Press play to hear this article
MADRID — As it sounds, the transatlantic alliance has never been stronger.
At the end of a summit that Western leaders described as “historic” on Thursday, which included dinners at the Spanish capital’s opulent royal palace and the spectacular Prado museum, the superlatives flew fast and furious.
Calling the summit “transformative” and “far-reaching,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg predicted at the end of the three-day affair that decisions made there would “ensure that our Alliance continues to keep the peace, prevent conflict and protect our people and our values.”
Look beyond the staged back-slapping, good-naturedness and self-congratulations in Madrid, however, and you can see that while alliance unity is a mile wide, it’s also only an inch deep; its collective sense of purpose is as diverse as its 30 members.
Start with the question at hand: That leaders have been able to declare Russia – which has threatened European security since at least 2007 – the “most significant and direct threat” to security, peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area is rather a sign that they are masters of the obvious rather than grand strategy.
The other signal achievement Stoltenberg cited was the much-heralded deal to bring in Sweden and Finland. This was less the result of high diplomacy and mutual protection than what could politely be called blackmail on the part of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Turkish president held the joining of the two hostage over his desire to buy new F-16 fighter jets from the US – and got what he wanted.
Such behind-the-scenes machinations make NATO look more like a protection racket than a community of values. And for what? Erdogan’s belligerent attitude toward allies led the United States to consider abandoning the strategic Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey less than two years ago. Does anyone really believe that they can be counted on to send troops to the aid of the Baltic countries in the event of a Russian invasion? Hardly.
Membership in the alliance of sultan-designate and Hungarian strongman-in-waiting Viktor Orbán not only undermines NATO’s pretensions to be a community of liberal values; they do it for mockery.
And they are not the only ones undermining NATO’s legitimacy.
Until Russia’s February 24 attack on Ukraine, France and Germany were still fantasizing about “strategic autonomy” — the idea that Europe should free itself from the American security guarantees that allowed the continent to flourish in the postwar era and instead take the reins of European security for itself.
Indeed, just weeks before the Russian invasion, prominent German politicians, including Analena Baerbock, now foreign minister, were pushing for the US to withdraw all its nuclear warheads from German soil.
As always, Russia ultimately had more influence on German thinking than Washington. Whatever one thinks of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he did convince Germany to change course. Overnight, the same German leaders who for years ignored US pleas to stop depriving the German military of resources and start contributing more to NATO’s defense became true believers.
First Session of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels September 17, 1949 | NATO/Getty Images
Yet, like all foxhole conversions, the timing of Jesus’ coming to Germany smacks more of fear than conviction. While all military alliances are forged to varying degrees by fear, NATO is consumed by it. The glue that binds him together is not unity of vision, but the instinct to cower under America’s nuclear umbrella.
That’s not enough to hold it together — especially if Washington begins to suspect he’s been left to do most of the heavy lifting.
See the mosaic in response to Putin’s war on Ukraine. One would think that an alliance based on a promise “to protect the freedom, common heritage and civilization of its peoples” would have little trouble forging a common approach to the greatest threat to that ideal since World War II.
Instead, much of the European public remains divided over how far to go in standing up to Putin, in part because their own governments are afraid to acknowledge the extent to which the entire continent is at risk.
While some countries – notably Poland, the Baltic States, the US and the UK – were particularly generous, others did not provide far beyond what they could have, particularly in terms of tanks and other heavy armaments. If Ukraine continues to lose territory and lives because it cannot defend itself properly, responsibility for the failure will lie squarely at NATO’s feet.
Such an outcome would not bode well for the future of the alliance – especially in Washington, where outside the White House frustration with NATO allies’ over-reliance on US security guarantees remains palpable.
After four years of living in quiet terror under US President Donald Trump, Europeans are lulled into a false sense of security under Joe Biden. A lifelong transatlantic, the US president entered office with the intention of reversing the more bellicose approach to allies that marked his predecessor’s tenure.
The risk is that Biden, whose prospects for a second term look increasingly shaky, could end up being more distant from Europe than Trump.
The US spends about 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, more than double the percentage of most NATO members. With the US pledging to commit even more troops and resources to Europe, American leaders will be under enormous pressure to justify the spending to the public, especially if, as many expect, the country slips into recession. Regardless of who succeeds Biden as American president, it is certain that this person is unlikely to share his weakness for Europe.
This does not mean that Washington is likely to withdraw from NATO, as Trump has threatened. But as the challenges the US faces with China become more acute, the days of pandering to European allies will have to end.
That’s why NATO doesn’t just need the rethinking announced by the likes of Stoltenberg. It must be completely reborn.
Instead of making vague promises, as it did this week, to “fairly share the responsibilities and risks for our defense and security,” NATO would be wise to pursue more radical reforms. This not only means leaning less on the US, but also redefining what NATO is and is not and practicing what it preaches.
Simply put, if members do not adhere to basic democratic norms, they should be kicked out. Likewise, those unwilling to contribute to their own protection should be encouraged to seek assurances of security elsewhere.
In military circles, the “destroy a city to save it” tactic is controversial. In the case of NATO, there is no other option.
Add Comment