Severnoatlantski savez

Nato allies urge rethink on alliance after Biden’s ‘unilateral’ Afghanistan exit

European leaders criticise US as troop withdrawal ‘debacle’ brings longest-running mission to end



European allies had hoped Joe Biden’s election to the US presidency would bolster Nato’s relevance after Donald Trump’s acrimonious tenure. Washington’s messy withdrawal from Afghanistan is prompting a rethink.

After the fall of Kabul, EU defence and security officials have been critical of the US decision to send home its 2,500 troops, saying it has weakened Nato and raised questions about Europe’s security dependence on Washington. Their reaction marked a bitter end to the alliance’s longest-running mission, which involved 10,000 personnel from 36 countries.

“This kind of troop withdrawal caused chaos. Chaos causes additional suffering,” Artis Pabriks, Latvia’s defence minister, told local radio on Tuesday. Such long-term missions were unlikely in the future, he added: “This era is over. Unfortunately, the west, and Europe in particular, are showing they are weaker globally.”

He echoed Ben Wallace, UK defence secretary, who appeared on the verge of tears on Monday as he predicted “some would not get back” from the war-torn country. “It’s sad. Twenty years of sacrifice is what it is,” he said.

Armin Laschet, Germany’s conservative candidate to succeed chancellor Angela Merkel, on Tuesday called the troop withdrawal “the greatest debacle that Nato has experienced since its foundation”.

“It looks like Nato has been completely overtaken by American unilateral decisions,” said Lord Peter Ricketts, the UK’s former national security adviser. “First of all, Trump’s decision to start talking to the Taliban about leaving and then the Biden decision to set a timetable.”

“The Afghanistan operation was always going to end some time, it was never going to go on forever, but the manner in which it’s been done has been humiliating and damaging to Nato.”

Nato’s intervention in Afghanistan, prompted by the al-Qaeda-led September 11 2001 attacks on the US, was the first and only time the alliance invoked its Article 5 collective defence principle, under which an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all.

Two decades on, there have been cracks in the unity over how to end “America’s longest war”. As the Taliban encircled Kabul on Friday, Wallace revealed that he had tried this year to form a coalition of “like-minded” Nato countries that would keep some troops in Afghanistan.

Lord George Robertson, who was Nato secretary-general on the day of the 9/11 attack in New York, and who triggered Article 5 a few hours later, suggested the disunity was damaging. “It weakens Nato because the principle of ‘in together, out together’ seems to have been abandoned both by Donald Trump and by Joe Biden,” he told the Financial Times.

Biden administration officials had consulted with allies as they sought to unstitch Trump’s isolationist approach. On Afghanistan, however, some alliance members complained that Washington presented them with a fait accompli.

“This was discussed at length, and the US listened, but Biden had made a political decision,” said one person familiar with the withdrawal planning.

Once the decision was formalised, the UK, Turkey and Italy were keen to find a way to keep forces in place to help stabilise Afghanistan. But this was considered impossible without the vast military infrastructure provided by the US, notably air support from the US-run Bagram air base north of Kabul.

Nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg insisted there had been “no willingness” from other European allies or from Canada to fill in for the US once it announced its withdrawal plan.

“We must realise that when it comes to the Nato mission to Afghanistan, it was not possible to have an independent role for Germany or the European forces,” Merkel said on Monday. “We always said that we are basically dependent on the decisions of the US government.”

One former military commander who served in Afghanistan said there were “big implications” for perceptions of Nato’s deterrence capabilities.

“It’s all very well Nato talking up its ability to fight off Russia, but it couldn’t even find 3,000 to 5,000 troops to ensure Afghanistan was stable enough to force a stalemate, and eventually a ceasefire on the Taliban, without American underpinning,” the person said.

In its 2030 strategy, Nato outlined a promise for deeper political co-ordination and renewed commitment from its members to the 2 per cent defence spending target. But the crisis in Afghanistan has revived unease over a lack of strategic focus.

“Afghanistan today is the umpteenth expression of Nato’s failed, supine policy,” Ione Belarra, Podemos leader and Spain’s social policy minister, wrote on Twitter.

“It is time to make a shift towards greater sovereignty and the defence of our own interests,”, Lilith Verstrynge, another Podemos official, said, echoing France’s president Emmanuel Macron.

Asked on Monday if Nato should move away from “nation-building”, Merkel agreed: “The goals [of such deployments] should be made much narrower.”

The failure of the alliance’s training programme was also one “big question”, Stoltenberg noted. “Why were the forces we trained and equipped and supported over so many years . . . not able to stand up against Taliban in a stronger and better way than they did?”

Lord Mark Sedwill, who served as a former ambassador and senior Nato representative to Afghanistan, suggested this week the alliance should focus its efforts on rebuilding the practical capabilities to intervene when necessary, “avoiding the over-reach and impatience which proved fatal to the Afghan campaign”.

The Afghanistan drawdown might act as a cautionary tale for Nato nations failing to recognise that US security guarantees were time-limited, Robertson said. “If this is a wake-up call to the Europeans — that in the future they’ll have to safeguard their own security much more than before because . . . the American global policeman is not necessarily going to be around all the time — then it will have served a purpose.”

https://www.ft.com/content/3ea7e87e-ab3a-4e14-8396-8061420942b0

Del Cap wrote:Dobro, bilo je tu i druge važne pozadine, npr anglo-američka nuklearna saradnja od kraja 50ih koja je isključivala Francusku.

ćaća wrote:

Del Cap wrote:Dobro, bilo je tu i druge važne pozadine, npr anglo-američka nuklearna saradnja od kraja 50ih koja je isključivala Francusku.

Naravno, ali je u osnovi ispravna ideja da USA ima svoje interese koji će uvek biti prioritet i zbog kojih će Evropljani occasionally biti u situaciji da ga puše.

+ je bio 100% u pravu za UK i EEC.

ćaća wrote:Danas ako za ikakvu NATO intervenciju postoji saglanost da je bila poželjna i uspešna, to je Kosovo.

boomer crook wrote:

ćaća wrote:

Naravno, ali je u osnovi ispravna ideja da USA ima svoje interese koji će uvek biti prioritet i zbog kojih će Evropljani occasionally biti u situaciji da ga puše.

+ je bio 100% u pravu za UK i EEC.

da, njegov argument je bio bas to. parafraziram ali rekao mu je da ce ameri bez frke povuci liniju kod kanala dok ih budu gazili sovjetski tenkovi.