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.
Interesting comments...to sum, will nato become an alliance, or as you suggest a fig-leaf for other projects? The easter members probably wants more clarity, the western side, probably not. Which may at one level, explains the arms-length intervention in Ukraine, (actually are the arms length, but still). Or is the era you describe definitively over...?
My day job is helping companies predict their budgets and forecasts more accurately, so I'm acutely aware that prediction is a hazardous business. Scenario Planning covers your arse better.
This war has accelerated Germany's rise to power: hitherto is has been an Economic Great Power, but now will take the leading role in European NATO at first, certainly, and perhaps then forge an EU Army. Its figleaf will be France and the EU, but the core power will be German, as it is in the EU. Its significance will be felt mainly across and within Europe, even though the catalyst has been on its periphery https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/empire-part-3-re-emergence-german-question-charles-fiddes-payne/
There could be a crisis in American Power, which would either cause the fragmentation of Europe, or an increase in its cohesiveness, in the military-political dimension. We saw both with Brexit: further political integration, due also to the Pandemic, but also a very decisive move to Multi-Speed Europe (the very thing Cameron wanted but was denied by Juncker!)
The other set of scenarios revolves around Ukrainian security post-war. Will it / wont it be acceded into the EU, and/or into NATO ... ? Here's my outlier prediction: the Ukrainian Rump will negotiate peace on Russia's terms, formally agree neutrality and never to join NATO, like Austria and Finland did. EU members will not permit it to join the club, but it will receive economic support from German Europe and become its very dissatisfied, poor and corrupt subaltern. Putin will grumble. And so the vale of tears will continue, and the sun will never shine on that part of Europe in our lifetime ...
I don't agree. Why does Putin (and Xi) rail against it so much?
Mao Tse-tung first enunciated the concept that atomic bombs and "all reactionaries" are "paper tigers" during an interview in August 1946 (Anna L. Strong, Dawn Out of China (Bombay: People's Publishing House, 1948), p. 155.). Mao did not coin the phrase "paper tiger", nor did he use "paper tiger" to talk about NATO, because it didn't exist in 1946.
PRC propaganda regularly referred to the USA, UK and the "revisionists" (Khrushchev and other leaders of the USSR), "imperialism", "all reactionaries" as well as to airpower and seapower as "paper tigers" (eg. Peking Review, Vol. 17, No. 42, October 16, 1964 (Special Supplement), p. ii, and No. 48, November 27, 1964, pp. 8-9).
If you think NATO is a mere tool of US power, then you can logically assert that NATO is a paper tiger.
But it was the USSR in response to PRC jibes about withdrawing missiles from Cuba that retorted that the USA may be a paper tiger, but "with nuclear teeth" (Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. 14, No. 52, January 28, 1963). We need to check our sources, and to avoid fake news.
Displaying its lack of imagination, PRC propaganda often trots out the "paper tiger" taunt, like a schoolboy claiming that "My dad's bigger than your dad". It did so when Trump was President. Mao was dissembling.
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.
Interesting comments...to sum, will nato become an alliance, or as you suggest a fig-leaf for other projects? The easter members probably wants more clarity, the western side, probably not. Which may at one level, explains the arms-length intervention in Ukraine, (actually are the arms length, but still). Or is the era you describe definitively over...?
Witty!
My day job is helping companies predict their budgets and forecasts more accurately, so I'm acutely aware that prediction is a hazardous business. Scenario Planning covers your arse better.
This war has accelerated Germany's rise to power: hitherto is has been an Economic Great Power, but now will take the leading role in European NATO at first, certainly, and perhaps then forge an EU Army. Its figleaf will be France and the EU, but the core power will be German, as it is in the EU. Its significance will be felt mainly across and within Europe, even though the catalyst has been on its periphery https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/empire-part-3-re-emergence-german-question-charles-fiddes-payne/
There could be a crisis in American Power, which would either cause the fragmentation of Europe, or an increase in its cohesiveness, in the military-political dimension. We saw both with Brexit: further political integration, due also to the Pandemic, but also a very decisive move to Multi-Speed Europe (the very thing Cameron wanted but was denied by Juncker!)
The other set of scenarios revolves around Ukrainian security post-war. Will it / wont it be acceded into the EU, and/or into NATO ... ? Here's my outlier prediction: the Ukrainian Rump will negotiate peace on Russia's terms, formally agree neutrality and never to join NATO, like Austria and Finland did. EU members will not permit it to join the club, but it will receive economic support from German Europe and become its very dissatisfied, poor and corrupt subaltern. Putin will grumble. And so the vale of tears will continue, and the sun will never shine on that part of Europe in our lifetime ...
Good old Mao had a way with words. NATO still has a long way to go to prove it’s a real tiger.
I don't agree. Why does Putin (and Xi) rail against it so much?
Mao Tse-tung first enunciated the concept that atomic bombs and "all reactionaries" are "paper tigers" during an interview in August 1946 (Anna L. Strong, Dawn Out of China (Bombay: People's Publishing House, 1948), p. 155.). Mao did not coin the phrase "paper tiger", nor did he use "paper tiger" to talk about NATO, because it didn't exist in 1946.
PRC propaganda regularly referred to the USA, UK and the "revisionists" (Khrushchev and other leaders of the USSR), "imperialism", "all reactionaries" as well as to airpower and seapower as "paper tigers" (eg. Peking Review, Vol. 17, No. 42, October 16, 1964 (Special Supplement), p. ii, and No. 48, November 27, 1964, pp. 8-9).
If you think NATO is a mere tool of US power, then you can logically assert that NATO is a paper tiger.
But it was the USSR in response to PRC jibes about withdrawing missiles from Cuba that retorted that the USA may be a paper tiger, but "with nuclear teeth" (Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Vol. 14, No. 52, January 28, 1963). We need to check our sources, and to avoid fake news.
Displaying its lack of imagination, PRC propaganda often trots out the "paper tiger" taunt, like a schoolboy claiming that "My dad's bigger than your dad". It did so when Trump was President. Mao was dissembling.