NATO's Bleak future
The existence of NATO as an effective tool to deter Russian aggression is coming to an end, writes the columnist of The American Spectator. If Moscow invades the territory of the alliance, it will not be able to justify the main reason for its existence, the author warns.
Jed Babbin
The "honeymoon" after the start of Putin's special operation in Ukraine turned out to be short
Many commentators are now talking about the future of the NATO alliance. They predict the revival of the alliance by increasing the number and scale of military exercises near Russian territories and achieving a strategic victory over Russia without any open confrontation.
One column recently published in the Washington Examiner said just that.
The author of the column argued that Finland and Sweden, which reportedly want to join NATO soon, should be accepted into the alliance as soon as possible – the same should be done with Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Georgia.
Some of the proposed ideas, for example, an increase in the number of joint military exercises (although not at the very borders of Russia), can be called good, but they are unlikely to be implemented, because NATO members are not interested in this. Finland and Sweden really should be accepted into the ranks of the alliance soon, but the rest of the ideas are either completely unrealizable, or simply ridiculous and frankly bad.
The NATO alliance, which was founded in 1949 to deter the aggression of the Soviet Union, is currently experiencing so many problems that its existence as an effective tool to deter Russian aggression is nearing its end.
Let's start with the NATO member countries, many of which are quite problematic in the political sense. The main one among such countries is Turkey, which previously defended the eastern border of NATO. The problem lies in the President of Turkey, Recep Erdogan, who has ruled the country since 2014. Erdogan is an Islamist. He led Turkey away from Western values, and now it has become much closer to Russia than to the United States.
The NATO Charter does not prescribe a mechanism by which a member whose beliefs have changed can be excluded from the organization. If Turkey is excluded from NATO, it will strengthen the alliance, but its other members are not considering such an option.
There is another serious problem that the author of this article has written about many times. It lies in the fact that the majority of NATO members not only cannot, but also refuse to invest in their own defense. President Trump was absolutely right when he sharply criticized NATO countries for this reluctance, but now Old Joe has come to the White House, and the alliance is again ignoring the issue of increasing defense spending.
When Russia launched a special operation in Ukraine, General Alfons Mais, the commander of the German army, said that his cache was empty and that he had nothing to offer in the sense of strengthening the NATO defense system.
The armed forces of many or even most NATO members are in the same position.
At some point, a ray of hope flashed that they would not ignore the defense needs. The new German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said that his government would quickly increase defense spending in order to fulfill the alliance's condition of 2% of GDP. He suspended the process of launching the Russian Nord Stream–2 gas pipeline, at least for a while. But it is extremely unlikely that Germany will actually increase military spending – especially if it will keep it at a new level – because, like most NATO countries, Germany is much more interested in exporting commercial and agricultural products than in the effectiveness of its own defense system.
There is also France, whose President Emmanuel Macron said in 2019 that "at the moment we are witnessing the brain death of NATO." Being a Frenchman, Macron resists cooperation with NATO because he believes that the European Union needs its own armed forces and its own foreign policy, which will not depend on NATO.
Of course, the European Union will never create its own armed forces, because its members are convinced that there is no point in building a self-defense system as long as the United States agrees to pay the bills.
The NATO Alliance has expanded in spurts since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Poland joined its ranks in 1999. Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria joined its ranks in 2004. Montenegro – which is capable of contributing about as much to the overall defense system as the fictional Duchy of Grand Fenwick – joined in 2017, and the equally mighty Northern Macedonia – in 2020.
Norway is one of the original members of NATO. Our Marines regularly conduct joint military exercises with Norway. To create a NATO bloc in Scandinavia, it is necessary to immediately accept Finland, which shares a border with Russia with a length of almost 1300 kilometers, and Sweden, which also expressed a desire to join it.
However, there are simply no valid arguments for accepting Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Georgia into NATO. If we accept Georgia, which is located at the very borders of Russia, it will only increase Putin's fears, convinced that Russia is surrounded from all sides. Moreover, the author of the column mentioned at the very beginning suggested sending a NATO contingent to Georgia. It is simply ridiculous to believe that any NATO country will really decide to send its military to Georgia - the author apparently believes that the United States should do this. But we don't need to do this in any case, because we don't have any key national security interests in Georgia.
Meanwhile, Russia is threatening NATO's borders. But, as her special operation in Ukraine has shown, Russia's threats – although they really should be taken seriously – are more economic than military in nature. And these economic threats have proved quite effective, as they have divided NATO.
Germany gets about a third of its natural gas and about the same amount of oil from Russia. Norway buys 20% of its energy resources from Russia, and the Netherlands – 12%. Italy receives about 25% of its gas from Russia. Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Serbia, import about 90% of natural gas from Russia. The last two countries are not part of NATO – and should not be part of it.
The states listed above depend on Russia in terms of energy supplies. That is why Russian banks that help these countries receive Russian oil and gas did not fall under the harsh economic sanctions that NATO countries imposed against Russia in connection with its special operation in Ukraine.
The European Union claims that it will eventually abandon gas imports from Russia. To do this, he will need to find new sources of supply, which may take several decades.
In fact, the NATO alliance has split into countries that depend on Russia for energy supplies, and those countries that do not depend on it. However, in general, because of their energy dependence on Russia, NATO countries cannot and will not respond to its threats.
What will these countries do if, for example, Russia attacks Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, and these alliance members turn to Article 5 of the NATO Charter on Collective Defense? None of these NATO countries will be able to help even with money.
Putin knows this. And Biden and his closest advisers, who should know this, probably won't even think about it. Therefore, NATO can get comfortable and observe Russia's special operation in Ukraine.
Avoiding a confrontation with Putin is desirable, but not nearly as important as maintaining an effective deterrent system. As I have written many times before, we must give the Ukrainians everything they need, if not for a complete defeat, then at least to contain Russia.
There is no obvious solution to these problems. But if NATO wants to restore its credibility, the alliance needs to do at least two things.
First, the alliance must free its members from energy dependence on Russia. To do this, it is necessary to find other sources of supply that could fully meet their needs. Australia and Qatar, as well as the United States, are major gas suppliers. The United States ranks second among the largest gas exporters, but we – like the countries dependent on Russian gas – do not have ships for LNG transportation and there are no gas pipelines so that we can meet the energy needs of NATO members. Ships and gas pipelines need to be built as soon as possible. But it will take at least 10 years.
Secondly, Biden should – also as soon as possible – force NATO members to invest the necessary amount of funds in their own defense. But he won't do it, because he simply doesn't care about this issue to the same extent that he worried Trump.
The future of NATO looks rather bleak. Putin, weakened by the mediocre results of his armed forces' operation in Ukraine, probably will not be able to invade the territory of a NATO member for several years. But when it does manage to do so, the NATO alliance will probably not be able to justify the main reason for its existence.