Leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) gathered in Washington, DC, on July 9–11 to mark the alliance’s seventy-fifth anniversary and discuss security assistance for Ukraine, taking a more strategic approach to Russia, and other global challenges. Council of Councils experts react to the NATO commitments made at the summit for this CoC global perspective series, and the future of the alliance given the uncertainty of the upcoming U.S. election. Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs, Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP), is among them.
NATO’s Security Dilemma
NATO faces two difficult dilemmas. The first is a choice between a closed and an open bloc. The second, which follows from the first, is a choice between being a global player acting for the sake of universal security and an armed group of countries that are united by similar ideas and interests but make up a clear minority on the planet. The summit in Washington makes it appear that NATO is trending toward the latter of both choices. That would recreate a classical Cold War style framework. At the same time, NATO keeps the clear intention to operate beyond its formal zone of responsibility.
After the Cold War, NATO de facto proclaimed itself the source of European security (the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and then Russia were unhappy, but did not strongly oppose it). This implied that the bigger NATO was, the stronger the security, hence the maximum openness to expansion. But enlargement reached its limit when a major player in this part of the world—Russia—went to arms to protect itself from what it perceived was a growing threat from encirclement by NATO, which was supposed to include neighboring Ukraine. One can agree with the Russian argument or not, but the fact is that the expansion of the alliance did not lead to increased stability, but to a violent military conflict. On the eve of the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia’s main demand was the following: let NATO officially refuse further expansion and close its doors. The demand was unequivocally rejected. The alliance still proclaims openness, although the consequences are now clearer.
After the end of the Cold War, NATO claimed to be a global, not regional, player capable of carrying out security tasks in the interests of all. Now, NATO is extending its activities beyond its original area of responsibility, not as a universal guarantor, but as an instrument of a standoff. NATO’s value-based rationale automatically encourages conflict with countries of a different political and strategic culture inspired by other sets of values.
But contrary to that period, NATO’s adversary is not an opposing bloc, but a large number of completely different states with diverging goals and interests. Basically, they do not seek confrontation, but their own security and development over the value barriers. The NATO approach doesn’t serve this goal.
NATO will remain an organization of the political West, aimed at its protection. But unanswered remains the question of the nature of this protection—whether it is unlimited expansion, as in the last thirty years, or a method of fixing its clear zone of responsibility. Depending on which option will prevail, all should primarily improve readiness for a hot or a cold war.
Global Memos are briefs by the Council of Councils that gather opinions from global experts on major international developments.
