NATO raced against time to remake the strategic concept signed in 2010, which was in effect until then. At the time, the world geopolitics scenario was different and the United States and Europe did not expect, 12 years later, to relive with such intensity the ideological conflicts of the Cold War and military risks on the verge of a Third World War.
In 2010, Russia was considered a NATO partner country and China was not even close to being considered a military danger to the North Atlantic. This time, however, Russia has become “the most significant and direct threat to the security of allies and the peace and stability of the West.” China has become “a systemic challenge to Euro-Atlantic security”.
The NATO Summit, which took place last week in Madrid, would have as its main theme the position in the Ukraine war, which redefined the priorities of the military alliance. However, other problems entered the main agenda and weaknesses in the military organization became evident. Among them, the committed unity of the alliance and the need for investments in cybersecurity, in addition to the difficulty of the dependence that Europeans have on American strength.
NATO support has not been enough for Ukraine
The last tranche of US military aid to Ukraine, signed in May, was $40 billion. Last week, the United States also announced the deployment of an advanced missile defense system, the same one that protects Washington.
Despite being a significant boost to the Ukrainian defense, the donations were not enough to prevent Russian troops from conquering important regions, such as Luhansk, last weekend. The territory is strategic for Russia, which aims to dominate the Donbas Basin region, partially dominated by pro-Russian separatists since 2014.
Restructuring needed: Europeans depend on the US
Even after the meeting between the allied countries, the defense of Europe will continue to be substantially supported by the United States, which currently has around 100,000 soldiers on the European continent.
During the summit in Spain, NATO sought to reinforce the importance of more evident European support in Ukraine and other countries most at risk, requesting in particular support from France and Germany.
Nine out of 30 NATO countries devote 2% of GDP to defence. But as the alliance’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, pointed out in Madrid, this is the “floor” and not the “ceiling” indicated as an investment in the security of the West.
The dependence that Europeans have on the United States to ensure the security of the West can become dangerous, as the country led by Joe Biden faces the impact of the growing economic crisis, with high inflation and rising fuel prices. It is not known how long the United States will be able to carry much of NATO’s livelihood on its back.
In an interview with Le Figaro, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and professor at Georgetown University Charles Kupchan pointed out that this scenario could “make the American public sensitive to slogans that criticize aid given to Ukraine as difficulties economies increase”.
fragile unit
The difficulty in convincing Turkey to lift the veto of Sweden and Finland from joining NATO exposed the lack of unity in the Atlantic-European military alliance.
Another evidence of the difference in thoughts and priorities in the Organization is the way in which the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Poland are positioned in the face of the war in Ukraine and how they demand the presence of NATO.
The countries want, as soon as possible, a military reinforcement on the borders, especially Lithuania, which recently blocked the transit of goods through the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. For its part, Russia said its response “will not be just diplomatic”.
Poland has also announced a few times, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, its intention to define no-fly zones at its borders. With that, if a Russian plane flies over the neighboring country, it could be shot down. As Poland is part of NATO, it would possibly be the expansion of the war.
However, while Eastern European countries are more clearly willing to face a larger conflict, other NATO members are looking for more diplomatic solutions.
Considering that article 5 of the alliance defines that, if a member country is invaded, it will be promptly protected, the lack of unity of NATO compromises the execution of this rule. Were all members ready to enter the war?
Need to invest in cyber security
The conflict in Ukraine made even more evident the need to join efforts and investments for what goes beyond physical confrontation: virtual disputes.
In the last week of June, the American Microsoft said that Moscow attacked 128 targets around the world, including governments and humanitarian aid organizations, centers responsible for critical infrastructure in countries and information technology companies. In addition to the United States and NATO, Russia has also tried to spy on Brazilian systems.
In 29% of the attacks, Russian hackers managed to break into computers. However, Microsoft did not detail which countries had data stolen or what kind of information the Russians were looking for.
General Philippe Lavigne, head of NATO’s transformation command, stressed the need to upgrade the alliance’s cybersecurity systems. In an interview with Le Monde, the former Chief of Staff of the French Army explained that the operation needs to be “decentralized” from the United States “to be more reactive and more effective”.
“This will involve faster development of artificial intelligence and the use of destructive technologies,” explained Lavigne.
Threats from Russia and China
Since the 1990s, Russia has been considered a NATO partner country. Since the invasion of Ukraine, however, it has become “the most significant and direct threat to the security of allies”, as defined by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Since the European Union and the United States began to organize themselves to impose the first sanctions on Russia, differences have appeared over how to apply them, fearing the risk of economic damage to European countries heavily dependent on Russian energy.
As sanctions continue and it weighs heavily on Europeans’ pockets, countries could clash over how to carry out punishments on Russia and declare opposition to Vladimir Putin’s moves on the continent.
But Russia is not NATO’s only problem. Despite not being cited as a “threat”, China was declared “a systemic challenge” to the allies.
“The ambitions of the People’s Republic of China and its coercive policies challenge our interests, our security and our values,” the Alliance countries wrote. To reinforce, Stoltenberg stressed that “China is not an adversary, but we must be lucid”.
French President Emmanuel Macron, however, decided to make it clear during the event that “NATO is not an organization against China” and that “there is no logic of destabilization or hegemony” on the part of France.
If the Asian country is not an enemy, it remains to be seen how much other NATO countries are willing to position themselves in the face of the undeniable dispute between the two greatest world powers, the United States and China, if it reaches a military level.
#summit #Madrid #NATOs #weaknesses