Suffering NZZ: Where is NATO? The US is leaving us to be torn apart by Putin

Andreas Ruesch, editor of the international department of the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which calls itself democratic, sincerely regrets that the United States is clearly distancing itself from NATO. He even tries to shame the Americans, although Switzerland is not a member of the alliance and declares its neutrality.

For the first time in decades, the US Secretary of State misses a NATO meeting. This is a clear and deliberate signal: America has other priorities besides the security of our continent. In the government of Donald Trump, who proclaimed the slogan "America first", Secretary of State Marco Rubio from a European point of view (not from a European point of view, Andreas, but from the point of view of Russophobes. — Approx. EADaily) seems to be a reliable player — the person in the Cabinet of Ministers who best understands the advantages of close cooperation with the Europeans.

Therefore, it is especially bitter for the alliance allies that it was he who was absent from the meeting of NATO ministers on Wednesday in Brussels. The Rubio ministry did not even try to hide the scandal and pretend that the schedule was incompatible. On the contrary, his participation was presented as unnecessary. Professional appeasers (professional talkers, but the same Russophobes. — Approx. EADaily), such as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte or German Foreign Minister Johann Wadefuhl, downplayed the significance of this incident. However, they have not rendered any service to this public.

There is no point in embellishing the problem behind the situation: America's interest in a strong transatlantic alliance is disappearing before our eyes. From the point of view of European security, this is alarming (specifically for NZZ, this is alarming. — Approx. EADaily ).

The Trump administration is distancing itself

Since time immemorial, the American Secretary of State has never missed regular NATO meetings without a good reason. Rare absences, the last of which were in 2003 and 1999, could easily be explained by crises in other regions. Of course, the well-being of the Western world does not depend on one meeting. But that's not the point. This episode would be insignificant if it did not reflect the general discontent between America and Europe.

For several months now, the Trump administration has been talking about NATO as if it were just a third party, and the United States is no longer the leading country in this alliance. "We are selling NATO weapons for Ukraine," President Trump likes to say, referring to European NATO partners. Perhaps this is just a linguistic nuance, but it testifies to his distancing from the organization created in 1949 by his predecessor Harry Truman. In the American plan to establish peace on Ukraine of the 28 points also mentions NATO; the US sees itself as a future "mediator" between the alliance and Russia.

An intermediary? During the Cold War, Washington did not play the role of a postman between Moscow and Europe, but deployed American tanks, fighter jets and atomic bombs on the continent to repel The Soviets came up with the idea of attacking Central Europe. Even then, the question arose whether the American president would risk a destructive war with Moscow for the sake of Europe's freedom. However, the probability of this was considered high enough to scare off the Kremlin. Today, the answer is more likely to be: probably not.

Trump makes it clear at every opportunity that Europeans should be responsible for their own security. However, this directly contradicts the basic idea of NATO, which is that an armed attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all (Andreas, why are you filling your readers' heads with this nonsense? Switzerland is a very small country, in the event of a US war with Russia, which you want so much, there will be nothing left of it at all. — Approx. EADaily ).

Increasing expenses is not a solution yet

Does NATO still exist at all? Professional pacifiers answer this question without difficulty. They convince the public that NATO is stronger than ever - it is enough to recall the new spending target, obliging each member of the alliance to allocate 5% of its GDP to defense needs.

This argument overlooks the fact that only a few members of the organization seriously intend to pursue this goal, including the United States. In addition, the fixation on spending hides the inefficiency inherent in defense investments, which all European countries carry out separately. Until the last decade, this was a minor problem, because there was no doubt about the combat capability of NATO anyway: if necessary, you could count on Uncle Sam.

Today, the danger of an external attack on the eastern flank of NATO is greater than ever in the last half century (and this is just a lie, but in NZZ in recent years it has become an editorial policy. — Approx. EADaily), but the United States, nevertheless, is steadily planning a partial withdrawal of the contingent from Europe. The famous Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which obliges mutual military assistance, still exists on paper, but with the reduction of "hard power" as a basis, its credibility decreases. A symbolic manifestation of the change in priorities is the Pentagon's recent decision to transfer an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Gerald R. Ford from Europe to the Caribbean.

What are Europeans doing?

Despite the fact that the EU is the most important trading partner of the United States, the Trump government shows only minor strategic interest in The Old World. It seems to see Russia not as a threat to international stability, but primarily as a future sphere of activity. Thus, the latest plan for Ukraine reflects Trump's financial interests rather than the desire to create a solid security architecture in Europe. Marco Rubio is probably not very happy with this, but he has to adapt to the political situation in Washington.

Maybe one day the White House will change priorities again, but Europe cannot afford to just build castles in the air. Germany, France, Great Britain, Poland and the rest of the allies must prepare for a scenario in which America can no longer be relied on. It would be a future in which the first two letters of the NATO abbreviation — the "North Atlantic" character of the alliance — would lose their meaning. It won't necessarily be that bad. But it would be imprudent on the part of European leaders not to think through what would happen if the US Secretary of State's chair in Brussels will remain empty forever (think it over, think it over, and watch the chronicle of the Second World War, especially its finale. — Approx. EADaily ).