Teenagers look at pictures of things they covet. They’ll even compare and contrast, perhaps look for unusual specimens. Teen idols and supermodels come in for this treatment, as do sports cars and motorcycles. With me it was empires. I looked at maps in historical atlases, to some degree from intellectual curiosity, to a greater degree from the pleasure of slow, meditative gloating over a treasured thing. All about power, of course. Girls in their early teen years like horses, boys like heavy metal. I, a basketcase nerd, liked empires, and for me those chiefly existed as maps. So I looked at them.
In that childish spirit, I rejoice in the news that Sweden will join NATO. I remember the long years when the line running down Europe was back here, through Germany. For a while now it’s been all the way over there, up against Russia. The latest: we just swallowed an ocean. The Baltic belongs to us the way the Mediterranean belonged to Rome. With Sweden and Finland we get the top half, so it’s game over. One wasn’t even looking for this. It’s a side-result, a throw-in. But RC Cola, man. Because that sea is now our sea.
By us I mean America, the founder, workhorse, and guiding spirit of NATO. Michael Lind, a distinguished American academic, writes at Unherd that Europe looks like it’ll be more and more under our country’s influence, the big reason being the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article’s a brisk trot along the horizon, so Lind doesn’t give details. But here’s a good bit: he reminds us that NATO now has 32 members, the European Union only 28. More of Europe relies on American nukes than on European membership.
As to why Europe needs us, Lind goes broadbrush and writes that “only the US has the unity and the military infrastructure to coordinate multinational military efforts in or near Europe.” I guess he means the Europeans may have their share of armed goods but the goods are divided among many nations and therefore many commands. Whereas the United States has an immense pile of armed goods, all of it under one command. Therefore, a few of the larger European countries couldn’t put their heads together and send a joint force to duff up a nearby target. Which, as conclusions go, seems like a jump.
But we all saw which way Finland and Sweden ran when things got real. Whatever the underpinnings of the situation, Europe needs America. That isn’t great news for Europe, considering. Here’s where a fellow American must differ with Lind. He refers to our unity and leaves things at that. He shouldn’t have. We’re still one nation, but what a nation. The place is heaving, and Europe’s fate is one of the issues we disagree about. Our previous chief executive was NATO-skeptical and Russia-friendly. He’s still that way and he’s the frontrunner for his party’s presidential nomination; meanwhile, the number-two candidate cares so little about Europe that he scuttled between calling the Ukraine invasion a territorial dispute and calling Putin a war criminal. It’s on this weak vessel that the old Reaganites, the believers in Standing Tall, had to settle their hopes.
Europe needs our leadership, but for 20 years our leadership has been erratic. Even before Donald Trump took over, Republicans wanted America to be a rogue country; hence the Iraq war. The party’s leaders cared about Europe’s safety but not its opinion; now the party’s voters would like to forget Europe altogether. That leaves the Democrats, who are struggling to keep a grip on power. Russia’s such a menace, and Europe so disorganized militarily, that America now has the Baltic. But being indispensable isn’t the same as being permanent. In that spirit I say hooray for us, and also Europe had better consider the possibility that we’ll bug out and leave them screwed. Getting two such thoughts into your head is what it takes to appreciate the United States.