Last April marks the 70th birthday of NATO, where he issued a statement talking about its importance and mentioned four points: The first is that any attack against a member of the Alliance is an attack on all members, and the second is that the Alliance is a defensive and deterrent alliance, and the third is that It represents a balance against Russia, and the fourth is that NATO is constantly trying to improve its collective defense capability.

It does not take an intelligent observer to understand that the four points focus on "Russia's threat." Although this strategy may have been effective during the Cold War, it reduces the importance of the alliance at the present time, and it opens the door to criticism.

Poor commitment

This can be seen from the recent statements of French President Emmanuel Macron, who believes that the alliance is in a "brain death" state and cannot be revived before five years have passed. If the United States' commitment to this alliance is weak, it will not be able to confront Russian aggression, because if the Alliance countries do not increase their defense spending, there is no reason for the United States to engage in a confrontation against a superpower.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the alliance underwent a transition from one collective defense function to another incorporating elements of collective security. Pointing to the economic and social instability in Central and Eastern Europe, during the period when the Soviet Union began to disintegrate, NATO leaders tried to attract former Soviet Union countries and make them a partner, and then an ally, to address internal problems. At the Rome Summit in 1991, NATO leaders believed that there was a new set of threats "multifaceted in nature and multidirectional, which made it difficult to anticipate or evaluate", and those days that involved a vague rivalry between two poles had ended. Consequently, the new geopolitical climate forced NATO to rethink its role.

Despite this, the Alliance continued to talk about its mission as it was the case during the Cold War, and this is the reason for raising the issue of the allied countries ’contributions to the Alliance’s funding. Indeed, looking at the alliance from the point of view of narrow defense financing requires a justification for this funding, and this means that the alliance must find a threat to compete with, and this threat is represented in Russia.

In fact, the focus on Russia distorted the fact that the alliance was beneficial, and the talk was about allocating a certain percentage of the national product to the alliance’s funding, which is taken as a criterion to determine its deterrence ability, hindering the understanding of the Alliance’s role in maintaining security on both sides of the Atlantic, and limiting the leaders ’use The 2% of the national product for NATO armament. This problem can be seen throughout the history of American politicians who criticize NATO.

During his conversation with former Soviet President Joseph Stalin in the city of Yalta in the Crimea, then US President Franklin Roosevelt clearly explained US policy that it requires the largest number of its soldiers to be withdrawn from Europe after a period of two years, indicating that the United States will not provide security For free, but President Dwight Eisenhower's view is that the European security community can replace US forces.

For the next half-century, American presidents, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush, and foreign ministers from James Schlesinger to Robert Gates, have spoken unanimously that America carries excessive security costs to it. In 1980, US Secretary of Defense Harold Brown hinted that NATO could break its contract if its funding was not distributed fairly to the participating countries.

Alliance spending

Although talk about NATO spending seems reasonable when the alliance is facing a major power, the focus on finance is now a big mistake, and even in a time of tension between the superpowers, the world in 2019 works differently than it did during the Cold War.

The focus on Russia and NATO's financial spending led to the emergence of two major problems: the first is aggressive behavior against Russia, knowing that informal guarantees were recently provided by Washington to Moscow not to expand the alliance, and in return the last President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, agreed to unite Germany, believing that The alliance will not expand, and Russia will participate in the security of Europe, and the United States will not leave much of the traditional forces in Europe, but when the United States decided to expand the alliance and focused on funding the alliance, and to keep Russia away from security agreements in Europe; Moscow became isolated and weak Growing image in the region, and as a result, Russia is now ruled by a former officer in the «KGB» believes that the alliance, which focuses on the aggressive financing and should be confronted.

Ignore areas

The second problem in NATO strategy is that it ignores the areas that are likely to be successful. For example, there are countries in the alliance that have decided to fulfill their pledges to pay 2% of the gross domestic product, but they undermine the real interests of the alliance, including Turkey, which decided to commit to 2% but buy Weapons from Russia, which undermines the operational operation within the alliance, as it deals with human trafficking, and there is Estonia that has committed to a commitment of 2% but at the same time limits the ability of NATO to do good work, it is known in this country that women get 25 wages less .2% of men's wages for the same job Less than 25% of the handicapped persons present in the state can obtain jobs, and language requirements in the country prevent non-citizens and immigrants from finding employment. When it comes to NATO’s goals to promote equality, countries like Estonia that spend 2% on the alliance are working to limit its capabilities. As for the last example, one of the goals of NATO is energy security, but many countries that have agreed to pledge to pay 2% have recently increased their pollution to the air. The United States, Estonia, Poland, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands have all increased their military spending recently, but emit emissions Gaseous per capita so that it exceeds China’s emissions.

dodge

And it has eluded NATO countries that spend the most in the military sphere, to evade responsibility in the following three areas related to human trafficking, women's and minority rights, and energy security. It is sad because the Alliance has witnessed many successes on issues such as partnership for peace, relief and assistance for victims of natural disasters, and freedom of trade. Looking at Russia’s actions in Georgia and Ukraine, it can be argued strongly that NATO has achieved many successes by focusing on humanitarian issues rather than on deterrence.

Towards a new marketing strategy

NATO's strategy, which prioritizes hostile expansion, has led to the emergence of two major alliance problems, namely the balance of power with Russia and the lack of focus on humanitarian and diplomatic projects. This creates a false sense of parity between military spending and security, and as a result, hatred spreads among American elites in a continuous fashion. We argue that by reducing the focus on defense expenditures and increasing the focus on humanitarian and diplomatic projects, NATO can support its security vis-à-vis Russia and enhance its raison d'être. There is an opinion that if NATO does not focus on military spending, there will be no economic or security meaning for the United States to continue to participate in the alliance. From an economic point of view, if NATO countries choose not to pay their shares of money, why should the US taxpayer think about staying in this alliance? In addition, although the benefit of any imminent Russian threat helps political elites, it distracts attention from contemporary and less controversial issues. The Russian threat is a debatable issue even in the United States itself, where Russia has been described as a competing superpower in security strategy National Assembly in 2017, but 50% of the citizens in this country see Russia as a major threat to the security and interests of the United States.

Burdens

A strategy to allocate 2% of each country’s gross domestic product to spend on NATO funding is a meaningless strategy. The United States provides 22.14 percent of the alliance's defense budget, but it also bears 40 percent of the alliance's economic weight. Accordingly, and as long as the quotas are proportional to Washington and the economic size of NATO, the United States actually has less weight for its multiple operations than its European allies.

Jordan Cohen: Professor of Political Science at Mason University, USA

- If the United States' commitment to this alliance is weak,

He will not be able to counter Russian aggression,

Because if NATO countries do not increase their spending

Defensive, there is no reason to engage states

United in a confrontation against a superpower.

Russia, now ruled by a former KGB officer, sees the alliance that focuses on financing as aggressive and should be confronted.