Commenting on NATO’s “unity” against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is inappropriate. NATO is not united in seeking Moscow’s defeat, and Kyiv’s memory of the disgusting Minsk-imposed agreements between France and Germany remains strong. Ukraine remains in the battle largely due to its own determination and capabilities, such as the missiles that sent Moscow to the bottom of the Black Sea.
The alliance’s performance on sanctions has been scattered, with mixed results so far and a uncertain future. Military aid is uneven, although the responses from the United Kingdom and Eastern Europe are exceptional. The biggest failure is Joe Biden’s uneven political leadership: weak, often late, reluctant and strategically inconsistent. Germany, France and others are lagging behind.
This war is not over and the negotiations that will eventually follow will be painful. It is not the time for NATO members to pat themselves on the back. However, now is the time for politicians to consider the future of the alliance. We must not forget that Henry Kissinger’s classic study of 1965 is called The Problem Partnership; it still is and will be, albeit for radically different reasons.
First, the good news. Finland and Sweden seem ready to apply for membership. Public opinion in both countries has changed dramatically in favor of joining NATO after Moscow’s aggression. These additions will strengthen Western dominance in the Baltic Sea, further isolate Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave and eliminate the ambiguous gray area between NATO’s eastern and western borders. Other “neutrals” may now be stepped up. Here I look, Ireland.
On the negative side are Turkey and France. Turkish President Erdogan is now at least an ally of NATO allies. Despite Kyiv’s effective use of Turkish-supplied drones, Ankara’s acquisition of Russia’s S-400 air defense systems risks compromising the critical F-35 program, threatening other NATO allies.
If Turkey’s elections in 2023 are free and fair, Erdogan’s defeat, which is entirely possible, will significantly repair the damage he has done. If he wins, his neo-Ottoman Middle Eastern ambitions (and other disturbing behavior) will remain threatening.
France, facing a potentially close run-off for president, is problematic, especially given Emmanuel Macron’s persistent efforts to strengthen the European Union’s military capabilities in ways that undermine NATO. Marine Le Pen went further, explicitly calling for a second French withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military command. None of this is constructive.
The most important is the German question. Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s promise to invest 100 billion euros in defense, including the purchase of 35 nuclear-capable F-35s, is useful. However, much more is needed to build on Germany’s woefully inadequate military capabilities and to ensure that Scholz’s dramatic commitment persists over time. Will Germany return to its Cold War determination to maintain an adequate national defense, or will it pretend that it is too dangerous to entrust it with weapons?
The key to NATO’s future is the right division of labor with the EU. For Macron and others, enhanced political integration with the EU is the ultimate goal, prompting them to advocate for increased EU military capabilities and related programs that undermine NATO’s responsibilities. For example, the EU made its first budget expenditures on military aid to Ukraine, even when NATO was making exactly the same decisions about allocating funds. This was no accident.
Do these integration-obsessed leaders believe that the EU has no other issues worthy of their attention? Is that why they are focusing on expanding the EU’s mission in NATO? For America, such efforts are daggers aimed at the heart of NATO. If anyone really believes that the EU’s mutual defense clause is equivalent to Article 5 of NATO, good luck to them. Let us recall that the EU has only one country with nuclear weapons, while NATO has three. Insisting that Europe be responsible for its own defense risks undermining American support for NATO, leaving Europe protected primarily by the rhetoric of politicians.
Better leadership in Washington, new members of the alliance, renewed German (and even post-election, Turkish) commitments to NATO, and the significantly enhanced British role illustrated by his current performance would all be great pluses. In addition, the growing threat from China must prepare each NATO country for global threats to their security. There is still a lot of history in store for NATO, if it can justify itself by presenting itself successfully in today’s crisis in Ukraine.
John Bolton is a former US national security adviser
Add Comment