By Jim Geraghty
Thursday, July 19, 2018
The other night, Tucker Carlson interviewed President
Trump about the NATO alliance and asked, “Let’s say Montenegro, which joined
last year, is attacked. Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from
attack?” (Is Carlson’s son in the military? If not, is Carlson implying that to
honor NATO commitments, the U.S. government would reinstate the draft?)
David French answers, “If you don’t want Americans
fighting in foreign lands, you maintain your alliances.”
“What price are we willing to pay to defend our allies?”
is a fairer question than we may want to admit. If, God forbid, Russian tanks
suddenly rolled up to the borders of the Baltic states and started firing, what
percentage of the American public would support deploying U.S. troops to defend
those countries — or, more likely, to retake those countries from Russian
forces? (Wargame simulations suggest those countries would only be able to hold
out for a few days.)
There was an anti-war movement in the United States just
weeks after 9/11. Russia would no doubt have covert efforts to fan the flames
of dissent and division, but it might not be all that necessary. Americans who
didn’t want to use military force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban after
thousands of Americans were killed will not support military force to retake
foreign capitals that they’ve never heard of, such as Tallinn and Riga. You
would hear a lot of cries about the dangers of nuclear escalation, the
long-standing Russian ties to that region (as if that would ever justify a
military invasion), and the insistence that peace could be achieved by offering
modest territorial concessions over a negotiating table in Geneva.
I’ve been raving about Brad Thor’s latest thriller Spymaster, which deals with a Russian
plot to undermine NATO. One of the plot points is that the fictional,
not-very-Trump-y U.S. president tells his team to prevent or avoid “an Article
Five situation” — meaning, an at all costs, don’t allow a NATO ally to be
attacked, so that Article Five is invoked and the United States is obligated to
launch a counterattack. Separate from whether he wants to honor the American
commitment to its allies, he doesn’t want to test the commitment of NATO
members, or the American public, to that promise.
To imagine a future where American commitment to NATO
ends, turn to the Norwegian drama series Occupied
— compelling and thrilling enough to be worth reading subtitles. The
near-future world of Occupied
imagines that fighting in the Middle East has cut off most oil exports (not
that far-fetched), a United States that is energy-independent has left NATO
(once really far-fetched, now less so), and a Green party winning a majority in
Norway after a Katrina-style hurricane. Green party prime minister Jasper Berg
pursues a policy of shutting down Norway’s oil and gas exports in the name of
reducing carbon emissions and pursuing a clean-energy plan relying on the
element of Thorium.
(This is all shown in the first few minutes, so it’s not
really a spoiler. General, non-specific, thematic spoilers ahead.)
Norway’s environmental ambitions and sudden disruption of
energy supplies cause all kinds of economic problems across Europe, and one day
Berg . . . finds himself kidnapped by Russian-speaking masked men. They give
him an ultimatum: Allow Russia to reopen Norway’s oil and gas production or
face a full-scale invasion. Berg turns to the European Union for help, and
finds the EU has more or less given Russia its blessing. It becomes clear that
without the United States, NATO doesn’t really function at all.
A good portion of Occupied
portrays Norway’s progressive, sophisticated, well-educated political class
slowly realizing that no one is coming to
rescue them. Month by month, the Russians take over more and more of how
the country operates, and the country’s beloved soft power is impotent in the
face of hard power and military force. There are a lot of darkly funny
deer-in-the-headlights moments for Norwegian Green politicians as they realize
that they have no idea how to handle the kind of military crisis that they
thought was left to history; meanwhile, the tough old grouch who runs the
national military academy is the only guy who sees the threat clearly and is
formulating a plan to deal with it. (This is the most inadvertently
conservative show in a long time.)
Late in the first season, the American ambassador briefly
appears, offering a little help but telling Berg, “We no longer get into wars
unless we have a clear strategy to win them.” In short, you’re not important
enough for the United States to fight a war to liberate. All of the Norwegian
characters face the decision of whether to join an underground liberation
movement, or to try to make the best of living in an occupied country — sensing
that if push comes to shove, Russia could resolve the dispute with an extremely
bloody invasion.
We get intermittent glimpses of the rest of the
continent, with the Eastern European countries deeply concerned but generally
afraid to take much action to help Norway, and the Western European countries
are mostly happier now that Norway’s oil and gas is flowing, and their
economies are stable again. No one is willing to stand up to Russia alone, and
everyone else is whistling past the graveyard, hoping that Russia’s military
shows up at their border last.
And that, I suspect, is where Europe will eventually end
up if the United States government ever indicates that it will not honor
Article Five. If we don’t honor it, nobody else will. And the day that becomes
clear, the question becomes just how much European territory Russia wants to
claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment