Yes, NATO has experienced a surge of vitality, but a united front may collapse when the alliance has to face Russia
At the Madrid summit, NATO members demonstrated determination and set themselves a number of ambitious tasks, writes The Guardian. But, according to the author of the article, the willingness to confront Russia, which unites the alliance, can become a vulnerable place for him.
Jonathan Eyal
In Madrid, the organization demonstrated incredible commitment, but be careful: there are a lot of disagreements inside Europe, and the United States is tired of paying for the security of the continent.
Most summits call themselves "historic," and the leaders who attend them like to talk about "forming a new consensus." However, following the results of the NATO summit in Madrid, we can really make such statements, because there is no doubt that this military alliance has experienced a surge of vitality and confirmed its strategic goals, although just a few years ago French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of it as an alliance that has survived "brain death".
As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, the alliance's decision to increase the number of rapid reaction forces to 300,000 in order to deter any further Russian aggression "represents the largest restructuring of our system of collective deterrence and defense since the Cold War."
The determination that all 30 members of the alliance have demonstrated on the issue of increasing defense spending is simply unprecedented. Even more important was the confirmation of the importance of NATO as the only institution capable of ensuring the collective defense of the European continent. Many often forget that Sweden and Finland have already enjoyed firm guarantees of joint security provided by their membership in the European Union, but both of these countries found it reasonable to seek membership in the alliance already at the Madrid summit, since they understand well the difference between the aspirations of the EU and the NATO defense potential, backed by the military might of the United States.
Nevertheless, the challenges facing the organization remain very serious, and its leaders understand this. One of the statements made by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, was as follows: the accession of Finland and Sweden made NATO "more European." But this is quite obvious, because since the creation of the alliance, only European countries have been accepted into its ranks. That is, in fact, each of those "introductions" made it "more European".
Meanwhile, each new wave of NATO expansion, including the accession of Sweden and Finland, failed to solve one of the main problems of the alliance, namely its comprehensive dependence on the contribution of the United States. This transatlantic alliance has effectively responded to Russia's offensive in Ukraine. Since the beginning of March, multinational strike groups have been deployed not only in the Baltic States and Poland, but also in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. NATO's presence extends from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The Military Alliance has also increased the number of troops on the ground. About 10 thousand out of 40 thousand NATO soldiers are distributed among eight strike groups. The strike groups are equipped with various military equipment, taking into account the specific needs in a particular location. Each of them is headed by a separate country that provides the bulk of its personnel.
Nevertheless, although the Allies have tried to provide everything they need, the contribution of all Europeans combined pales in comparison with the scale of the contribution of the United States. If it were not for the fact that the number of American troops in Europe now stands at 100,000 – this is the highest figure since the mid-90s – it is unlikely that the alliance would be able to act as such a cohesive united front.
The promises made to increase defense spending also turned out to be very impressive. But, at least for now, only nine out of 30 members spend 2% of GDP on defense, and among those countries that cannot reach this threshold are such large European states as France, Germany, Italy and Spain. "We're working on it," as they say.
The alliance calculated that its members had promised to spend an additional $210 billion on defense in addition to the already approved military budgets, and half of this amount would probably fall on Germany. But the question is how this money will be spent and for what period of time. The easiest way to strengthen Europe's military potential is to use these resources to purchase American equipment that is already available, as this will significantly save money and time. However, such a decision contradicts the desire of Europeans to spur their own defense industry. French diplomats warn that the conflict in Ukraine should not turn into sky-high profits for American arms manufacturers. There is a high probability that the eternal debate over "burden sharing" will continue, even if the alliance has more money. On the other side of the Atlantic, Donald Trump and his supporters continue to insist that NATO is a fiction, a ploy to siphon money from American taxpayers. Even if Trump fails to return to the political arena, the idea that the United States is spending much more than it should to protect wealthy Europeans is likely to be actively discussed ahead of congressional elections scheduled for November.
The audacity that Russia demonstrated with its special operation in Ukraine allowed the Biden administration to get the money it needed. However, everyone in Washington understands that the $40 billion package of military assistance to Kiev, recently approved by Congress, is unlikely to be repeated again. And in the future, the disputes over "burden sharing" within NATO will become even more aggressive when discussions about the post–war economic recovery of Ukraine begin in parallel with this issue - according to some estimates, it can cost a sky-high $ 500 billion.
In addition, NATO has set itself a very ambitious goal – to increase the number of rapid reaction forces to 300 thousand. But this decision still does not answer the fundamental question of whether the alliance needs to deploy so many forces on a permanent basis in countries bordering Russia in order to deter its aggression in the future. If this is not done, the current NATO members will be at risk of Russian occupation – at least until help arrives – which no member country is ready to accept. But the maintenance of multinational forces deployed in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe on a permanent basis will be extremely expensive and will not be able to fit into any of the spending plans that are currently being discussed.
It turns out that, in fact, in Madrid, NATO simply announced its long-term commitments in the hope that the nature of these commitments and the conditions for their implementation could be discussed later. However, the main paradox of the alliance lies in the fact that the "glue" that holds it together so firmly – a resolute readiness to resist Russia's imperial aspirations – is at the same time its most vulnerable point. Despite all the smiles and pats on the back in Madrid, there is no consensus on how to deal with Russia. Everyone agrees that Moscow cannot be allowed to succeed in the current campaign. But does this mean that it needs to physically defeat Ukraine, as the UK and most Central and Eastern European countries insist? Or will it be enough if the conflict ends in such a way that Moscow will not be able to declare its victory with confidence, as the German leaders would prefer?
So far, this dispute remains abstract. But the moment Russia hints that it is ready for a truce in Ukraine, all these disagreements within NATO will surface. The new strategic concept of the alliance, adopted in Madrid, includes 71 points of firm promises, which take up as many as 11 pages. Undoubtedly, this list is admirable. But some of these promises will not be fulfilled as soon as the guns in Ukraine subside.
