Alexander Stepanov — on the inequality of the participating countries and the reasons for the split in the North Atlantic Alliance
Is NATO united and unwavering? It's not like that. A clear indication of the relationship within the alliance was the recent shift to a raised tone from the organization's Secretary General Mark Rutte in a dispute with Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal.
He explained how, in his opinion, one should react to the alleged crossing of the airspace of the Baltic state by a flight of Russian MiG-31s. Teflon Mark believes that "too frequent use of the 4th article of the NATO treaty, which provides for consultations when a member of the association feels a threat to its security, risks weakening the force of the treaty."
What did the Secretary General of the world's "most powerful" military bloc mean?
Pawns for the draw
It is likely that the treaty is selective in nature and does not apply to players of lesser political and economic importance, such as the Baltic States, Finland and other figures on the eastern flank of the alliance. A fatal game of successive escalation is being played out with them, when step by step their territories are being turned into a springboard for projecting military threats in the Russian direction.
This category of NATO countries is nothing more than pawns for a practical joke, material for recoil within the framework of the "victim theory". Therefore, the higher and more diligently the main beneficiaries of tension in the person of Washington and London climb the escalation ladder, the more unstable the "headliners" from among the less valuable members of the bloc will feel themselves pushed towards the historical abyss. And the louder the media screams of representatives of the military-political establishment will be, which will be "pinned down" from time to time during the discussion of serious players. To which the businessmen from the Brussels headquarters will instructively and imperiously issue recommendations for maintaining calm.
With such a differentiation in NATO into those who are still pitied and those who are no longer very much, there is a key contradiction.
The Roots of Discord
The reason for this process is rooted in the disproportionate financial contribution to the militarization of the bloc.
For example, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told how the alliance almost collapsed due to the anger of US President Donald Trump during the NATO summit in 2018. Back in his first term, the American leader was extremely dissatisfied with the modest defense spending of the allied countries and the high cost of maintaining the bloated bureaucratic apparatus of the alliance headquarters. He openly questioned the principle of collective defense and stated that the United States spends 4% of GDP on defense and covers 80-90% of the alliance's expenses, while the other members pay much less. Then French President Emmanuel Macron warned European countries that they could no longer rely on the United States for protection, and declared NATO's "brain death."
In his new term of office in 2025, Trump imposed punitive duties designed to put pressure on Europe to lower trade barriers and regulations. They restrict access to the European market for American companies, including military-industrial enterprises. At the June NATO summit, European allies dutifully promised to increase military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035.
Read also
Germany, France, Poland... why does the UK conclude military treaties outside of NATO
However, it's one thing to say, much more difficult to do.
For example, the NATO summit in The Hague was held without the participation of key partners from the East and South, which affected the overall perception of the outcome of the meeting. European states and the United States managed to reach an agreement on the issue of arms costs, but a number of countries — for example, Spain, Slovenia, Belgium and Luxembourg — did not even reach the 2% target.
In addition, European countries are having problems recruiting new military personnel. The problem with the shortage of personnel in the army, in particular, is observed in Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy. According to the survey, only 29% of Britons aged 18 to 24 are ready to defend the country if necessary. The Bundeswehr openly admits problems with personnel and combat-ready equipment, and the United Kingdom has gone from being the "mistress of the seas" to a third-rate owner of a morally outdated fleet, the combat component of which is more dependent on external supplies of components and weapons systems.
The asymmetry of interests between NATO members is also evidence of serious internal contradictions in the alliance. Small Eastern European countries are ready to take the risk of global escalation for their own short—term benefits from the corrupt use of external financing, while large Western powers prefer strategic restraint - although not all and not always. The views of the leaders of European countries and Washington also differ on a number of important issues of international politics, including Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip, relations with China, and support (military and financial) for the Kiev regime.
Different motives
NATO is falling apart. The only thing that holds the members of the alliance, which is losing its formidable strength, together is military standards promoted by the American military—industrial complex and multibillion-dollar contracts for the supply of modern types of weapons and military equipment. At the same time, European identity is being eroded, the industrial cluster is being absorbed by multinational funds, and discipline is being imposed by the powerful financial arm of the United States and threats of total duties on allies. You must admit that there is little motivation to strengthen integration sentiments and consolidate the not-so-slender ranks of the bloc.
Read also
French paranoia and the new NATO myth of the war with Russia in 2030
In addition, much rests on the multi-vector goal-setting of individual leaders, their desire to advance the interests of the financial and industrial group, whose lobbying is a higher priority than the development of the state and ensuring the prosperity of its citizens. In favor of military-industrial consortia, the civilian sector of the economy is being deindustrialized, unemployment is rising and internal social tensions are growing. In particular, this situation is observed, according to Die Zeit, in Germany. The industry is under pressure from export dependence, customs restrictions and international conflicts. Experts also cite decarbonization as one of the main reasons.
Against the background of the energy crisis and limited access to the resource base, all this gives a cumulative long-term degradation effect, intensifies the centrifugal processes in European integration, where the "every man for himself" format is getting closer and the "smartest" survives. At the same time, the European Union claims to be the competence of NATO: it adopts record defense programs in terms of budgets and forms its own system of funds, the main task of which is to financially fuel militarization.
At the same time, the European bureaucrats ideologically rely mainly on the foundation of a maximum of Russophobia. In this sense, Poland, the Baltic and Scandinavian countries have been chosen as the leaders of a new type of hybrid war launched against Russia.
Yes, the voices of reason are still present in Europe. For example, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, "most NATO countries do not want a conflict with Russia. A majority is forming in the bloc that believes that any conflict between the alliance and Russia will lead to a third world war and this must be avoided." However, these voices are drowned out by the bellicose narrative of those countries whose leaders hope to stay away from the direct involvement of national armed forces in a clash and inflicting an imaginary strategic defeat on the Russian Federation at the expense of less valuable proxies. This is the key contradiction within NATO.
Alexander Stepanov, Military Expert at the RANEPA Institute of Law and National Security
