In the outgoing 2019, the North Atlantic Alliance celebrated its 70th anniversary. The organization was founded at the dawn of the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. In April 1949, the foreign ministers of 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty, designed to “strengthen stability” in the North Atlantic region. According to the fifth article of the agreement, aggression against any country participating in the alliance is interpreted as a collective threat, the entire military bloc must give an answer to this. From the very beginning, NATO's activity was anti-Soviet - two years before the creation of the bloc, US President Harry Truman proclaimed the doctrine of containment of the Soviet Union.
- American President Harry Truman
- AFP
- © INTERCONTINENTALE American President Harry Truman
Gradually, the number of countries - members of the alliance increased: after the collapse of the USSR, the former parties to the Warsaw Pact began to be drawn into the bloc, as well as the former Soviet republics that gained independence. Today, the alliance includes 29 countries, and the bloc continues to expand: in December 2019, the United States ratified the protocol on NATO’s accession to Northern Macedonia. Ukraine and Georgia also claim to join the block.
However, while neophyte countries are very enthusiastic about the prospects of their presence in NATO, differences are brewing among the oldest members of the alliance.
Turkish demarche
The most acute contradictions were outlined between the USA and Turkey, which became a member of NATO in 1952 and has one of the largest armies in the bloc. The dispute between Ankara and Washington is developing along two lines. Firstly, the Turkish side is irritated by the allied relations of the US military in Syria with the Kurdish military structures, which the Turkish authorities consider terrorists and call one of the key threats to national security.
Despite the numerous calls by the Turkish leadership, Washington refuses to break the partnership with the Kurds in the SAR. Against the backdrop of the Turkish military operation "Source of Peace" on Syrian territory, the disagreements of NATO allies reached such an intensity that the head of the State Department, Michael Pompeo, did not even exclude the use of military force against the Turkish side if necessary.
- S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems
- RIA News
- © Vitaliy Ankov
Another reason for controversy was the purchase by Turkey of Russian S-400 air defense systems, despite numerous protests by the American side. In response, Washington expelled Ankara from the F-35 fifth generation fighter’s creation and supply program.
In December 2019, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee endorsed the sanctions bill against Ankara. American lawmakers explained their decision by saying that Turkey’s military operation “Source of Peace” in Syria could supposedly create conditions for a new increase in terrorist activity and the revival of the “Islamic state” * in the region.
In the case of the adoption of the bill, restrictions will affect a number of senior civil servants of the Republic of Turkey, army structures, defense enterprises and the financial sector. Separate sanctions are also provided for the purchase by Ankara of Russian S-400 air defense systems.
European initiative
The contradictions between Washington and Paris are intensifying. In November 2019, President of the Fifth Republic Emmanuel Macron said in an interview with The Economist about the deplorable situation of NATO. According to the French leader, the symptom of the alliance crisis was the events in Syria, where Ankara launched a military operation against the military allies of another NATO member, the United States, without coordinating these actions with the leadership of the military bloc, and Washington unexpectedly withdrew most of its contingent from the region.
“In view of the impermanence of our American partner and the growing tension, the idea of creating a European security mechanism is gradually being strengthened ... I would add that at some point we will have to reconsider the expediency of NATO,” said Macron. “It seems to me that NATO’s brain is dying.” We need to soberly assess the situation. ”
- French President Emmanuel Macron
- Reuters
- © Yves Herman
Summing up, the President of the Fifth Republic outlined two key tasks for Europe: it should gain autonomy in the field of security and strategic issues, as well as resume dialogue with Moscow.
The discussion about the need to create a unified European army has been going on in Europe for more than a decade, but real steps in this direction have only recently begun to be taken. The role of the main lobbyist of this idea in the European Union was assumed by Macron.
In 2018, the politician said that EU countries need to join forces to strengthen collective defense. According to the French president, Europe should be capable of self-defense, and not rely entirely on the United States.
However, neither the Washington nor NATO welcomed these ideas of the French leader.
As the alliance’s secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview with the Spanish publication El País in November 2019, the EU cannot protect itself on its own, and therefore must maintain a military partnership with other countries.
“As long as any potential adversary knows that an attack on an ally will provoke a response from the alliance, there will be no attacks ... Any attempt to alienate Europe from North America will not only weaken NATO, but also divide Europe,” Stoltenberg emphasized.
However, in the Old World, they are sure that NATO partnerships should not interfere with the buildup of the EU's own defense power. As the new head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen stated at the beginning of December 2019, the EU should count on its own capabilities in security matters, since NATO activities do not extend to all areas.
As an expert of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies Sergey Ermakov explained in a RT commentary, in this case it is understood that the EU will take on functions that are not peculiar to NATO.
“Talking about the collapse of NATO and replacing it with the European army is not necessary. Even European defense initiatives so far are developing in line with those provisions that satisfy NATO. For example, one of the main European defense projects - the so-called military Schengen - was actively lobbied by the States, ”the expert explained.
A slightly different point of view is shared by the head of the European Security Department of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences Dmitry Danilov. In his opinion, on the whole, NATO is satisfied with all its members, but serious contradictions arise because the bloc members are trying to derive the greatest benefit from the alliance for themselves and often their interests do not coincide.
“These problems have been noticeable for a long time, now they have intensified. This is a crisis in transatlantic relations, one of the platforms of which is NATO. These contradictions erupt not only along the lines of the alliance, and they are really very strong. Apparently, it was not possible to agree on these issues at the NATO summit in London, the positions of the parties are directly opposite, ”the expert added in a comment to RT.
Since the differences were not resolved within the framework of the anniversary summit, they will become the basis for future problems, be it the differences between the European allies and the USA, the problems in the Turkey-Europe-USA triangle or the contradictions between the states of the Old World.
Washington pressure
It should be noted that Trump, after winning the 2016 presidential election in the United States, also criticized the North Atlantic Alliance a lot, calling it an outdated structure, the financing of which falls mainly on the US budget.
Speaking at the NATO summit in Brussels on May 25, 2017, Trump said that 23 out of 28 countries "do not pay what they owe for their defense, and this is dishonest towards the American people and taxpayers." The American leader demanded that the alliance countries bring their defense spending to 2% of GDP.
- US and Polish troops take part in NATO military exercises
- Reuters
- © Cezary Aszkielowicz / Agencja Gazeta
At the same time, how exactly the bloc members spend their defense budgets has also become a cause for disagreement. According to French Defense Minister Florence Parley, Washington should not impose alliance partners on contracts for the purchase of American military equipment under the pretext of allied relations.
According to experts, the Trump administration does exert unprecedented pressure on the allies, as the American leader considers this approach the most effective.
“It is not known how true Trump's point of view is, but that the contradictions within the alliance have now reached the highest level in its history - this is a fact. In the medium term, NATO will seek to adapt to changing conditions, and the alliance will certainly exist as such a link for discussing the agenda of the North Atlantic region. But NATO’s effectiveness raises serious questions, ”said Sergey Ermakov.
The contradictions that have long been brewing in NATO have escalated against the backdrop of the Ukrainian crisis, Dmitry Danilov is sure. According to the expert, today the alliance faces a question about its key tasks, around which the organization should unite in the future - is “deterring” Russia or responding to real challenges and threats. Both approaches have supporters and opponents in the bloc. The situation was such that discussions had already begun about the possible withdrawal of some countries from NATO.
“So, Trump himself raised the question of the likely withdrawal from the organization of France, a number of experts doubt the preservation of Turkey’s membership in the alliance. NATO has tremendous resources, but it all depends on what these resources will be directed to. If the response to real threats, then the alliance has a future, and if the collective containment of Russia and other countries, then inside the NATO the fault lines will deepen, ”the expert summed up.
* “Islamic State” (IG) - the organization was recognized as terrorist by decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2014.