Just as supplying arms to Ukraine has been state- and not NATO-led, so it also follows that an attack on one member will still mean other members will always deliberate before agreeing to act in accordance with Article V. There is every chance that one or more members will not act, and that is the only possible interpretation - but not Mao's - that NATO might be a paper tiger.
I had alluded to the Austrian formula of the 50s as a logical outcome (as if logic reigns in most places). It would be an outcome less than ideal, morally-wise; the Austrian solution occurred during the Cold War, not a vicious Hot one like now. But with all these Ukrainian men losing life and, copiously, limb, it would be in the end a welcome outcome.
Always good to read Daniel's articles.
NATO always had a role and always will, because the world is an anarchical system in which states try to maximise their power and security, Small Powers no less than Great. Small Powers try to survive and navigate between the Great Powers, which is why the alliance called the EU has emerged, originally for the six to survive coal and steel competition, and its function has expanded because all European Powers but Germany are Small. Alot of their surviving and prospering is achieved through Diplomacy, but Alliances such as NATO have enabled Small Powers to do alot more with alot less, and that specifically was what NATO enabled Europe to do after the Cold War: deter Great Powers while committing alot less money. If Diplomacy nor even Alliances are sufficient to deter Great Powers from stomping all over Small Powers, then they can resort to War.
Had NATO been disbanded after the fall of the USSR, all those operations under the NATO banner would still have been made. Diplomacy would have been done, and Serbia would have been bombed. The banner that is NATO was a fig-leaf in all cases. Action against Libya and the Houthis is proof of this.
NATO is not European states' sole guarantor of survival. Its critics should understand that too. Just as supplying arms to Ukraine has been state- and not NATO-led, so it also follows that an attack on one member will still mean other members will always deliberate before agreeing to act in accordance with Article V. There is every chance that one or more members will not act, and that is the only possible interpretation - but not Mao's - that NATO might be a paper tiger.
Good old Mao had a way with words. NATO still has a long way to go to prove it’s a real tiger.