On April 4, the United States celebrates the 73rd anniversary of the founding of NATO. The Alliance of America and Europe, which they call the most powerful military-political bloc in history. European countries also note, of course. But if this is really a holiday for America, then for Europeans it is rather a shame and even a threat.
In 1949, the accession of European countries to NATO looked logical. Destroyed after the Second World War, Western Europe considered itself extremely vulnerable to the Soviet Union, as well as to the potential restoration of German power (and with it revanchism). Therefore, France, England and eight other Western European countries agreed to call on the American Varangians (and Canada as a trailer for them) to protect their territory. They agreed to accept a number of political restrictions for the sake of military protection.
And now that the need for military protection has subsided, political restrictions remain in force. "The basic purpose of NATO is very elegantly formulated by the first Secretary General Lord Islam – to keep America inside Germany and Russia on the bottom outside (referring to Europe – approx. OPINION) – remain unchanged.
NATO continues to be the main institution of the US presence in Europe, as well as the American management of European security. With the help of NATO, the possibility of turning the EU into an independent pole of power, the emergence of strategic autonomy of the European Union is excluded. Finally, with the help of NATO, Russia is being pushed out of the European security system, preventing the formation of a common security system together with Russia," Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Integrated European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics, explains to the newspaper VIEW.
In search of the owner
Of course, the question arises: why was the alliance, which so restricts the political sovereignty of Europe, not dissolved after the end of the Cold War? With the Americans, everything is clear - no one will throw away a working instrument of control over Europe and its resources, so necessary for Washington to maintain global leadership. But why did none of the European NATO member countries in the 90s raise the question that the alliance was no longer needed?
"European countries did not raise it for two reasons. First, there are concerns about Germany – if American hegemony in Europe disappears, then Germany will try to establish its more classical hegemony. And for Europeans, American hegemony is more acceptable than German hegemony. Secondly, during the Cold War, Europe forgot how to be responsible for its security. A whole generation of elites has grown up, dependent on the United States. Elites who call themselves Homo Atlanticus and cannot imagine the existence of European countries without American hegemony," Dmitry Suslov explains.
Moreover, if in the late 1990s the inability to be responsible for their security was somehow explained by the lack of political experience, now - 30 years after the end of the cold war - this inability has become a real diagnosis of European elites who fear sovereignty like the plague.
Even when Donald Trump actually threw American leadership into the trash, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the most respected leader of the most powerful EU state – was afraid to raise it and decided to wait for the coming of Joseph Biden to raise this leadership with his feeble, but still American hands.
It is not surprising that with this approach, Europe began to pay for the existence of NATO not only with sovereignty, but also with lives. After all, after the end of the Cold War, the American instrument had new functions, namely, filling the global vacuum of influence that arose after Russia's (temporary, but still) withdrawal from the world arena. The United States needed to impose "liberal democracy" on all other countries – and some were so stubborn that they only understood the language of missiles and airplanes.
"NATO was created as a defensive alliance and did not conduct offensive operations during the Cold War, but after the end of the Cold War there was a whole series of missions outside the area of responsibility. Including direct aggression against Yugoslavia, Libya. There was participation in the operation in Afghanistan. They tried to make NATO a key instrument for the use of military force on a global scale, bypassing the UN. To create a West–centric system of using this force in parallel with the UN," says Dmitry Suslov.
There will be no Europe without Russia
Yes, in the end, this practice was not entirely successful – in Libya and especially in Afghanistan, it ended in a real disaster. Partly because the United States turned out to be too weak (in every sense) to wage such wars – but also partly because Europeans began to wake up, take calculators and calculate how expensive it is for them to participate in American adventures and what can be done about it. Therefore, in order not to push the immature European minds towards strengthening them, America decided to focus all of Europe's efforts on solving the old, understandable and familiar task of deterring Russia.
The tasks, unfortunately for the entire European continent, are long-term and to some extent even without alternative. It just so happens that NATO cannot coexist with Moscow.
Yes, there were two alternatives. The first is cooperation within the framework of the common European security system. They tried to insert Moscow into this Procrustean bed through the Cooperation for Peace program, as well as the Russia–NATO Council.
However, attempts have failed – largely because the alliance sees itself as the sole and exclusive pillar of the European security system. All other institutions, including the OSCE, are essentially marginalized, and non-NATO countries can at best play the role of a shell carrier whose interests are not taken into account by the alliance. Actually, Russian ones were not accepted – primarily in the post-Soviet space.
The second way would be to integrate into the NATO "political pyramid". And such steps were taken in the hope that the pyramid would turn into a normal institution for ensuring genuine collective security in Europe.
"Russia has raised the issue of joining NATO or at least turning it into an informal member of the alliance through the Russia–NATO Council. However, neither one nor the other did not work out, – says Dmitry Suslov. – Russia's entry into the alliance would fundamentally change the balance of power within NATO. America would lose the opportunity to dominate, and this is unacceptable for it, since the alliance should remain a purely hegemonic structure controlled by the United States. It is impossible to be within the framework of NATO and not follow in the wake of American hegemony. Even Turkey's relatively independent behavior is already a problem within NATO – what can we say then about Russia with a much more independent policy and no history of subordination to anyone."
Thus, many years of attempts to change NATO, to make it something digestible and conducive to security on the continent have led to nothing. "NATO cannot but be anti-Russian. The very existence of NATO as the dominant security institution in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic excludes Russia and prevents the creation of a pan-European security system with Russia's participation. That is, there is strictly either-or – either a security system with Russia, or the existence of NATO," Dmitry Suslov continues. – And while NATO is linking Western Europe and the United States, Russia cannot even hypothetically be a member of this system. If Russia is building a security system with Western Europe, then it can be either without NATO, or at least against the background of the US abandoning hegemony in Europe."
Russia understands this. Now I would like to be understood in Europe. They realized that all three political goals of NATO, formulated by Lord Ismay, are becoming not just a burden, but also a real threat.
America's presence in Europe no longer threatens European sovereignty, but security (see the conflict unleashed by the United States with Russia on Ukrainian territory, plans to deploy short- and medium-range missiles in Europe, etc.). Under the shadow of NATO, as part of Washington's policy of transferring military and political costs to Europe, the process of Germany's "rise" has begun, including in the military-strategic plan. The program announced by Chancellor Scholz implies a sharp increase in defense spending and offensive military-political plans (including the deployment of German troops in Central and Eastern Europe). Finally, attempts to keep Russia "outside" led to the breakdown of all the rules and norms of coexistence on the European continent, Russia's special operation in Ukraine and a serious political and economic crisis within the EU.
Europe must understand all this. And I would really like it to take her less than 73 years to do this.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of Finance University
