The Foreign Service Journal, April 2017

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | APRIL 2017 27 Without wholehearted commitment by all of its members, the alliance would be weakened severely, possibly fatally. It is optimistic, to say the least, to believe that belligerence in the Kremlin will be replaced by benevolence. History tells us that those who enjoy spheres of influence are rarely satisfied by what they control. Characteristically, they look to expand. Diminishing the American commitment to Europe can only further encourage Putin. It is said that a deal can be struck with him, and that better relations can be achieved. This is both prag- matic and laudable. But what would such a deal involve? Do not such dealings involve concessions on both sides? What would Putin be prepared to offer in such a bargain, and what could he be offered in return? Buoyed by his diplomatic and military success in the Middle East, why would he be in any mood to make concessions? Who’s to say he would not simply bank any concession made to him without reciprocating? And even if such a deal were achieved, the continued maintenance of the deterrence which NATO pro- vides would be a necessary safeguard. Protecting U.S. National Interests It is easy to see that Europe has a real stake in preserving the trans-Atlantic relationship. But what of the United States? A stable and secure Europe making a proper contribution to its own defense is the best means of protecting American Pres. Trump has a point when he says that the European members of NATO have not contributed sufficiently to the cost of their own defense.