As someone who used to live in Europe (specifically North Macedonia), I completely agree. NATO has become a means of creating protectorates for the American Empire. Due to the fact that the nations of Europe often lack a military strength of their own, they have become so dependent on NATO that America has been able to impose its will on the governments of Europe. I hope that one day more Europeans will realize just how essential having a strong, independent military is.
I suspect that if change comes, it will come from Eastern Europe. I believe that only Poland and Romania have so far fulfilled the 2% of GDP military spending requirement.
I too have the same suspicion. Many Eastern Europeans are fed up with American geopolitical interference, and not a few are militant about this. Plus, it's important not to forget Serbia and Kosovo. Most Serbs are not willing to give up Kosovo, and I have a suspicion that this will lead to military conflict at some point.
Prof. Baskerville, thank you for the clear prescription. Your rationale is convincing. However, I think the underlying model needs to be complicated with a few more variables to be compelling. The US has the most menacing army, yet American society has not been patriarchal for at least a couple of generations. In addition, American men are not respected as men and fathers. Feminism has put such an institutional stranglehold on American men, that they have to grovel before the women in their lives. Or, are you also suggesting that the American army is not a real army?
Excellent point, and you are absolutely correct. I try to keep these Substack posts brief, but my book contains an extensive section on the feminization of the US military. In fact, I describe the process by which the US military has itself become a "gigantic welfare state" of its own. So the choice is not quite as stark as I indicate. The welfare state can compromise and pollute (and commandeer) the warfare state. It is not enough simply to have a military but we must maintain its integrity, which I also address in the book. As for your final question, far weightier authorities on military affairs than I (e.g., Douglas Macgregor or Scott Ritter), come very close these days to saying precisely that.
The welfare state can commandeer the warfare state--aptly put. I obtained your latest book recently. This is a good reminder to start reading. I'm confident it will be a delight.
As someone who used to live in Europe (specifically North Macedonia), I completely agree. NATO has become a means of creating protectorates for the American Empire. Due to the fact that the nations of Europe often lack a military strength of their own, they have become so dependent on NATO that America has been able to impose its will on the governments of Europe. I hope that one day more Europeans will realize just how essential having a strong, independent military is.
I suspect that if change comes, it will come from Eastern Europe. I believe that only Poland and Romania have so far fulfilled the 2% of GDP military spending requirement.
I too have the same suspicion. Many Eastern Europeans are fed up with American geopolitical interference, and not a few are militant about this. Plus, it's important not to forget Serbia and Kosovo. Most Serbs are not willing to give up Kosovo, and I have a suspicion that this will lead to military conflict at some point.
Prof. Baskerville, thank you for the clear prescription. Your rationale is convincing. However, I think the underlying model needs to be complicated with a few more variables to be compelling. The US has the most menacing army, yet American society has not been patriarchal for at least a couple of generations. In addition, American men are not respected as men and fathers. Feminism has put such an institutional stranglehold on American men, that they have to grovel before the women in their lives. Or, are you also suggesting that the American army is not a real army?
Excellent point, and you are absolutely correct. I try to keep these Substack posts brief, but my book contains an extensive section on the feminization of the US military. In fact, I describe the process by which the US military has itself become a "gigantic welfare state" of its own. So the choice is not quite as stark as I indicate. The welfare state can compromise and pollute (and commandeer) the warfare state. It is not enough simply to have a military but we must maintain its integrity, which I also address in the book. As for your final question, far weightier authorities on military affairs than I (e.g., Douglas Macgregor or Scott Ritter), come very close these days to saying precisely that.
The welfare state can commandeer the warfare state--aptly put. I obtained your latest book recently. This is a good reminder to start reading. I'm confident it will be a delight.
I can confirm that it is a very enlightening read, much like his previous two books.
Glad you like it. At some point, an Amazon review would be terrifically helpful.
White male domination?
Done. Waiting for it to now appear.
Thanks! Look forward to seeing it.
Will do Stephen. Bought on Amazon down under. Will find it difficult to better my previous recommendations but will give it a go.