MIHAI RAZVAN UNGUREANU WRITES: History is littered with alliances that failed to adapt. As NATO convenes for its summit, it must reorient to the east, where threats are real and commitments strongest.
Your point about Eastern members like Poland (3.9% GDP on defense) and Romania (2.5%) leading the charge is spot-on, but I’m struck by the challenge posed by U.S. reluctance. Washington seems increasingly preoccupied with Indo-Pacific priorities leaving European security as a secondary concern. How can NATO persuade a distracted America to commit resources and political will to fortify this critical Baltic-to-Bulgaria axis? Your historical parallels to failed alliances hit hard—any thoughts on rallying transatlantic unity for this shift?
The European Union should expand East. NATO should stay as it is. Russia is a paper tiger, just as the USSR was previous to 1991. Even more important, we need to move toward a world in which cooperation rather than war and the threat of war governs international relations. Not that that is likely to happen.
Your point about Eastern members like Poland (3.9% GDP on defense) and Romania (2.5%) leading the charge is spot-on, but I’m struck by the challenge posed by U.S. reluctance. Washington seems increasingly preoccupied with Indo-Pacific priorities leaving European security as a secondary concern. How can NATO persuade a distracted America to commit resources and political will to fortify this critical Baltic-to-Bulgaria axis? Your historical parallels to failed alliances hit hard—any thoughts on rallying transatlantic unity for this shift?
The European Union should expand East. NATO should stay as it is. Russia is a paper tiger, just as the USSR was previous to 1991. Even more important, we need to move toward a world in which cooperation rather than war and the threat of war governs international relations. Not that that is likely to happen.