[YouTube] From the time NATO was founded in 1949 to the recent accession of Finland, the United States has remained the foremost military power in NATO. But a question that is not often asked is why? Why would a power like the USA continue to expand promises of defence to an ever larger group of nations that cannot hope to offer a similar level of capability or assistance in return.
The acceptance of new allies into NATO or bilateral and multilateral security treaties has not always been without domestic and international opposition.
And so today I wanted to follow up on my video on Russian grand strategy, with its baked in goal of undermining American influence and global leadership, with an examination of America's published security strategy, the role alliances and coalitions play in it, and some of the theory behind why the argument can be made that the basis of American global influence and its privileged security position owe as much to its alliances and coalitions as to other
aspects of its power.
Caveats and Comments:
Two odd typos that appear to have made it through editing: The reference to "eactionary disruptors" should be "reactionary disruptors"
And in a currency chart - the data appears to have used "RMB" rather than "CNY" for Renminbi for some reason. That is an error.
As always - all the usual caveats around platform, manpower and budget figures apply. All figures in this presentation should be treated as indicative given the challenges of getting precise like-like comparisons
As many of you would know there are different ways of expressing security dilemmas and explaining the logic behind asymmetric alliance structures. Because this is one video - focused on a single power I've chosen a particular method of explaining the theoretical basis for those decisions.
And - once again - this video is an effort to explain the what and why of how alliance structures are critical to US security strategy (as published). It is not intended either as an endorsement or as a critique.