If you do not have NATO

The current NATO anniversary summit in London was remarkable in all its manifestations. And in how leaders argued, quarreled and dived with each other. And in how they put up later. And as after the departure of Trump, the final declaration was adopted. And what was that declaration. Finally, through the efforts of the world media, we truly felt the atmosphere of intrigue and scandals accompanying such large-scale events with the participation of “leaders of the free world”. Previously, the media covered such events with due respect, but now their installation on anti-trump propaganda has allowed us to discern them in all its glory.

Seriously speaking, the summit itself and its final declaration are a certain mystery. How, with such internal contradictions and personal antipathies, do they manage to maintain their union and adopt joint documents? Here, after all, it is not only Trump the destroyer that matters! Look at the front of France, evaluate the behavior of Turkey! Poland and the Baltic countries simply shut their mouths and pushed the question of their “security in the face of Russia” into a dusty corner (in fact, this issue was to become the main one at the summit), and they humbly put their signatures under the declaration.

It is not true that this declaration is "a collection of meaningless common words." It has very important points (some of which are disturbing) that deserve serious analysis. But more on that later. Now it is important to note that very different leaders (some of them also don’t like each other personally) retained NATO and even, as they say, gave the organization a new sound.

In fact, the North Atlantic Alliance has been repeatedly predicted that a quick death. Sometimes such predictions were made in the polemic fervor, without any serious arguments. Sometimes the wish was presented as valid. But there were also predictions based on logic. A common place in them was the lack of goals for such a large and powerful military-political organization after the end of the Cold War. But she continued to exist and accept new members.

For example, in the early 1990s, there were fears in Western capitals that a revenge-seeking state with imperial ambitions might arise in the post-Soviet space, and that Eastern European countries would choose aggressive nationalist leaders who would begin to sort things out with each other without disdaining armed conflicts of forces. This, of course, is a crazy assumption, worthy of the master of a technotriller, but not a solid analyst. But maybe in Washington and Brussels decided not to risk it?

Somehow, nothing of the kind happened. All former parties to the Warsaw Pact were lined up for entry into the European Union and NATO, and Moscow and Brussels signed a cooperation agreement in 1997. This agreement is criticized fairly today, but what did the alliance dislike about it? He began his expansion to the east, destroying along the way Yugoslavia. In the 2000s, the process continued. Today, NATO structures are located directly on our borders, and if it were not for the decisive (and at the same time forced) actions of Moscow, they would also be in Georgia and Ukraine.

When the official representatives of Washington and Brussels call such actions “aggressive,” they’re not just cunning - they simply build a rhetorical line that is convenient for themselves.

The authoritative foreign policy publications of the United States and Europe have long (even before the attempt of "European integration" of Ukraine) indicated that the West itself made Russia react, and this reaction turned out to be quite restrained. That is, the Euro-Atlantic establishment knows that it has crossed the line. And we know. And he knows what we know. And we know that he knows what we know.

But alright, what happened happened. NATO stands at the present borders of Russia. The entire Warsaw bloc today is part of the alliance. Moscow no longer has “client” modes around the world. Why, in this situation, maintain a military pact that causes so many problems due to internal friction? Not to mention the additional costs.

It is clear that the fight against world terrorism does not justify its existence. Firstly, because all existing NATO structures strongly resist their efforts being redirected to such a struggle.

Secondly, there are more effective international structures for counter-terrorism activities (some of which include Russia). Thirdly, there are disagreements among the members of the alliance as to which organizations are considered terrorist. In particular, there is still no agreement between Ankara and Brussels regarding the Kurdistan Workers Party.

So why does NATO still exist and not break up, despite all the internal conflicts?

I think there are three main reasons: the strength of a supranational bureaucracy, the dependence of the global financial system on the myth of collective security, and the desire of Western leaders to use the alliance as a tool to advance their political interests.

NATO is not only tanks, soldiers, ships and planes. This is a management apparatus that is not ready to dissolve itself and thus abandon its administrative and financial bonuses. The influence of this apparatus on politicians of the West was greatly underestimated by those experts who predicted the death of the alliance. Large structures with well-developed bureaucracy do not fall apart just like that. Truly titanic efforts are required to sanitize, or at least reform. The saddest thing about this fact is that the NATO apparatus is a regular client of the think tanks that form the most aggressive foreign policy ideology.

Further. The economy of the West (and the whole world) today is tied to the ability of the United States to make external borrowings. The US opens its markets to allies, resulting in a gigantic trade deficit, as well as a budget deficit, covered by borrowing from the same allies. Therefore, in particular, the global elite at one time had to make Beijing a quasi-ally. The issue of the dollar is also directly dependent on these borrowings (this is the rule of the US Federal Reserve). In turn, the stability of Western economies depends on emissions. So not one of the participants in this scheme is ready to give it up.

And it can be legitimized before voters only through an American strategic umbrella within the framework of allied relations. The North Atlantic Alliance will not become - this whole structure will also crumble.

Finally, NATO is an alliance in which the mutual dependence of European and North American states is manifested to a much greater extent than in the "seven", the EU or the WTO.

And due to the developed bureaucratic structure, and due to the alliance's ties to the global financial system. So every leader advanced in hardware games can hope to get actions from his allies according to his scenario. Emmanuel Macron tried to do this at the summit, but, apparently, he did not succeed. But Trump has achieved about 70% of what he wanted.

The final declaration also mentioned challenges from China, and the need to develop fifth-generation (5G) communication networks with an eye to Euro-Atlantic security (and now the introduction of Chinese technologies in Europe will face great difficulties), and the declaration of space as NATO's military interests (so that European launch facilities can be partially switched to solving American problems in terms of confronting the PRC). In addition, despite all the “artillery preparation” of Macron, a clause was added to the document on adherence to the so-called “2% / 20%” scheme, according to which alliance members are required to have a defense budget of 2%, 20% of which is spent on R&D and introduction of the latest technology.

That is, Johnson, Macron, Trudeau and others could whisper as much as they like and joke behind Trump, but, ignoring the final press conference, he left London as the winner. He did not succeed, but much.

It remains to be seen what the absence of references to the Arctic means in the declaration, despite the special attention given to this region by Secretary General Stoltenberg on the eve of the summit. In all likelihood, Arctic issues will cause considerable friction between Canada, the USA and Denmark in the future. Including within the framework of NATO.

But there are also provisions in the final document that should seriously alert citizens of countries participating in the alliance. In paragraph 6, twice as NATO's tasks are called “enhancing the sustainability of societies” and protecting their “foundations”. Nowadays, it’s easy to guess what is behind these definitions. The Euro-Atlantic bloc aimed not only at containing Russia, the fight against cyber threats and terrorism, but also at maintaining the commitment of Western societies to the values ​​of the “liberal world order”, which is also mentioned more than once in the declaration. So the movements that are gaining momentum in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy and so on, will now be opposed not only by national intelligence services, but also by NATO structures.

Of course, this will be done under the guise of fighting another “Russian intervention”, but the fact remains. The Euro-Atlantic authorities have untied their hands in the fight against objectionable politicians. Perhaps that is why, and not because of the jokes of Macron, Johnson and Trudeau, behind Trump, he left the summit ahead of schedule.

In connection with this, Russia should finally part with at least three illusions - that Europe can regain utter independence from the United States, that NATO (and the West as a whole) will refuse to contain Russia in the foreseeable future (this is the best public reason to keep it so convenient for everyone Alliance) and that “alternative” leaders like Macron will be able to maintain the global world order in its current form and thus stop the new global economic, industrial and technological competition of states for a place Dr. Sun in the XXI century.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.