In 1947-1949, a series of events caused the Western European countries to become concerned about their political and physical securities. Consequently, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established, as a bulwark against the Soviet forces, comprising the US and 11 other countries, including the UK, France, Canada, Belgium, Italy, and others, in 1949. To counter NATO, the Soviet Union and its affiliated countries in Eastern Europe founded a counter alliance, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. Original signatories of the Warsaw Pact were eight nations, including the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and the German Democratic Republic.
The clash of ideologies between two organisations has always been democratic values and dictatorship, along with capitalism and communism. The preamble of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO states ‘are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principle of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.’
During the cold war, Europe lived with a danger of war, feeling that any conflict would reduce them into radioactive wreckage. A bloodthirsty impasse stayed for the decades. During this period, NATO could sail through to prove its existence of shared forces and joint commitments. Due to political upheavals and demand for the democratic government from within the Soviet Union caused it to be fragmented in the parts in 1991, the Warsaw Pact dissolved.
The existence of the NATO alliance has vested Washington a vast power for decades. Consequently, America has wielded military capabilities, intelligence gathering, military expertise, logistical supply, etc. that otherwise could cost too much for an individual country to reproduce. The European Union has depended heavily upon NATO forces for the last 70 years. During the period, no significant threat from the east made it complaisant about security. In a quid pro quo, the US got the right to establish military bases in these countries, showing its presence globally. The US could also influence the trade and economic policies of the member states keeping its hegemony unchallenged.
Nevertheless, NATO has been suffering from a void of purpose in recent years. Many members were challenging its existence. For example, President Donald Trump said it has become ‘obsolete’.
Case in point, Germany was the frontline with the Soviet Union till 1991. Later on, it joined NATO. Germany is separated from the successor state, Russia, by – the buffer states – Poland, Baltic states, and Ukraine geographically. Its physical distance from the Russian border and no perceived threats from the east in the meantime motivated it to cut down its defence spending below 2 percent of GDP. What is more, Germany’s search for more markets led to its intense economic engagement with Russia. In a joint venture with Gazprom, a Russian state sector unit, Berlin has partnered with Moscow to build a new pipeline in Nord Steam2, which has exacerbated the EU’s energy dependence on Russia.
The organisation has suffered many structural problems in the last decade. The United States worked continuously with its allies to review burden sharing, defend against democratic backsliding, and manoeuvre alliances to pivot against China. Burden sharing has been a bone of contention within the partnership. The US has always complained to its allies for not sharing an equal burden. President Donald Trump has used this as a reproach to repeatedly ask for the two percent metric to question the existence of NATO.
NATO’s preamble promotes democratic values and advocates strengthening member state’s free institutions. But Greece and Turkey, who joined the alliance in 1952, were ruled by the military for an extended period. Turkey’s position towards the middle east and the black sea makes it a critical partner for the alliance. Its geopolitical location gives it a free pass to flaunt rules. Similarly, NATO could not restore democracy in Poland, Hungary, and Greece. They are good examples of democratic backsliding.
There were differences in opinion among member countries on NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – they were as national security priorities of the United States. There was no consensus among members on common strategies in Afghanistan. While Germany, Italy, and Spain believed that NATO’s mission should limit itself to peacekeeping and nation-building and not combat insurgents. But, the US, the UK, and Canada were focused on counterinsurgency measures.
NATO withdrew its forces from Kabul in August 2021. Though NATO forces stayed for two decades in Afghanistan, they could not establish a democratic government. The chaotic and debasing withdrawal of NATO from Kabul marks the end of NATO’s hegemony and its purpose. The Kabul imbroglio has underlined that Washington acts unilaterally and as per its vested interests. Recent expeditions of NATO have shown that there are limits to NATO’s military capabilities, lack of consensus in decision-making, and financial commitments.
The reluctance among NATO states to stand against China is due to the unwillingness of the EU members. As late as 2019, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg declared ‘There is no way NATO will move into the South China Sea, but we have to address the fact that China is coming closer to us, investing heavily in infrastructure.’ The NATO recognised threat but did not regard China as an enemy. The main reasons for it could be traced to the economic ties of the EU and China.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and subsequent dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO expanded to the east by offering its membership to the Baltic States, Poland, Check Slovakia, Hungary. Ukraine, Bosnia, and Herzegovina are waiting in a queue. NATO did not deny membership to Ukraine though it technically does not qualify for a membership, based on border disputes. This ambiguous status of Ukraine’s membership has led to a conflict now.
The Russian fear of encirclement by the western alliance and Ukraine’s repeated request to become a NATO member has led to its tacit involvement in the Donbas region and an invasion in 2014 to capture Cremia. Russia argues ‘the western alliance has betrayed by breaking a commitment not to expand eastward.’ The series of incidents has led to the level of war. Russia is trying to capture Kyiv, encircling it from all sides and bombarding strategic locations. At the same time,NATO supplied arms to Ukraine and supported it financially and morally.
Russia-Ukraine war has united NATO allies. NATO has reiterated it after every meeting that ‘Allies are united in their full support to for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders.’ The commitment is so strong that every ally has denounced Russia severely for military attack and announced sanctions each day. Has this event acted as a binding force to bring an alliance together? My answer is it seems so as of now.
Interestingly, Germany has kept itself from committing military troops to joint operations or even sending any kind of arms and ammunition into conflict zones. It had concentrated mainly on economic and diplomatic contributions earlier. After this crisis, the Chancellor of Germany stated that Vladimir Putin’s war ‘in cold blood’ was a ‘watershed’ moment for Europe. Scholz is committing to increase defence spending up to 2% of GDP mandated by the NATO treaty. East European countries are already ramping up their defence spending to create infrastructure for troops. This embedded fear of security may help correct the financial burden-sharing issue for NATO.
The current fear of security from the east may also change Europe’s view of China. China is a tacit ally of Russia in this crisis. This situation makes a case for Europe to revisit its stand to participate Washington in its South China Sea mission to contain China. China is a natural enemy economically, strategically, and politically for the US. With the changing dynamics, Europe and the US might consent to work together against China and Russia, which will end the search for a purpose for the alliance.
Since 1949, the alliance’s strategy has successfully kept the Soviet Union out, the United States in and the German down.’ This strategy has successfully checked the Soviet Union and ultimately its collapse in 1991. After 1991, Its allies and the rest of the world had questioned the existence of NATO. Ukraine crisis has led to the renaissance of the alliance to ‘NATO version 2.0’ where a united alliance could emerge with more significant financial and political commitment for a clear goal. Unfortunately, the emergence of the new NATO 2.0 will compel the states to form new alliances behind these two – the west, and the east, mainly China and Russia- political axes. Nevertheless, how non-aligned states will strategise themselves in changing global order remain a big question?
