In the aftermath of the Second World War and the constant Soviet threat to Europe, the creation of the NATO alliance had a galvanizing effect on the overall European security. And while the Soviet goals for expansion and influence were reaching its peak, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was the main deterrence force that kept the Soviets at bay which ensured a continental peace and prosperity for the European nations.
However, in the aftermath of the recent summit in Brussels, and the ever increased disagreements between the allies makes the future of NATO uncertain over the long term. This general conclusion opens several questions and analysis of certain factors that have lead to this complex situation.
1. The American Point of View
The American interest in maintaining the NATO pact after the end of the Cold War was a bit unknown at the time. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the USA was the only superpower on the planet with an undisputed domination. However, the Washington doctrine was based on maintaining the American influence over the European Allies. Moreover, the U.S strategy was to spread its geopolitical influence in Eastern Europe and on the Balkans through NATO. These former Soviet spheres of influence were the main elements of this expansion plan. In this regard, the strategy worked well as most of the European countries today are members of the North Atlantic Alliance or in its sphere of influence. This goal justified the American leadership and the prolonged financing of the NATO pact.
Nevertheless, as this plan is almost completed, from the current American administration’s point of view – the purpose of NATO is over. That is one of the main reasons why the presidential candidate (at the time) Donald. J. Trump campaigned about reviewing the U.S role in the alliance and even dismantling NATO. Yet, that ambition is not in a correlation with the Kissinger doctrine which represents the blueprint for the U.S geopolitical strategy and ambitions. That is why now president Donald J. Trump has changed his stance and called for reforms in the NATO alliance. In correlation with his “economic nationalism” policies, the U.S President has been very vocal in asking for an increase in the contribution of other members. This resulted with increased disagreements between the allies and a potential for a rift in the alliance. Moreover, these different points of views for the organization and financial strategy of NATO put the future of the organization in question. The integrated Euro-North Atlantic security system is it stake and can encourage other global and regional players to assert its influence. Combined with the American change in policy and the European project for creating a so-called EU army (Permanent Structured Cooperation – PESCO) can result with a diminishing the global influence of NATO and can be a modern alternative for the North Atlantic Alliance.
2. Erdogan’s Turkey
Turkey has the second biggest army in the alliance and has one of the main NATO facilities on its territory. The Incirlik NATO base is located on a very important geostrategic position. Through this facility, the Americans lead the war against ISIL and asserted their influence in the Middle East. However, after the failed coup in Turkey that was conducted by some elements of the army, the mistrust of President Taip Erdogan in some of the NATO allies have increased. Moreover, the constant political tensions with some EU member states such as Germany and Austria have stranded the relations between the NATO Allies. Combined with the eternal problem of the Cyprus issue and the old adversary Greece, it seems that the unity of NATO is not all red roses.
Another element that can have a negative impact on NATO future, is the Syrian conflict. Although the Alliance did not take an active part in the Syrian civil war, some of its members had different policies, goals and interests in this crisis. While the American and European strategy was toppling the Assad regime, it seems that Turkey has shifted its target and got together with Russia and Iran in order to find a pathway for ending this conflict. The steady implementation of the Astana agreements is the prime example that confirms this thesis. The main reason behind this shift was the disagreement regarding the issue of the Kurdish militias in Syria. While the American efforts were to arm and train these groups as part of the strategy to defeat ISIL, the Turkish stance was that they are simply PKK offshoots and lead an armed campaign against them. Also, with the current deal in place for buying the Russian air defence system S-400, Erdogan has strained the relations with its main NATO ally – the United States. All of these events resulted in a significant deterioration of the unity of NATO which can decrease the global influence of the alliance on the long term.
3. The Constant NATO Expansion – Reason for Conflict
While there are 29 members in the NATO pact, the plans of the Treaty is to expand and to introduce new members. With the inclusion of Montenegro last year, the North Atlantic Pact has continued its plan for accepting new members. Also, it seems that the next year Macedonia will become the 30th member after the agreement for the name dispute with Greece. From a military point of view, these members do not represent a significant addition to the NATO capabilities and the Macedonian army of 8500 soldiers will not make a major change for the alliance. However, the inclusion of these Balkan states is an important step in confirming the alliance domination in the region. Furthermore, it is one of the main segments of the strategy of containing the resurgent Russian influence in Europe. However, the alliance geopolitical ambitions do not stop here as the ultimate goal is to integrate Ukraine and Georgia into the organization.
This constant expansion can be the main reason for conflict as the Russian side sees this process as a treat towards their national and geopolitical interests. An example of this was the Russian intervention in Georgia and the annexation of Crimea.
Also, the recent signals from the Russian officials are showing an increased dissatisfaction with the current NATO expansion steps and long-term ambitions.
Nevertheless, this renewed hostility between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation can be the element that will ensure the survival of NATO during this complicated relations between the allies. The so-called Russian threat may once again bring together the old allies through the old NATO Alliance.