.
Finland joins NATO. It's unfashionable to think so, but alliances used to be a concept in foreign policy to further the own nation's best interests. The notion that a country somehow has to serve an alliance rather than the other way around is a perverse distortion.
What's in it for Germany? Well, the accession of Finland adds almost no additional risk of a hot war (considering its longtime neutral and moderate foreign policy) and Finland adds a lot of land power (especially hundred of thousands of reservists in an army that always took actual defence seriously) to the alliance.
This added military power doesn't improve the odds that Russia would lose a war with NATO and given the demonstration of Russian military shortcomings in Ukraine*, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Finland does not improve the (already 100%) deterrence of Russian aggressions against NATO itself.
The logical conclusion is thus that Finland's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty adds military power on top of already sufficient (for deterence & defence) military power within NATO.
This means that a continuation of the current military spending levels is necessarily and beyond reasonable doubt wasteful (even assuming there was no inefficiency in it at all).
The accession of Finland thus means that we (the old NATO members) should revise military spending planning DOWN from the planned levels (at least down from the levels planned before Finland joining might possibly have been 'priced in').
The real benefit to Germany (and most other old NATO members) is thus that we can save military spending, as the alliance has gained military power by adding Finland rather than by adding military spending.
Military spending is not virtuous, it's not productive, it's not an efficient way of promoting science or technology. Military spending is government consumption like spending on armoured sedans for ministers. Its justification is not emotions, it's the achievement of a sufficient deterence (and as backup defence) to protect our freedom, prosperity and lives. It's comparable to buying a good lock for the door of a family home; there's no point in spending ever more money on it if it already does its job well. Likewise, you cannot further the prosperity of the family by spending more on the door lock; it's an entirely unsuitable tool for that purpose.
The insight that the accession of Finland should trigger military spending reductions is as alien to the general debate on military spending as is the insight that Russia proving to be a conventional military Potemkin' village an empire without clothes, means that we need to spend less on detering it or defending against it than was previously reasonable to believe.
The dominant notion is that somehow we need to spend more on armed forces, and hardly anyone asks about what kind of reasoning supposedly supports that notion. The vested special interests of career officers, arms industry and legislators from arms industry-rich districts combine to support the illogical notion that causes more economic harm to a country than the vast majority of criminals combined.
The most disappointing part is not that we cannot defeat these special interest groups in pursuit of the nation's general interests. The truly disappointing part is that there's hardly anyone even only challenging to that fight.
S O
*: Russia revealed that its armed forces combine all weaknesses and faults ever known from Russian armed forces of the post-Suvorov era at this time (other than the mutiny & revolution of 1917).
.
You see the problem as defending Europe against Russia. I see Russia and China arming up for a global fight for world hegemony and they are trying to get allies. PPP makes their expenditure, if well managed, much more effective than our expenditure. We might be in for a very big fight, because Russia and China also try to utilize diplomacy and propaganda to shape the battlefield in their favour. Outside of Europe these attempts do have great success. More military capability might be necessary, higher expenditure not necessarily, but our administration imagines that capability comes with higher expenditure.
ReplyDeletePutin wanted to prepare Russia for re-establishing the control over the seceeded Soviet republics, presumably sans the Baltics. World hegemony was never on his agenda.
DeleteGeography renders the PRC near-impotent in Europe. They cannot maintain maritime lines of communication in wartime and the Transsiberian railway is barely sufficient for the civilian transportation needs. They could not risk to deploy much airpower to Europe.
The Chinese investments in Africa appear to be much less concerning than five years ago and Europe is about to invest big in Africa for green energy.
And as I wrote recently, the PRC can be neutralised militarily quite easily with existing airpower and without shipbuilding. That doesn't help Taiwan or South Korea, but geography ensures that the PRC is no existential threat to the freedom of Europeans.
Your analysis is correct for the moment. I look at their taken direction for the future.
DeleteIt's not just adding "lot of land power". Natoization of Finland puts Putin's Northern Fleet bases at extreme risk in the event of hostilities. If Sweden joins it would turn the Baltic into a NATO lake.
ReplyDeletePlus
Mike
Those bases would have been bombed to crap anyway and the Baltic Fleet hasn't been relevant since Napoleonic times.
DeletePerhaps. But even so, AShM, cruise missiles and ATACMS in Finland would be good insurance.
DeleteExcellent summation of the TRUE reason for an alliance. Thank you for reiterating this in the first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteWe should only form alliances to increase OUR OWN security, not to do so for another nation. If we are simply increasing the security of another nation, we are not forming a true alliance, but rather creating a Protectorate. Those are fine too, but protectorates should be forced to cede control of its military and its foreign policy to the Protector.
My opinion is alliances are only warranted when a nation REQUIRES aid or assistance in the following three areas:
1) Food Security
2) Energy Security (and maybe some other strategic raw material it lacks)
3) Military Assistance: This means fighting shoulder to shoulder with an ally, but it might also be simply to acquire arms supplies in peacetime.
Countries should be wary of entangling themselves in alliances for any other reason. Note: When I speak of "alliances", I do not mean "friendly relations". An alliance must be by a Written Treaty, voted on by the people of both nations, and ratified by both leaders. They are a deep commitment, which can NEVER be broken by any honorable man in either country. They carry the same weight as Federal Law in the US for just that reason.
Therefore, they should be entered into very, very cautiously and with great prudence.
You may be interested in
Deletehttps://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-nato-changed-perception-of-what.html
https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/alliances-and-guarantee-of-independence.html
Thank you, SO. Both articles were excellent. I see we are in complete agreement.... for once! ha ha ha
ReplyDelete