This week, officials from all 31 of our NATO allies are going to be here in Washington for what is referred to as the NATO summit.
At that summit, we will be celebrating 75 years of the most successful military alliance in modern history.
And why do I call it the most successful military alliance?
I mean that after two devastating World Wars, about 20 years apart, [which] brought incredible bloodshed and destruction to Europe, we have had almost 80 years of relative peace in Europe.
No European NATO member has been invaded.
Now we take it for granted that most of Europe is peaceful, but that was not the case before NATO arrived.
Remember that the Soviet Union, after World War II, quickly exerted domination over the countries it occupied at that time, but the USSR wasn’t satisfied with that situation.
So many people expected war to break out in Europe at some point during the Cold War, but it did not.
Thank God no war happened.
The Soviet Union helped launch wars in Asia, and violent revolutions in Africa and Latin America.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. But the USSR did not dare touch those countries under the NATO umbrella.
A strong defense resulted in peace.
NATO was not the result of some idealistic dream.
Rather, NATO was a very practical response to the hard lessons learned of two World Wars that the United States tried its best to stay out of...as long as it could.
Now we all remember from history that World War I was supposed to be the “War to end all wars.”
Woodrow Wilson, you will remember, proposed the League of Nations in a very naive belief that an international forum could prevent war through diplomacy and international condemnation.
Obviously, the League failed.
By contrast, NATO is a working military alliance of nation states, not some debating society, as the League turned out to be.
After World War II, the United States realized that minding our own business and letting Europe sort out its messes wasn’t working.
We eventually got dragged into World War II anyway, by which time it took an incredible amount of resources and over 400,000 American’s lives to bring that war to an end.
NATO grew out of the realization that U.S. leadership was essential to preventing World War III.
NATO prevented a war by being prepared for war. Strength equaled peace.
We know that deterrence works. But deterrence must be credible.
Our defense must be strong enough that would-be aggressors would think twice before attacking.
As Ronald Reagan said, “NATO's strategy for peace has always been simple: Prevent aggression before it starts. Be strong enough, be determined enough, so that no adversary [w]ould think even for a moment that war might pay.”
At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO members said that Ukraine and Georgia could join sometime in the future but made clear that membership would not be offered anytime soon.
Just four months later, Russia invaded and occupied parts of the Republic of Georgia.
Now that happens to remind me of when Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a major speech in 1950 outlining the U.S. defense perimeter in the Pacific.
It very clearly did not include the Korean peninsula.
Less than six months later, North Korea invaded the South.
So signals you send as a nation, or as leaders of a nation, make a difference sometimes. And that statement by Acheson led to the Korean War.
Just like Acheson’s speech in 1950 did to Korea, the weak statement at the 2008 Bucharest summit made it clear that Georgia and Ukraine were on their own.
That was seen as a green light by Putin. The perception of weakness led to war.
How did the United States react to this aggression against the sovereign, pro-American Republic of Georgia?
There happened to be some stern words, that didn’t accomplish much.
Then, six months later, the Obama-Biden administration announced the infamous “reset” to patch up relations with Russia.
That reset sent a very dangerous message.
The Obama policy was almost the opposite of peace through strength.
No wonder that Putin felt emboldened six years later to invade neutral Ukraine in both the Crimean peninsula and in Ukraine’s east.
President Obama responded by refusing defensive weapons to Ukraine and at the same time urging negotiations.
Now you can’t have a fair negotiation when someone has invaded your home and has a gun at your head.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas often cites former Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko’s rules for negotiations.
This Russian said, number one, demand the maximum – do not meekly ask, but demand that which has never been yours.
Number two, present ultimatums – do not hold back on threats, since you will always find people in the West who are willing to negotiate.
Number three, do not give one inch of ground in negotiations – they themselves will offer you at least part of what you are asking for, but do not take it: demand more, because they will go along with it and in the end you will get a third or even half of that of which you had nothing previously.
Those are the rules of the Soviet Foreign Minister.
We should remember all of that when we hear Putin’s demands today.
The full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine started in February 2022. It was the result of a failure of deterrence.
We could have avoided additional aggression had the West shown more strength.
What about the argument that it was provocative to let countries Russia used to dominate join NATO?
Here are some key facts about NATO that ought to put those arguments to an end.
Number one, NATO is a defensive alliance.
Number two, NATO membership is open to sovereign democracies that want to join, but it does not seek “expansion” for its own sake.
Number three, it is the right of all sovereign countries to choose their alliances. There is no neighbor veto to joining a defensive alliance.
Now let’s look at the Baltics. You remember that they were, at one time, called “Soviet Republics.”
Actually, the United States never recognized the illegal Soviet occupation of Baltic states that started in 1940.
We maintained, during that next 50 years, uninterrupted diplomatic relations with all three countries throughout the Cold War.
Here’s a little-known historical fact: upon the founding of NATO, the U.S. Secretary of State received a letter from Acting Council General of Estonia welcoming the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on behalf of his country.
Here’s what the Estonian diplomat wrote, “Estonia is still under the illegal occupation and domination of the Soviet Union and is, therefore, prevented from manifesting openly its keen interest in this pact.”
I want to further quote this ambassador, “I have the honor to offer my best wishes to the signatories of the North Atlantic Pact, and to express my confidence that they, inspired by the ideals of democracy, of individual liberty, and of the rule of law, will strive relentlessly for peace with justice, which excludes peace at any price. Therefore, I express the belief that countries, which were forcibly deprived of self-government and independence will benefit by this noble endeavor.”
That noble endeavor is the establishment of NATO.
The Estonian diplomat was right all those 75 years ago.
His country, which is now free and a great NATO ally, has in fact benefitted from the North Atlantic Treaty.
While the Baltic states have been officially NATO members for 20 years now, they would have signed the Washington Treaty in a second had they not been illegally occupied by the Soviet Union.
So, I consider the three Baltic countries honorary founding members of NATO.
I have explained that the United States learned after two World Wars it’s better to prevent World War III than get dragged in once that future war could be raging.
But we ought to ask again, why the NATO alliance?
The United States, with its powerful military and nuclear arsenal, would respond to defend an ally if Article III were invoked.
That has certainly played a big role in deterring the Soviets and now the Russians.
But, that could be accomplished simply by giving a one-way security guarantee to Europe.
While that might still serve our national interest in preventing World War III, it would put a burden all on our shoulders.
So, the real benefit of the NATO alliance is that it leverages American leadership to bolster the ability of our European allies to defend themselves.
If every country had different defense plans and weapons that used different ammunition, an aggressor would be able to pick them off one by one, even if they tried to join forces.
In theory, the Europeans could do some of this on their own.
In fact, some European leaders have suggested the European Union ought to develop an independent military capacity. Now I’d say if they want to do that, more power to them.
However, most Europeans accept that American leadership is indispensable, and has been indispensable to date.
It has been to our benefit that NATO militaries are interoperable with the U.S. military.
The only time Article III of the NATO treaty has been invoked was after the United States was attacked on 9/11.
Many of our NATO allies sent men and equipment to fight and die alongside the United States military in Afghanistan.
It is true that there are a minority of countries in NATO that are further from potential threats and do not spend enough on their own national defense, or their contributions to NATO.
Then there are countries like Poland and Estonia that take national defense seriously and spend more as a percentage of GDP than even we do in the United States.
Keep in mind, it is the existence of NATO that sets the 2% spending expectation, makes common defense plans and helps determine what capabilities are needed for a credible defense.
Without NATO, Europe would be weaker and the chances of the United States getting dragged into another war would be even greater.
A strong national defense is an instrument of peace more than an instrument of war.
In fact, we could call our Defense Department the “Department of Peace.”
That’s really what its main function is: being strong to prevent war.
We must make sure our military, and our allies’ militaries, are strong enough to fight a war precisely so we don’t have to go to war.
-30-