26/08/2024
Below are excerpts from a paper I wrote on NATO and short-and long-term strategic issues.
"NATO’s high stakes"
In the context of the recent Washington summit for the 75th anniversary of NATO, this article aims to clarify the main issues concerning a new approach for the Alliance in the 21st century. It is evident that the recent public discourse has been characterized by a paucity of constructive ideas on the measures that the West should adopt to safeguard our democratic future and that of global capitalism against the challenges posed by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Additionally, the US is facing challenges in providing support to Israel amidst the evolving instability in the Middle East. The US has yet to articulate a clear vision for concluding the war in Ukraine potentially through negotiations that would offer Kyiv tangible security guarantees freezing the current military situation. In the interim phase preceding the election of the American president, it is imperative to consider the necessity for effective communication with the other major global powers and the need for a capable leader to steer the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) through an increasingly confusing international landscape. The discourse surrounding the notion of "Trumpproofing" NATO at the Washington summit also represents an attempt by NATO members to politicize the alliance in a manner that constrains the actions of a potential US president they find unfavorable. The European army cannot be built on the model of a regular army, capable of fighting conventional wars like the one in Ukraine, without the US. In order to ensure their security, European countries must prioritize two fundamental objectives: enhancing military spending and fostering industrial production aligned with defense. And it's really important that Europe starts to think about decoupling from China in a strategic way. It is unlikely that the US will be able to provide comparable guarantees over the next five decades unless changes will occur and Europeans assume greater responsibility. This was an inadequate response, resulting in ongoing risks and instability. Similarly, the issue of integrating Georgia and Ukraine into the Western collective defense system, which Moscow was initially reluctant to accept within NATO following the independence of Kosovo in 2008, remained unresolved. Moreover, the occurrence of additional crises would result in the emergence of new, unregulated migratory movements, ultimately placing the financial burden of population transfer on European national budgets that are already experiencing financial constraints and struggling to accommodate the costs associated with the necessary process of rearmament. It may be beneficial for NATO to consider enhancing integrated management of cybersecurity, refining the doctrine of unconventional warfare and exploring new strategies regarding influence operations. In the light of the lessons learned from experiences in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Ukraine, as well as the evolving nature of terrorism, a new concept of NATO is emerging. Now there are not only the Rogue States. It would be negligence not to acknowledge the existence of a multitude of other entities that could be perceived as posing a threat to global stability. These include a number of terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda and Isis (in their various global declinations), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and many other entities present in Africa, Asia, the Balkans, organized through tribal networks of Shiite, Sunni, Alawite and Druze inspiration. In addition to the threat of Islamic terrorism, the global ecosystem of criminality and corruption has expanded greatly today compared to even a decade ago. This growth has been driven by illicit business networks exploiting a multitude of new and profitable criminal economies, including the production and distribution of synthetic drugs, the smuggling of maceuticals and the illegal mining of gold and strategic minerals. The overall trend is toward more diverse, often covert, and increasingly financially-driven operations and threats. The issue is political in nature. This dynamic led to the exit of Gaullist France from the integrated military structure in 1966 and continues to influence the feasibility of a unified European army. Given the current global landscape, it is becoming increasingly clear how new models of transatlantic cooperation between the US and European countries within NATO are essential for Paris, Rome and Mediterranean Europe with Italy as a key partner. These new models will be essential to address a number of shared challenges, including the protection of sea lanes and submarine cables, not to mention the prevention of piracy, drug and human trafficking. It is important to acknowledge the divergences between Germany and France on security and defense policy. France has historically emphasized the significance of a robust Europe and, most notably, a strong EU. Conversely, Germany has consistently demonstrated a more transatlantic orientation with a greater focus on NATO than on the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). The divergence of perspectives between Emmanuel Macron and the then-German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer in the lead-up to the 2020 US elections was most apparent. Since the early 1990s Washington has gradually incorporated all democracies into NATO, irrespective of their geopolitical orientation. In contrast the major European countries continue to view the Alliance as a cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic collective security. It seems probable that NATO will become increasingly involved in the geopolitical and geoeconomic competition between France, Germany, UK and US. It is likely to act as a regulator of their power projection while the current CSDP (Common Security and Defense Policy) will be responsible for all operations concerning humanitarian assistance, conflict resolution and the promotion of new democratic States, the European Union intends to pursue purpose through an intergovernmental approach. The 9/11 attack marked the advent of a new phase of jihadist internationalism while the Russian aggression against Ukraine led to a reorientation of globalization with a return to the concept of national "great powers." As a result, the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) appears to be a relatively belated response reflecting the broader lag in political action. The old peacekeeping operations are no longer effective as global jihad has taken over (in Israel and the Red Sea) and China and Russia are trying to create a global strategy where Africa and the Far East are linked by the Indian Ocean. The competition between great powers is focused on the advancement of a number of strategic capabilities, including AI, cyber warfare, nuclear-biological-chemical collective security measures, electronic warfare, logistics, rare Earth supply chain management, capacity to produce war material and food defense. All this matters in the conflict between great powers, in direct clashes between conventional armies as well in proxy wars. The scenario envisions a future marked by a multiplicity of hybrid threats. It is conceivable that the welfare state in Europe may become unsustainable over time as a consequence of a confluence of factors including terrorism, the decline of industrial models, social inequalities, massive migratory movements, pandemics and the potential for a future panzootic. It's different but similar to what we saw during the Cold War. At that time we were dealing with communism as an oriental, essentially terrestrial empire. In response, the latter have used unconventional operations both within and outside their borders. The current geopolitical landscape is characterized by a consolidated axis between the Russian Federation, China and their minor allies within the SCO system and in Southeast Asia. This axis is seeking to transform its newly acquired economic, financial and productive power into a military and strategic force. Moscow and Beijing have already established military partnerships at the highest levels. NATO misinterpreted Afghanistan as a large peacekeeping operation and merely supported a friendly government which led to Asian perception that NATO power was weak. Nevertheless, Russia has not fully grasped the extent of China's economic and geopolitical advancement, nor its strategic capabilities. Russia, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, is exhibiting a sense of superiority that bears resemblance to the Soviet era. However, the dearth of comprehension that solely economic and technological advancement can buttress authentic power projection represents a substantial deficiency. In conclusion, the recent developments in the Middle East demonstrate that the global jihad will have the strategic support of Russia and China when necessary as evidenced by the SCO's involvement. If NATO is unable to replicate its past successes, Israel will require greater freedom of regional maneuver within the planning of NATO's southern flank. Ex post, the letter from Moscow was aimed at justifying the subsequent aggression against Ukraine rather than laying the groundwork for negotiations. About those agreements Henry Kissinger in a postsigning commentary expressed at length his concern that the “so-called Founding Act... seeks to reconcile Russia by diluting the Atlantic Alliance into an UNstyle system of collective security.” In this context, it is incumbent upon the States to provide the necessary social safety nets in a timely manner. Europe must adapt its industrial system for the wartime ahead. This is the only realistic way to support NATO. As stated by Thierry Breton, until now EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, the EU has set aside €8 billion for research and development projects over the next seven years. To date, the it has allocated approximately €2 billion over 100 innovative and concrete projects. Historically, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, there was a belief that politics and conflicts (and, consequently, armaments) would become obsolete. This blunder which was articulated in several seminal works by Francis Fukuyama demonstrated how Europe had descended into a post-historical era in which the economy became the primary determinant of power, even in the context of the controversial relationship with Beijing. The concept of war and the subsequent investments in defense were perceived as detrimental and were therefore to be avoided. Ensuring security is of paramount importance. The victory will hinge on the ability to reinforce logistics, foster political alliances and retain technological superiority.
© 2024 Marco Rota
In the context of the recent Washington summit for the 75th anniversary of NATO, this article aims to clarify the main issues concerning a new approach for the Alliance in the 21st century.
