Two interviews with prof. Mearsheimer
I listened with interest interview, which ed. Piotr Zychowicz was awarded to prof. of global Relations at the University of Chicago John Mearsheimer. I have heard many times that this political scientist preaches the thesis dangerous to weak countries, in specified a position as Poland. And indeed, there have been words in this interview that may origin any concern.
Professor Mearsheimer seemed to express rather amazing (for realism) beliefs about the celebrated article of the 5th North Atlantic Treaty.
I write: ‘appeared’ due to the fact that in an interview given about the same time to Piers Morgan He commented on the conditions of US usage of the armed forces (and in peculiar atomic weapons) in a way that, in my opinion, was much more realistic; he said, among another things, that in the event of the usage of atomic weapons against a NATO-owned country, “there’s a reasonable probability” that the United States would retaliate.
However, in an interview with Piotr Zychowicz, he stated at 1 point: “When a state is in NATO, it has a warrant resulting from the 5th article and is in a perfect situation” ("you’re in excellent shape"), and in respective another places he assured, or made clear, that the 5th article was a warrant (although these statements did not indicate precisely what the warrant was: whether it was a safety warrant or, at least not necessarily, the US's usage of the armed forces in defence of the attacked ally; specified ambiguity of utilizing the word “guarantee” can besides be seen in native discussions on global policy).
Article 5 and safety of Poland
These fresh statements of the American prof. are hard not to take with concern – they fuel any negative tendencies and already so powerfully present in the Polish abroad policy (which is understood broadly, not only as the activity of the government, but besides as the attitude of the opinion-making environments), namely the tendency to take excessive risks, to ignore the possible and disregard the dangers that NATO's "parasol" is expected to defend us.
And since in Poland even any of the above-reviewed global policy commentators may be convinced of any automation of the operation of Article 5 and the resulting feeling of comparative security, from the minute of proceeding the interview, I cannot hesitate to think whether it would be better for the Polish auditorium to hear from the mouth of a realist, American or any other, alternatively specified words:
“Article 5 is not a magic spell that can save you from any trouble. After all, you know its content and you must know how general and non-binding it is formulated. Moreover, as a nation with more than a 1000 years of history, you have most likely learned that the only warrant of the covenant's feasibility is the interest of the organization to fulfil its obligations.
Article 5 is not an object of faith, and that you will very much want it to work will not matter.
Your actions for his solemn confirmation only prove your naivety. You must realize that what else is simply a 100 times to declare the unbreakable will to defend all inch of NATO's territory, and what else to take in defence of Estonia, Latvia or Poland that could consequence in atomic attacks on Washington, fresh York or San Francisco? I assure you, although you should know well that all American president – unless he is simply a madman – will think in specified a situation not erstwhile and not twice, but 10 times.
Realism USA
The United States is not a good aunt who runs a shelter for weak states, but a power that can act ruthlessly (although naturally she dresses her iron fist in a silk glove and another powers can enviate him with the efficiency with which he can identify his business with the good of humanity). NATO, in turn, is not a charity, but a tool for politics and the implementation of American interests. These. interests should be the subject of continuous analysis for you.
With no little attention you should analyse options The United States, which in the multipolar planet are not as unlimited as they were in the past period of American hegemony.
I think you have already received guarantees that have not been covered in the past, due to the fact that the guarantor, even if he wanted to, was incapable to save you from your opponent?
Those American realists who opposed Poland and another countries of Central and east Europe to NATO in the 1990s, or post factum They call it a mistake, you have strong and unhidden resentment. incorrect and wrong. They had the right to measure this decision from the point of view of the U.S. state, they were not obliged to follow the interests of Poland (where, by the way, is it your belief that the West – whatever it means at any time – should defend you or save you from oppression?).
However, it would not harm you to look at not this one, based on American interests, but the moral side of their argument. They were opposed to making promises without cover, making commitments they feared the US would not want or be able to fulfill in the future. “We committed to protecting a full scope of countries,” he said in 1998 (when the decision to extend NATO to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary) George Kennan [American diplomat, sowietologist, ed.] – even though we have neither the means nor the desire to do so in any meaningful way”.
U.S. Realists reminded George Washington that “for most of humanity interest is simply a superior principle” and “the motives for public virtue are not adequate to produce lasting respect for the sublime orders and obligations of the public duty. fewer people are capable of continually sacrificing private interests or benefits in the name of the common good... No institution whose plan does not take into account the veracity of these maxims will survive.” They had the right to fear that American interests in Central Europe would not be so crucial as to hazard war on another atomic power. Can you be 100% certain they were wrong?
Political acts and military guarantees
You should be aware that the expansion of NATO at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries was a political act alternatively than a carefully considered military commitment. The warrant resulting from Article 5 was distributed so generously then, as it was not expected that it would always should be implemented. To challenge the American hegemon was unthinkable. Today, things are different.
You managed to join NATO erstwhile the U.S. stood almost at its highest and Russia was very weak. However, this should not be so much a origin of conviction for you that we have managed to catch God by the legs, but a reflection on the dynamics of global relations.
After all, you must realize that in politics, circumstances of place and time are more crucial than the letter of treaties. The arrangement of forces and interests, geographical location and military capabilities can decide on possible differences in Washington's policy towards Ukraine and Poland to a greater degree than the fact that the erstwhile did not have the warrant of Article 5, and the second – yes.
I realize that knowing that the warrant that you consider to be the foundation of your safety can be a giant bluff introduces an unbearable sense of uncertainty, but it would be unwise, in my opinion, to effort to free yourself from it by leading to a situation where reality says "I am testing."
True Dangers
Every day you should ask I'm sorry. – not to the United States – and to answer the questions alone whether the Americans will have an interest in helping you, whether they will have the right opportunities, and whether it will be in their interests to save you, or whether it can only aid you adequate to inflict the top losses on their powerful opponent, no substance how much it would have had you Cost it.
Neither would it harm you to reflect on what would have happened to your country if the NATO war with Russia had actually taken place, and if even the full alliance, from the United States to Northern Macedonia, with the best intentions, went on to aid “the east flank”. Nevertheless, you may not be “in excellent shape” [in excellent condition, ed.].
Membership in NATO should not be exempt from a responsible, cautious policy that counts with the relation of forces and takes into account all the effects of the action taken; it should not be considered a pass to brag and win over the supposedly impenetrable shield of Article 5.
If there is any danger to Poland in prof. Mearsheimer's too, it is not that he mostly preaches views that we do not want to perceive to, due to the fact that we like to live in a planet created by our own propaganda, but in the occasional maintenance of illusions, which we feed our own imagination in an excessive way.
