I was thinking that NATO was pretty much what allowed Germany not to go full-on communist bloc, but maybe I assumed too much?
Keeping the world's most dynamic developed export economy as a market system seems like a win.
I'm not doubting the historic importance of NATO in that regard--just its current relevance and the set of incentives it provides to its European members.
I’m sure a marketing director would say NATO suffers from poor branding. NATO isn’t a “European Organization” that the US ‘happens’ to belong to, nor was WWII a ‘European War’ that the US came in out of benevolence to win. The net benefits that we’ve gotten from NATO have been immense, and a fraction of what another war would cost in blood and treasure. The contributions which other NATO states have made are largely (and often intentionally) underrepresented for the size of their economies.
Likewise, Russia isn’t ‘Europe’s problem’ simply based on a rather incomplete view of geography (Russia is largely an Asian nation, and geographically is closer to the US than France or Italy or the UK).
Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.
*This statement is directed towards those who believe there is an "easy button" in geopolitics and wonder why US presidents don't ever just hit it and relax. I don't think you are such a person; however, as an aside, I would like to point out how easy it is to criticize any US president of any party on geopolitics because, quite often, there are no good options and one's assessment of a decision is nothing more than a partisan Rorschach test.
Your point on political Rorschach test is well taken, and is seen in many facets of political discourse. Objectively, I think there is little to defend in Trump's actions on Syria over the last weeks. Getting out of Syria is a fine position to have. The manner in which it was done, apparently without substantive consult with the military or our allies, is strategically stupid and a terrible example to set in terms of abandoning allies. Why should the rest of NATO trust the US after the last years of Trump's actions? The adverse response to Trump's actions has been bipartisan. There is no easy button in geopolitics. Sure would be nice if Trump knew that.
I would never defend Trump's tactics--and thinking that he has any sort of coherent strategy is even more deluded. However, sometimes he might grasp onto an interesting idea by pure accident. I don't know that he is here but I am trying to argue in favor of a different way to conceptualize US foreign policy. No single sundae makes a person fat, but to stop getting fatter, eventually you have decide to stop having them all the time. Defending the Kurds again this one time might feel righteous but that same line of thinking leads to the various examples of US overreach and resulting blowback that litter the pages of history.
Having NATO distrust the US is precisely the idea (to quote President Muffley). Europe is too complacent and probably would benefit in the long run from being unshielded from the outside world.
Regarding the Rorschach test, yes everything is one in the polarized environment we live in but I think it's easiest of all in foreign policy to make unfalsifiable claims. As difficult domestic policy is to craft within the context of a rules-based state, the anarchy of global foreign affairs is much more poorly constrained and poorly understood.
{{finally, I hope everyone realizes I don't necessarily believe any of this but it is a compelling argument I have been considering recently. I believe this viewpoint needs to be more broadly considered because maybe we are too complacent with the world order of the last 3/4 century and not ready for what may come next}}
I don't follow world politics that closely, I am not an expert but from what I understand Europe and European countries are allies to the US and vice versa; we have a shared history, democratic political systems and goals. Russia is NOT an ally to the US. It is a country that is ok injuring our diplomats (see Cuba), killing journalists (including US journalists), assasinating political enemies.
In turn, the Kurds are/were allies to the US, in that we had shared goals. To decide by talking to Turkey, to suddenly withdraw from that area, both abandoning Kurds, and giving Turkey and Russia and advantage in that area, is not only ethically wrong but strategically stupid for both Europe and ourselves. Having an oligargic/toltalitarian country like Russia stronger and taking over more trade from politically aligned European countries, can only hurt us. While I don't believe in the domino effect, I feel that Trump's favoring and being soft to toltalitarian governments is making the world a worse, less democratic place with increased human rights abuse, huge economic disparities. If you just want to look at money, closed borders means less consumers for anything the US might sell. A hotel in Turkey is not worth all that (I guess, unless you are Trump).
I think it's possible to both disagree with the way that decision was carried out but consider from a long-term strategy perspective that it was the right thing to do. Russia wants to strangle Europe via its natural gas supply? Well maybe Europe will import more LNG from the US, or reverse direction (in Germany) on the desirability of nuclear power, or tap their own reserves via fracking...
And again, I will admit that the US absolutely has moral and strategic objectives in the ME. It's also simply the case that the US may not feel any existential imperative to act on those motivations because the US needs its allies far less than they need it militarily and economically (see below on the question of trade).
Russia is mainly a Eurasian problem and not primarily an American one (also, the center of population in Russia is far from the US and the seat of power {Moscow} is even closer to Europe). Why should the US be on the front lines all the time? Maybe the shift in thought is hard to make now that the US has underwritten the global system for so long now. The US will always have geopolitical objectives everywhere in the world, just like every other country. It doesn't have to act on every single one and by being more reticent encourages regional powers to learn to carry out policing and self-defense tasks.
You've got me scratching my head on this one to understand your response. From what I understand, you seem to be saying that becasue Russia is a Eurasian nation, it should be a Eurasian problem. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense - we have a vested interest in what Russia does, just as we do with China. Economically Russia is a petroleum exporter - which is a globally traded commodity and we buy a crap ton of. The EU is also our biggest trading partner. In terms of national security Russia's military is second only to China's, not to mention they have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads outside of the US. NORAD was designed to deter a Russian offensive because (guess what!) in this day and age even conventional Russian warplanes are within range of major US cities.
The whole point of our international involvement since WWII is that it's allowed the US to set favorable terms for international trade. Our prosperity is precisely because we have been involved; not in spite of it.
I was refuting the idea that Russia was in any meaningful way proximal to the US. Notwithstanding Sarah Palin's excellent eyesight, the parts of Russia that are near the US are virtually unpopulated.
I'll revert back to Peter Zeihan on the question of trade (this is quoting data from a few years ago; "relative terms" is relative to total GDP):
"...[The United States'] total trade exposure in absolute terms may be the world's largest, but in relative terms, it is below that of everyone but Brazil and South Sudan. Even Afghanistan is more internationally integrated. Additionally, what exposure the Americans have is remarkably local: The United States' top two trading partners for decades have been Canada and Mexico, accounting for one-third...of the total US trade portfolio....Bilateral American-Canadian trade on the Ambassador Bridge, which links Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, is by itself of greater volume than all but four of America's other trading partners."
On the specific question of oil, US domestic production + some Canada exports is all that's needed to supply the US. The US is estimated to have
the largest economically recoverable oil reserves in the world which will last another 40 years at current usage rates. The Green River formation likely contains another 3-4 trillion barrels, though the amount of that recoverable is currently unknown and not included in any reserve estimates; however, if just 10% of that is recoverable, that would account for another 40 years of supply.
