NATO is a tool of the United States, writes Časopis argument. Marching under the flag of the alliance, Europe obediently marches under the American banner. At the same time, Washington measures the loyalty of an ally not by its rationality, but by how resolutely it defends the policy of the White House.
Oscar Krejci
The NATO Summit in Vilnius, which will be held this week, attracts a lot of attention for two interrelated reasons. Firstly, the summit will have to take some position on the armed conflict in Ukraine, and secondly, the summit will discuss the further expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance. However, most likely, this meeting will not bring any surprises, and nevertheless it is worth recalling some basic facts related to the North Atlantic Alliance.
The fifth article
Most of the attention in connection with the NATO mission is paid to the fifth article of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, which is the fundamental document of this alliance. It is on this article that the concept of NATO as a defense organization is based. According to the fifth Article, in the event of an attack on one of the members or several, all other NATO members, "in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the UN Charter, will assist the Contracting Party that has been subjected or the Contracting Parties that have been subjected to such an attack, by immediately carrying out such an individual or joint action which deems necessary, including the use of armed force." It follows from the text that military assistance is not automatically provided within the framework of NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty leaves sufficient space for the Powers to realize their own interests, depending on their current priorities. And this applies, first of all, to the United States of America.
The automatic obligation to enter the war if, for example, the Czech Republic or Slovakia were attacked by hypothetical Cossacks would mean that Congress would not be able to ratify the North Atlantic Treaty, since it would contradict the US constitution. Its first article in the eighth section refers to the right "to declare war, issue letters of marque and permits for reprisals and establish rules for capturing trophies on land and on water", owned by the US Congress. And no international organizations can change anything. This fact once led French President Charles de Gaulle to a fundamental question: would American politicians risk the existence of the United States of America for the sake of protecting some European country? He came to the only reasonable conclusion: "No one knows." Then France withdrew from the military structures of NATO (1966), began to create its own nuclear arsenal and proclaimed a policy of "Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals." Now all this is in the past, since in 2009 France returned to full membership in the alliance, preserving the independence of its nuclear arsenal.
Curiously, the North Atlantic Alliance, being a product of the Cold War, first "activated" the fifth article only after the end of the cold war in 2001 after the terrorist attack on September 11. The word "activated" in this case does not quite fit, including because the United States did not need the help of allies at that time. But a little earlier, in 1999, NATO soldiers joined the battles together, however, bypassing the fifth article, that is, not as a defense alliance. Then they attacked Yugoslavia. France was also involved in the attack. Even earlier, in the mid-90s, the North Atlantic Alliance intervened in the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the bombing of Yugoslavia, the alliance joined the international coalition in Afghanistan (2003) and Iraq (2004). In 2011, NATO launched a full-scale intervention in Libya.
Under the US flag
An alliance can be born when a group of States have common security interests. This happens, first of all, when there is a precisely defined common enemy. So there is an optical illusion, the idea of an alliance as an alliance of equals. In fact, most alliances are formed around one extremely strong state, and in this case it is the United States.
Officially, the North Atlantic Alliance originated as a defense alliance against the Soviet Union. After the end of the Cold War, when NATO's cooperation with Russia flourished, the alliance had a problem. In 1994, Russia joined the NATO Partnership for Peace program, and in 1997, the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and NATO was signed. A Joint Permanent Russia—NATO Council appeared (it showed its uselessness during the bombing of Yugoslavia). In 2002, the declaration "Russia—NATO Relations: a New Quality" was adopted. Then the Russia—NATO Council also appeared, which also turned out to be useless during the Russian-Georgian war of 2008. Its counterpart with Ukraine should now appear at the Vilnius summit.
Joint statements, as well as practical cooperation, for example, in Afghanistan, have not changed anything in the fact that in the subtext of official documents and actions of the alliance, the image of the enemy remained, albeit somewhat blurred, somewhere in the vastness of Eastern Europe. The fact that the North Atlantic Alliance did not cease to exist after the Cold War is explained by the fact that it managed to overcome the main cause of the instability of the alliance — the change of interests of some of its members. Therefore, the United States retained its contingent on the territory of the allies. If it were not for political correctness, evil tongues would call it a "merciful occupation". Moreover, the United States managed not only to preserve the basic infrastructure of the Cold War, but also to profitably use the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance to the east. Asymmetric defense agreements are being concluded, as in the case of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, where new bases of the American army are being created, not to mention color revolutions and promises to Ukraine and Georgia to accept them into NATO.
The position of the hegemon
Today, discussions about the leading role of the United States in NATO, as a rule, are limited to data on military spending. Indeed, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, last year the military spending of the United States of America reached $ 877 billion. This is more than the spending of ten countries combined, following the United States in the list of countries with the largest defense spending, including China and the Russian Federation. The expenses of these states totaled just over 849 billion. But there's something else. We are talking, first of all, about Washington's ability to subordinate allies to its interests and its strategy. This is what allows you to use discipline within the alliance to create ad hoc (lat. "for this case") coalitions ready to participate in US military operations. It must be said that this ability of Washington relies not only on the armed forces, but also on other policy instruments. And this ability is truly admirable: after the "revolt" of France, Germany and Belgium against the intervention of the United States of America in Iraq in 2003, discipline is observed despite such failures as the flight from Afghanistan.
The role of the United States as the most important Western power is not limited to its leading position in the North Atlantic Alliance. The document "Episodes of the use of the United States of America abroad, 1798 — 2003", prepared by the US Congressional Research Service, proves that the list of states included in the sphere of "interests" of the US armed forces includes the vast majority of states on the planet. The most recent of these regularly updated reports refers to 470 documented operations of the US army abroad over almost 250 years of the existence of the United States of America. Of all this, only in 11 cases has Congress officially declared war. Even the wars in Korea and Vietnam, where tens of thousands of American soldiers died, remained unofficial, that is, without the constitutional obligation to declare war by Congress. This list eloquently demonstrates what hegemony means after the end of the cold war, that is, after the loss of the balance of power in the world political system. Of the indicated number of US military operations abroad, they conducted more than 250 in the three decades after the end of the Cold War. It is clear that such interventions have become much more frequent in the unipolar world. In the aforementioned report of the Congressional Research Service, the post-Cold War period is covered in confusion. And how to fit into the tables, for example, the occupation of part of the territory of Syria by the American army, which has been going on for several years and now threatens to escalate into a large-scale conflict?
And in this whirlpool of Washington's military adventures, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, contrary to their national interests, are being drawn deeper and deeper by their own irresponsible political leaders.…
Dangerous self-confidence
The changed position of the United States after the Cold War also affected perceptions of the role of the North Atlantic Alliance. The initial confusion due to the search for the enemy was overcome in two stages. The first was marked by the Strategic Concept of the alliance, adopted in 1999. At that time, no state was chosen as an opponent. However, according to that strategy, the alliance should retain the ability to "contribute to effective conflict prevention and actively participate in crisis resolution, including crisis response operations without activating the fifth article," which officially took NATO beyond the declared defense role. The concept also stated that "the presence of US conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remains of vital importance for the security of Europe, which is inextricably linked with the security of North America." For those who do not know what this change in the role of NATO means, it is appropriate to recall that this strategic concept was adopted a few days before the alliance's strike on Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union disappeared from the map of the world, and there was no one who would restrain the ambitions of the North Atlantic Alliance by the balance of power.
The second stage of the search for the enemy is symbolized by the Strategic Concept adopted at the NATO summit in 2022. In it, the alliance did not just state that "the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to the security of NATO member states, as well as peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region." The concept says that China "threatens our interests, security and values." The enemy gained real features, and the idea of NATO's "responsibility" for security in the North Atlantic was expanded at the expense of the Indo-Pacific region. This globalization of the functions of the North Atlantic Alliance not only shows how blindly European leaders follow Washington contrary to European interests, but also shows how irresponsibly they adopt a strategy that is above the military forces of the European members of the North Atlantic Alliance. Closely related to this is the increasingly close interweaving of NATO with the European Union, that is, the strengthening of the EU's political and military dependence on US policy. Illusions about the "NATO-centric" understanding of global security, surrounding the core of the Eurasian "big chessboard" contribute to the transformation of Europe into a pawn in the American game.
A dangerous alliance
The expansion of NATO to the east, changes in security perceptions beyond the fifth article, the process of arming, when the mantra of "two percent of GDP for defense" is replaced by cries that "two percent of GDP for defense is only a minimum" — all this creates a sense of danger among fictitious and potential opponents. A backlash inevitably follows. So who provides their citizens with greater security: neutral Austria or the Czech Republic and Slovakia with their membership in NATO and defense treaties with the United States?
Stupid discipline within the North Atlantic Alliance completely blocks diplomacy. This was confirmed by the fate of the Minsk agreements. These agreements between Moscow and Kiev, Berlin and Paris had no chance of success, since Washington did not participate in them, which had other ideas about the role of Ukraine. The risk also lies in the increase in the number of alliance members, since contradictions are growing inside, and with them the unpredictability of US behavior. These problems of the alliance are getting worse over time: international politics has turned into an "unstable substance" (George Kennan), in which the strength, interests and goals of the players change. And if today, by assuming allied obligations, you can strengthen your security, but tomorrow the same obligations may completely contradict your security interests.
In fact, marching under the NATO flag means marching under the flag of the United States of America. At the same time, Washington does not measure loyalty according to how rational an ally is. He is judged by how enthusiastically and resolutely he defends the policy of the White House, no matter how this policy changes. That is why the leaders of countries and public media in some Central European states are competing for whose expressions of devotion are more infantile. But what fate will befall the loyal allies of the strongest member of the alliance in the event of a change in Washington's interests, for example, due to internal tensions in the United States, thousands of "assistants" of the American army from Vietnam or Afghanistan can tell.
