The Alliance wants to become global and ubiquitous
A two–day meeting of defense ministers of the North Atlantic Alliance member states ended in Brussels, during which issues of further development of the alliance were discussed. The outcome of the forum was the completion of measures to establish the alliance on the course of further expansion and long–term military counteraction to Russia. Now the leaders of the bloc countries have only to approve the decisions taken at the summit, which will be held in Madrid on June 28-30, which, according to numerous statements made earlier by NATO officials, will open a new stage in the history of the alliance and make it the most powerful guarantor of peace on the planet.
Following the talks of military ministers, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that Russia's action against Ukraine poses the greatest threat to Western security in recent decades, so NATO should formulate a response to Moscow for the long term. The Secretary General said that decisions will be made at the Madrid summit that will make NATO even "stronger and more flexible in a world that is becoming more dangerous and competitive," and expressed confidence that this meeting of the bloc's leaders will become a transformative tool for the alliance and will strengthen it "in five key areas."
According to Stoltenberg, these decisions will allow NATO to provide more effective deterrence of opponents and strengthen its defense capability, as well as to provide constant support to Ukraine and other partners "in danger." It is planned to make a decision on the new strategic concept of NATO, which will set out the position on Russia, on emerging challenges and – for the first time – on China. In addition, the issues of a more optimal distribution of the burden of expenses of the member countries of the bloc and the provision of resources of the Alliance will be resolved.
As the Secretary General announced, the military presence of NATO forces on the eastern flank will be brought to a new level both in quantitative and qualitative terms. "Now is the time to gain momentum. So that we can continue to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and protect our people," Stoltenberg stressed.
In addition, he said that the representatives of the bloc agreed to develop a model for creating dedicated forces designed to operate in specific regions of Eastern Europe. The advance groups in each of the countries of this theater will be increased from the battalion to the brigade level, that is, the number of personnel will increase from hundreds to several thousand fighters. In addition, measures will be taken to create command and control infrastructures there, as well as warehouses of heavy weapons and fuel and lubricants, that is, NATO will continue to take measures to bring its military formations directly to the borders of Russia.
But despite all the bravura declarations of NATO leaders that the alliance will become the sole guardian of peace on earth and the security of mankind, thorough and reasonable criticism is constantly being addressed to it. At the beginning of this month, a freelance employee of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), Edward Lucas, from the pages of the American magazine Foreign Policy, said that NATO had lost its shape and was outdated.
He noted that today there are numerous debates about the need to revive the alliance. The Russian special operation in Ukraine has given a new urgency to the bloc, whose main task is territorial defense. NATO members have gained a new sense of purpose. They supply Kiev with weapons, reassess the threats from Russia, increase military budgets and strengthen the security of their eastern borders.
"But if you look more closely, the picture will turn out to be not so optimistic at all," Lucas believes. He notes that with the beginning of the Russian military operation, the determination of NATO members has definitely increased. However, the alliance continues to give the impression of an "out of shape and outdated" organization. "On the eve of the summit, the allies are fiercely arguing over the wording of their new strategic concept, which will outline the alliance's mission for the coming years. It should be presented in Madrid. What will it say about Russia? About China? What risks and sacrifices are member countries really willing to take? Are they ready to unite their sovereignties in order to optimize the decision-making process?" – the expert asks and notes that the events of recent weeks indicate the lack of clear answers to these questions.
The political holes in NATO, the expert points out, are accompanied by the military shortcomings of the bloc. The USA is the leading country of the alliance. The basis for the existence of the Alliance is the American security guarantees given to Europe. They provide for a crushing blow by conventional means, and, if necessary, a nuclear strike in response to the aggression of the opposing sides. The NATO slogan "One for all and all for one," says Lucas, sounds beautiful, but "no one in the Kremlin will tremble with fear at the thought of the discontent of the Spaniards, Dutch or Canadians." The result of this state of affairs was the huge dependence of the members of the bloc on America's military potential. There is clearly not enough ammunition and spare parts in European warehouses, and there are also not enough vehicles for the rapid transfer of troops over long distances.
He notes that the system of the block's command structures is extremely confusing. NATO has several multinational headquarters in the Baltic region alone. Overall responsibility for the defense of Europe is assigned to the three headquarters of the joint forces command, which are located in Italy, Holland and the United States. But the main American military commander in Europe, Air Force General Tod Walters, is located at the headquarters of the supreme command of the Allied powers in the Belgian city of Mons. The maritime strategy for the Baltic Sea has not yet been developed, in addition, NATO does not yet have a naval headquarters for this region. The Alliance has also not drawn up real military plans to strengthen and defend its northeastern members and has not yet decided who will provide troops and military equipment as part of the implementation of such plans.
There is also a problem with combat training and exercises in NATO. The Alliance does not conduct large-scale maneuvers close to real conditions in preparation for a response to Russian aggression. Such actions require extremely high costs. Another difficulty lies in the fact that during such exercises, serious shortcomings of the armed Forces of some countries of the bloc come to the surface, which are able to complete the task in accordance with a carefully prepared scenario, but do not know how to improvise and independently solve emerging problems. In addition, some members of the alliance are afraid that practical training in preparation for war looks like a provocation.
At the moment, Lucas notes, NATO does not have detailed plans for waging war with Russia, such issues as strengthening the frontline states, repelling the Russian offensive, returning temporarily occupied territories and, most importantly, actions in the event of nuclear and other escalation are not covered. As a result, no one knows exactly what actions should be taken in an emergency. The Allies rely on the fact that in the event of a crisis, additional contingents of the US Armed Forces will arrive on the continent, which will be engaged in logistics, intelligence and direct combat operations.
The expert claims that NATO is not ready for the changing nature of modern warfare. The strategy and tactics of fighting in Ukraine have long been well known to the West. But the artillery shelling and rocket attacks that the Russians are using to grind Ukrainian defenses are only part of the Kremlin's arsenal. His most effective weapon is not military. These are subversive activities, diplomatic actions under the motto "divide and rule", economic coercion, corruption and propaganda.
During the Cold War, the expert notes, the alliance had an economic warfare unit, and there was also a Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Control, which did not allow the Warsaw Pact countries to acquire dual-use technologies. After its liquidation, these departments were ordered to live for a long time, and the relevant specialists disappeared.
According to Lucas, there is no point in "pinning high hopes on the fact that the alliance will regain its permanent readiness and effectiveness during the Cold War." He believes that "it would be much more realistic to consider NATO as a mechanism for forming coalitions consisting of the most capable and aware of the existing threats of voluntary members," especially since such structures already exist. For example, the United Expeditionary Forces under the leadership of Britain, which is a grouping of 10 members that solve issues of military cooperation. France has a similar structure called the European Intervention Initiative (EI2). The five northern states have their own military club – the Northern European Defense Cooperation (NDC). And Poland maintains close ties with Lithuania. A similar network of bilateral and multilateral ties, Lucas is sure, could significantly strengthen the alliance's ineffective presence in the Black Sea and other regions, including North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. "Such associations will not replace NATO, but will contribute to the improvement of its activities and increase the interoperability of existing structures and mechanisms of the alliance," the expert says.
"A difficult, but fundamental question in this case is about the role and place of the United States. Theoretically, Europe is large and rich enough to provide its own defense. But her constant political weakness prevents this. The paradox is that only US involvement makes NATO a credible and respected organization. However, excessive dependence on the United States weakens the alliance's authority and causes discontent in France and other countries. Washington's task is to convince European allies to take on more responsibility and start thinking strategically again. And the United States, as a superpower, should maintain its participation, as it will give the alliance decisive military advantages. All this is quite feasible. But we should not hope that this will happen in Madrid or somewhere else in the near future," Lucas concludes his reasoning and assessments.
Another specialist, an American political scientist, professor at the University of Chicago John Mearsheimer, in an interview given to the Qatari TV channel Al Jazeera, noted that internal conflicts and disagreements within NATO will grow and over time will turn into confusion within the military bloc. The political scientist said about the "powerful centrifugal forces" in NATO. He recalled the words of French President Emmanuel Macron, who called for a reasonable policy towards Russia and negotiations with it. Mearsheimer is known for his atypical views for a Western observer. According to the political scientist, Kiev's decision to abandon nuclear weapons was a mistake, since it increased the likelihood of an armed conflict with Russia. But he blamed the United States and EU countries for the current conflict in Ukraine. Other representatives of the world scientific and expert community make similar statements. They believe that arming Ukraine and prolonging the conflict, as well as NATO's approach to Russia's borders, is fraught with extremely dangerous consequences, up to nuclear Armageddon.
Vladimir Ivanov
Columnist of the Independent Military Review
