“[..] Beyond its obvious value as a training exercise, Trident Juncture also serves a political purpose—telegraphing to Moscow that, despite the current U.S. administration’s stated ambivalence, NATO membership matters. [..]
[..] Long-term political trends could also affect the political viability of U.S. and allied deterrent threats. Both in the United States and in Europe, those trends are reflecting a greater influence of nationalist and populist sentiments and parties. To the extent that they generate a more skeptical attitude toward international commitments, the political will underpinning NATO Article V promises could ebb. This has not happened yet; indeed, the trends over the last several years have been in the opposite direction. But questions about foreign commitments, including deterrence of Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, are increasingly being raised on both sides of the Atlantic.[..] It is important to stress that this analysis assumes the current political context in Europe and the United States—or something close to it. While it has come to reflect greater degrees of nationalist and populist sentiments, and while tensions have emerged especially between Europe and the United States on a number of issues, the basic commitment to NATO security guarantees, reflected in part by rising investments to bolster deterrence, remains strong. If this were to change—if the political trends behind a more skeptical attitude toward foreign commitments were to accelerate—many of the findings in this report would have to be reevaluated. A number of the variables we have coded as healthy would become increasingly ambiguous, and the overall status of
deterrence would weaken. [..]
avots: jaunākais RAND pētījums
vara bungas: Vēršu uzmanību, ka RAND nesaka, ka ” NATO 5.pants pagalam” , viņi saka, ka jāseko trendiem. Un šajā sakarā man šķiet zīmīga remdenā pasaules reakcija uz incidentu Kerčas šaurumā, kad pasaules varenie piever acis uz globālās kuģošanas pamatlikumu pārkāpšanu (par divpusējiem saistošiem līgumiem pat nerunājot) un nespēj vai negrib panākt ķīlnieku atbrīvošanu. Tā vēl nav diagnoze, bet simptoms.
UPD1 Kā ilustrācija trendam Patriks Bjukenens (trīs US prezidentu padomnieks, pazīstams publicists, paleo-konservatīvais republikānis): “Why is this our quarrel, to the point that U.S. strategists want us to confront Russia over a Crimean Peninsula that houses the Livadia Palace that was the last summer residence of Czar Nicholas II?If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free of Kiev?” avots