Philadelphia, PA

Dear Kushre,

I see no weakening of NATO. France has complained about loss of an arms deal with Australia, but France is tied to the E.U., and the E.U. is tied to NATO. France also has interests in keeping the South China Sea open to international navigation.

China seems to be occupied with its own domestic problems of energy supply? Notice, too, that the administration in Washington has placed great emphasis on diplomacy. There is talk of re-opening U.S.-Chinese trade negotiations. However, tariffs imposed on Chinese exports to the U.S. remain in place.

Chinese threats to Taiwan, in the form of military aircraft flying close to the island suggest a weakness rather than a strength. I assume that China is saber-rattling because it wants something. So the question is, What does China want? Chances are that its not going to get Taiwan. Japan and Australia in particular are against that idea. The U.S. and G.B are unlikely to let Taiwan go the way of Chinese oppression of democracy in Hong Kong. The premise of the U.K. handover of Hong Kong was that its special status would be preserved, and China has reneged on the deal.

I notice that though India engaged in join naval maneuvers with others of late, in the area of the Indian Ocean or the South China Sea, and taken some measures on the Indian-Chinese border, it has not, to my knowledge, joined any military alliance of late. China might, of course, attempt to build up its own military alliance. But there are other alternatives likely more beneficial to China. Also, consider whether there are any countries which would actually gain much from Chinese military dominance of the South China Sea? One notices, though that the Indian navy holds the potential to control trade routes between China and the Persian gulf.

I expect that the current tendency toward greater authoritarianism in China is actually a sign of internal conflicts --chiefly economic. China is one of the great civilizations of world history, and it is not going to go away. (But it has always been a great internal struggle to keep the country from breaking up into "waring kingdoms.")

The Chinese model is not going to dominate the world.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Kushre,

The QUAD alliance was defensive in nature to China's intentions to seize the Pacific, mainly to defend the strategic Spratly Islands and the Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands against the inability of ASEAN on these issues. The QUAD was driven to a greater extent by Japan, although with US support it became an ineffective body. On the other hand, the AUKUS is an alliance for the strategic CONTAINMENT (in the Military sense) of China to not allow it to continue expanding navally. Let us remember that the United States and the United Kingdom represent the prevailing thalassocracy, losing any space to China would represent the loss of strategic depth in the Pacific and the end of the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy.

It in no way represents the weakening of NATO, it is a normal reaction to the threat to the future. NATO only represents a part of the thalassocracy itself, it is a division and its strongest arm. In the Pacific, the USPACOM Pacific Command operates, the AUKUS becomes its strengthening.

The reaction was the fact emergence of the Moscow, Beijing Pyongyang axis. North Korea tested hypersonic missiles in the Pacific. That is the answer. Increasing the Axis attack and defensive strength on the Pacific. Of course, in the future there will be more military exercises in reaction.

NATO outlived it purposes, and out growth it's potential. And NATO is becoming more steroided liberal policy to go to war with any weak countries. The example are Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria etc. As results of that NATO is losing its prestige, value and it's own moral ethics. Now, US need a group of countries without any moral compass and ethics. So, AUKUS was evolve to this need of US.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Khumancha & readers,

You seem to suffer under the false impression that the U.S. controls everything of importance which goes on in the world? But this simply isn't true. (Moreover it wouldn't be desirable so far as I'm concerned.) Nor is it true that everything done in the name of the U.S. government actually serves the common interest of the American people. I would include here the "forever wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I seriously doubt that NATO has outlived its purposes. Those purposes include the security of the U.S. and of NATO Europe. The alliance ties the two regions together --in a pledge of mutual support if any of the NATO nations are attacked. That the two regions of Europe and North America are tied together is a very significant fact in and of itself. It has also deeper cultural roots.

I doubt that the AUKUS alliance was initiated by the U.S. But perhaps you know more about it than I do? In my impression, the initiative came from Australia and the U.K. --with outside support from Japan (and maybe India?). If you follow the news, I think you will see that the harshest complaints about China are coming from Australia --see, e.g., "Sky news, Australia." Recall that the British navy led the recent maneuvers in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Others did join in, of course including the U.S. navy. A chief objective of all this was to maintain the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

Of interest regarding the viability of NATO is western NATO support for the small Baltic members in the wake of the continuing war and Russian threat in eastern Ukraine. NATO forces are still stationed in those three countries and elsewhere in Eastern Europe as well.

H.G. Callaway

NATO and AUKUS are involved with different parts of the world.

I'm very much anti-war, pro-diplomacy; pro-cooperation. I'd like to see everybody getting along without anyone trying to dominate anyone. But as I understand it, the US Navy has had a long history of keeping sea lanes open for everyone. Sometimes that has meant warding off individual pirates, sometimes State actors.

The US of course has a far from perfect record, but let's "...not throw out the baby with the bath water."

Yes, of course.

But the hard fact is; during the last few years, most of the NATO countries are losing the faith on USA and now even a weak country realised that USA can leave anytime, to anyone without thinking the consequences for a little instantaneous gain.

Well a democracy is subject to a change in direction when new elections take place, which should not be confused for some conspiracy looking for "...a little instantaneous gain." The US has some shoring up to do, and of course Russia (now with an economy the size of Italy but an oversized ambition for interfering in other countries with propaganda), and China are happy to exacerbate any negative situation they can, but positive feelings for NATO run traditionally high among many people in the US.

Also, though a democracy can seem fickle with changes in government, it, for humanitarian reasons certainly, beats all the alternatives. Though I am not a conservative, I will still quote Winston Churchill (winstonchurchill.org): "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Tiwari & readers,

It strikes me that France is not "a weak country." Instead, in military terms, it is one of the strongest countries in Europe and in NATO. The U.S. is very unlikely to "leave" its NATO allies. Like the E.U., NATO helps to avoid ethnic-nationalist competitions in Europe. Everyone is protected by the alliance, so the European NATO countries do not need to take military precautions against each other.

Recall that Europe almost destroyed itself, twice-over during the 20th century.

Offering advanced submarine technology to Australia does not mean "leaving" France --though the French government would have preferred to sell its own submarine technology to Australia. It seems that France was caught by surprise when Australia decided to reject the French submarine technology. But being surprised and disappointed does not amount to being disserted or betrayed. If we had to always seek approval for what we do, from anyone who might be surprised, then we'd likely do very little, indeed.

U.S. policy toward NATO and Europe has been remarkably constant over many decades. NATO came to the defense of the U.S. when it was attacked on 9/11. However, it has also been a consistent U.S. policy to insist that Europe do more for its own defense. I believe the Europeans are taking this matter more seriously since the start of the Russian threats in the East of Ukraine. The U.S. commitment to NATO is especially important in Eastern Europe --where people recall what it meant to live under Russian-Soviet dominance. NATO is not about to go away.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Prof. H.G. Callaway ,

I never said that, the France is a weak country and my answer was not limited to NATO, AUKUS and EU. It was more concerned to the current scenario@Afganistan.

Many thanks

6 October MMXXI

Oh! You mean NATO was once strong?

Cordially...

ASJ

Partly a result of what President Macron has described a 'brain-dead' NATO. OF course China will respond. The question is 'how'?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Mallinson & readers,

You quote President Macron from November 2019, and the claim was a reaction to Mr. Trump's skepticism on the willingness of Europe to see to its own defense. This was a full year before Mr. Trump lost the presidential election of November 2020.

See:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50335257

However, Mr. Trump's attitude is not characteristic of a general U.S. attitude toward NATO. That there were cheers from Russia or China to critical remarks on NATO should be no great surprise. But perhaps this is colored by wishful thinking?

For sure, the U.S. would like to see NATO Europe do more for the alliance, and this includes spending more on defense. But NATO Europe has responded to perceived threats from Russia in Eastern Europe.

See:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

Since the time of President Macron's skeptical statement, Both the U.S. and the German governments (among others?) have reaffirmed their commitment to NATO. NATO contributes to holding the Western countries together in spite of all differences; and the alliance does not rest on purely military considerations. Of course, NATO is stronger in proportion to the perceived threat from Russia; and Russian actions against Ukraine have been important in this.

H.G. Callaway

I think that the Franco-German axis is subtle enough to stop the Anglo-Saxon onsalught, a result of their atavistic 'Mackinder' fear of a Russia-friendly EU.

WDE Mallinson, are you saying that the US and UK are "attacking" France and Germany because the US and UK are more concerned with Russia (and its economy the size of Italy's) than the EU is concerned with Russia? An "attack?" When Russia interferes with everybody? That sounds like the makings of a baseless "conspiracy theory." What???

And France and Germany are true-democracy friendly (as long as Le Pen does not take over). We all need them.

The UK and US have always worked against a strong Europe, and are dead set against a Europoean army. That's why they have in the past been worried about Franco-German co-operation. Moreover, NATO has interfered with Russia far moret than vice-versa, from what I have seen. Ask Victoria Nuland.....Now that Greece and France have a defence agreement, this should enciourage a European arkmy independent of NATO, and probably friendlier towards Russia.

Given the vagaries of individual and corporate human behaviour, predicting is a risky business.....

The AUKUS quad can be seen as a result of heightened regional cooperation and the shifting power structure of thw world to a more multipolar and diverse system as before. Since the tripartite agreement includes US, UK, Australia, it may aid NATO but does not necessarily point to its decline.

AUKUS will be more flexible in regional context. Less stakeholders, less bargaining, faster actions. It would be hard to persuade NATO members to shift their attention outside Euroatlantic region. At least is short or medium term. AUKUS does not translate into NATO getting weaker. It is simply additional regional arrangement as it suits participating states.

Yet more profits for the shareholders of the military-industrial-congressional complex.

At the openting of the socialistic olympic winter games Xi of China and Putin of Russia met (no other state leaders apparently came) and stated that there must be an end of the NATO expension...

Dictataors and militaristic state leaders that want to rule part of the world do not like the NATO. But both are aggressors (Hongkong, Ukraine, Taiwan) and the rest of the (free) world must be very aware...

NATO has a membership in North America, Europe and parts of Asia (Turkey). It is a defence pact not an aggressive attacking pact...

It does not have any interest in the pacific region...

Agressors there with a strong drive for enlargement is CHINA (Hongkong, Taiwan) as was before 1945 possibly Japan.

AKSUS is a normal idea for the Australia/NZ/USA/UK domain to counter the expansion drive of CHINA (e.g. in the south China sea and the artificial atolls/Islands it is building)...