Everyone has had experiences with people who are so-called “friends” but are really moochers, people who claim to be your friend because they benefit from associating with you. They are the ones in high school who asks you to take them somewhere promising to split the gas money but upon arrival, make some excuse to get out of paying. They play the sympathy or the “you make more money” card to get you to pay for the meal they invited you out to. Moochers take on the view that since you have more money and resources, you should be the one supporting them. In such parasitic relationships, people either eventually drop their friendship or the moocher finds someone with more money to cling on to.
NATO Moochers
Most of the 28 countries in NATO are moochers. NATO has been the bedrock of providing defense assurances with an attack on any member country by an external aggressor to be treated as an attack on all NATO members. Given that Russia holds the view that they have the right to invade or meddle in the affairs of smaller, weaker neighbors with impunity, it is clear why Russia is very much against any expansion of NATO. To be a member of NATO, member countries must coordinate defense requirements and spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. However, only five of the NATO countries meet the member spending requirements and are the US, UK, Greece, Estonia and Poland. The US spends the most at 3.61% while Greece is in second place at 2.38%.
Upping the Ante
Donald Trump is meeting with NATO leaders this week and has called for member countries to step up their defense spending to the required 2%. When the member countries are not meeting their spending requirements, effectively the US is the one footing the bill for their security having the largest GDP and the largest total spend. It would be one thing if the US was calling all the shots at NATO but the organization runs on democratic principles and the US is just one voice out of the 28 equally weighted opinions. Two things happen when all 28 members meet the spending requirements, one is that the alliance becomes a stronger force not having to rely solely on the US and secondly US military sales may receive a boost should the members choose to purchase their arms from US manufacturers. While Trump has not spelled out what would happen if member countries do not meet their spending requirements, the rhetoric and the fact that Trump will be meeting with Putin next week has the NATO organization on edge and uncomfortable.
NATO outlived its usefulness?
NATO is a defensive treaty designed to protect member states from communist aggression. Communism may have fallen but there is a resurgence in Russia aggression towards its neighbors. The aggression has taken on a different slant than the past, though Russia has militarily invaded and taken territory from Georgia and the Ukraine. Russia is now engaged in political and economic aggression using natural resources such as gas and oil as weapons to control and influence its neighbors. Another new weapon of choice for Russia is hacking and cyber warfare which the NATO treaty isn’t designed for.
Given that NATO members aren’t living up to their defense spending requirements, that NATO itself doesn’t have an answer for political, economic, and cyber threats, the question to be asked is whether or not NATO is still relevant in modern times.
