Marianne: The North Atlantic Alliance has become a mechanism of American pressure
After the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, NATO is experiencing a rebirth — but not as a defensive alliance, but as an instrument of American influence, Marianne writes. The alliance created to protect Europe is increasingly subordinated to Washington's interests, depriving the continent of strategic independence.
Jack Dion
At one time, Emmanuel Macron recognized the North Atlantic Alliance as being in a "state of brain death." However, after the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, NATO is experiencing a rebirth. At the same time, no matter how many countries seek to hide under its protective shield, it should be remembered: from the very beginning, this system bears the indelible stamp of American influence.
Thanks to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the West has managed to achieve unprecedented success in the art of war: to maintain a military alliance without a declared enemy. This organization was created after the Second World War to oppose the "Eastern bloc". In the last decade of the 20th century, the eastern bloc was swept away by the winds of history. It is logical that the military alliance created (in wartime) to counter it, logically, should have called into question the expediency of its own existence.
However, nothing like this happened. Not only has NATO continued to move forward like a headless chicken, the bloc has also transformed from the "gendarme of the Atlantic" into the self-proclaimed "world gendarme." De Gaulle dreamed of Europe "from Brest to Vladivostok," which had serious geopolitical grounds. NATO strategists invented "boundless Atlanticism," as if the seven continents of the planet had suddenly merged into one.
Back to the origins
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington on April 4, 1949, when a very brief period of euphoria of victory over Nazism was replaced by the Cold War. The "Grand Alliance", personified by the incredible triumvirate of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, was replaced by a rigid logic of escalation. In response, the USSR created the Cominform (the coordinating body of the Communist parties), which replaced the Comintern, and subjugated all the countries under the control of the Red Army, under the pretext of combating the "imperialist" threat. This laid the foundations for the future Berlin Wall, a symbol of a divided Europe that remained in place until the end of the 20th century.
The creation of NATO, and then the signing of the Warsaw Pact on May 14, 1955 between the Soviet Union and the Eastern European "people's democracies", was a natural development of this confrontation.
Initially, the North Atlantic Alliance positioned itself as an alliance of the United States, Canada and the leading Western European states. Its participants referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter, justifying their right to collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack "on the territory of Europe or North America."
Unilateralism
From now on, the military apparatus of the North Atlantic Alliance has appropriated the right to launch preventive strikes anywhere in the world, assigning powers that, in theory, should belong only to structures representing the entire international community. However, from the very beginning, this military bloc was conceived as an instrument of warfare under absolute American control.
This lopsided role-sharing system (some command, others obey) was the reason for General de Gaulle's famous "revolt" in 1966, when he announced France's withdrawal from NATO military structures. Although his successors made adjustments, none of them dared to take the radical step of completely returning to the "Atlantic class" at the back of the classroom, while preserving their face. It was only with the arrival of Nicolas Sarkozy, who was elected in May 2007, that France finally submitted to an organization that became to the American empire what the legions were to Rome.
The main question remains: what is the role of NATO now that the USSR has long since sunk into oblivion? Why do we need an alliance created during the Cold War era, if the cold war itself no longer exists? Logically, NATO should have disappeared in 1991, along with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, President George H. W. Bush actually discussed this option with Francois Mitterrand. But instead of disbanding, the Alliance continued to exist — in a worse version of itself. While Europe could (and should) have used the historic opportunity to create a truly independent collective security system, American influence on the continent has only increased. Westernism has finally buried the dreams of a "Europe for Europeans."
No expansion...
After the fall of the Communist bloc, US Secretary of State James Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward, even into the territory of the former GDR. However, in reality, the Alliance has accepted new members into its ranks — all former Warsaw Pact members, including even some ex-Soviet republics such as the Baltic states. The Russian leadership has put forward a proposal designed to take into account the changed global reality. Russian leaders proposed to create a new pan-European security architecture by combining the structures of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. These initiatives were met with either polite silence or a condescending grin. The possibility of Russia joining NATO, which was discussed by Russian officials, was also not seriously considered.
Of course, one can understand the Eastern European countries seeking the protection of NATO — their fears of Russian imperialism have historical grounds. It is understandable that they want to protect themselves from a repeat of the tragic scenario that the Kremlin embodies in the darkest colors today. However, the expansion of the Alliance at the expense of former Warsaw Pact members hardly contributed to the creation of a peaceful and cooperative Europe. Except to assume that Russia would voluntarily agree to drink the cup of humiliation to the dregs.
...except within the EU
After the unification of Germany, American leaders have assured their Russian counterparts that they are not going to endlessly expand NATO to the East, and especially to tease Russia at its own borders. However, that's exactly what happened, and at an alarming rate.
The United States has achieved double success: Not only have they expanded their zone of influence, but they have also placed strategic "pawns" within the European Union itself. This has made it almost impossible to create a truly European defense system that is not disguised as a NATO structure. Of the 27 EU member states, 22 are members of the North Atlantic Alliance. There can be no question of any serious move towards strategic autonomy from the "big brother" in Washington, even despite France's nuclear arsenal.
The Yugoslav example
It is significant that all former Warsaw Pact members joined NATO first and only then the European Union, as if it were a mandatory initiation ritual for new, tightly controlled "adventures." Through the mechanisms of the Alliance, the United States has de facto become a full-fledged European power — and a dominant one at that. The so-called "European defense" has 28 members: 27 EU countries plus the United States, which radically distorts the very concept of European security.
The wars in the former Yugoslavia have become a symbol of the rebirth of NATO, the capitulation of the elites, and the ease with which institutions designed to protect international law (starting with the United Nations) have surrendered. When NATO first intervened in the Bosnian conflict in 1995, it was done under the pretext of supporting UN peacekeepers (FORPRONU). Then NATO repeated this scenario in Kosovo. Even then, it was disturbing to see how the UN allowed NATO to play the role of a global gendarme far beyond the geographical area of responsibility stipulated in the founding treaty.
At that time, the UN still maintained a semblance of control, relying on the authority of the only legitimate representative of the world community. Everything changed in 1999, when NATO began bombing Serbia without the approval of the UN Security Council.: This was already a blatant violation of international law. This bloody episode marked a historic turning point: for the first time, a military bloc under American leadership, without a UN mandate and despite the protests of Russia and China, assumed the role of supreme arbiter in the land of the Old World.
Unexpected strengthening
In such circumstances, the expansion of NATO to the east could not but arouse suspicion and alarm, especially when it came to the involvement of Georgia and Ukraine in the alliance. In 2008, France and Germany proudly announced that they had secured a postponement at the Bucharest summit (April 3, 2008). But this did not prevent the Caucasian crisis in August of the same year. After that war, many EU member states (including France) recognized that the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would be perceived by Russia as a provocation. And so it happened — on a scale exceeding all expectations: Vladimir Putin used this as an excuse to violate Ukraine's sovereignty, as Brezhnev had done in relation to Dubcek's rebellious Czechoslovakia in 1968.
In the short term, in addition to bloodshed and the risk of a third World war, the result was an unexpected strengthening of NATO. The Alliance's military tool now looks like a reliable shield against Russia, which dreams of regaining its empire, and Putin, who fantasizes about the role of a new tsar. This is called "falling into your own trap."
Should I join or not?
Since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, the question has arisen about the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The principle of Ukraine (and Georgia) joining this military bloc, created during the Cold War, was approved back in 2008, despite objections from France and Germany. On February 21, 2019, the Constitution of Ukraine was amended to fix this perspective, which Vladimir Putin views as a casus belli — a reason for war, motivated by the programmed environment of his country after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
This issue is one of the central ones in the ongoing negotiations between Russia and Ukraine on a possible way out of the war. Volodymyr Zelensky has hinted that he may reject Ukraine's accession to NATO, while Putin speaks in favor of a certain form of Ukrainian neutrality — a neutrality that has yet to be determined.
