“A few days ago, in the article of Telegraph, the former NATO Commander -in -Chief in Europe Admiral James Stavridis warned that the North Atlantic Alliance perhaps “lives on its last days.” The reason, according to the military, is that the US Trump eras demonstrate absolutely unstable commitment to the transatlantic partnership. According to Admiral, the world can see the “NATO sunset.””, – Write On: ua.news
A few days ago, in the article of Telegraph, the former NATO Commander -in -Chief in Europe Admiral James Stavridis warned that the North Atlantic Alliance perhaps “lives on its last days.” The reason, according to the military, is that the US Trump eras demonstrate absolutely unstable commitment to the transatlantic partnership.
According to Admiral, the world can see the “NATO sunset.” Given the growing global instability, tension between the US and the EU, the rapprochement of the US administration with Russia, the continuation of Russian aggression against Ukraine and the termination of American assistance, this issue is of particular relevance.
Does NATO really stand on the verge of decay? How realistic is it? What is the alternative and what position can Ukraine take? UA.news political observer Nikita Trachuk Together with the experts he dealt with the question.
NATO is no longer the same?
It should not be forgotten that NATO was created as a military-political alliance with the main idea of collective defense in the event of an attack of the USSR. However, in recent years, security mechanisms have weakened significantly. The main indicator of the gradual degradation of the Alliance was the reluctance of most Member States to comply with the basic rules: in particular, to allocate minimal 2% of GDP for defense.
At the time of the full -scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine, only about a third of NATO members fulfilled this obligation. The rest of the countries neglected him, which testified to the weak willingness to maintain the alliance’s military potential. In fact, NATO looked more and more not as a powerful military alliance, but rather as a political club.
Particularly indicative was the Case of NATO Montenegro in 2017. It is a very small Balkan country with an area of 2.5 times less than the Kiev region, with 600 thousand population, which has only several thousand military in the army. Of course, its introduction has in no way strengthened the Alliance’s defense capability.
Instead, such membership was more reminiscent of a political project, which brings economic benefits and image benefits, rather than increasing the military potential of the block. And this is true, because after Podgorica officially entered the block, she improved her business reputation and was able to “knock out” the financing of a number of renewal programs.
It is also significant that if Montenegro was threatened with a serious danger, it would be unlikely that NATO would have launched a war for its defense. By the way, in 2018, US President Donald Trump said it directly. This proves once again that the concept of collective security no longer works as it was thought.
After 2022, the Alliance appeared to confirm its effectiveness, especially in the context of a full -scale invasion of the Russian Federation. However, even despite the expansion at the expense of Finland and Sweden, the block still has serious problems with ensuring real defense capability.
Although NATO countries provide military assistance to Ukraine, this process is accompanied by constant political disputes and problems, and supply is insufficient for the war to have such intensity. A situation where the largest military alliance in history cannot promptly provide full support to its important geopolitical partner, demonstrates its internal crisis.
US no longer want to finance Europe’s security
One of the main problems of NATO is its total dependence on the United States. Washington actually holds the Alliance, investing about 70% of its defense budget. US military presence in Europe is a major factor in threats.
However, the US policy on NATO is changing significantly. Donald Trump again reveals the need for an alliance. Washington also can no longer be considered the same reliable partner as it was before. On the morning of March 4, numerous media reports appeared in the media that America is terminating or at least seriously limiting military assistance to Ukraine. It was later confirmed in the White House. A similar situation can happen to anyone and at any time.
Trump today requires European countries not only to fulfill obligations in 2% of GDP, but an increase in defense costs up to 5%. For most NATO member states, which are not able to spend even 2%, such requirements are excessive. For comparison, Ukraine consumes more than 26% of GDP on defense-more than any country in the world except North Korea. Already in this context, to take Kyiv in the Alliance looks quite logical solution.
If the US is finally lost in NATO, it will mean the end of the block in its modern form. The US withdrawal from NATO or a significant reduction in their participation will put Europe before the need to build a collective defense system independently. However, are EU countries ready for it? Experience has shown that without US leadership, many European countries are not able to take real responsibility for their own security.
Ukraine and new security format
One of the biggest strategic errors of the preliminary leadership of Ukraine was the consolidation at the level of the NATO entry constitution. After all, the prospects for membership that then that remain ghostly, and the future of the Alliance is generally under a big question.
If the United States is distanced from NATO and Europe will not be able to compensate for their role, Ukraine will have to look for alternative security guarantees. The entry into the bloc, which also weakens, becomes a less realistic scenario.
One of the possible options may be to create a new defense structure such as “European Defense Organization” or something similar: an alliance focused solely on the safety of the European continent without US participation. Similar ideas were already voiced by French President Emmanuel Macron, who proposed to create a single European army. Admiral Stavidis is also similar.
Ukraine, having the most capable army in Europe with about a million military, could play a key role in shaping such new security architecture. However, this requires a clear political will and the ability to think strategically. Whether we have all this today is a big question.
Expert opinions
Military Expert, US Navy Captain retired Gary Tabaks It believes that Ukraine should always look for any other security guarantees except NATO. Because, confident in Tabes, the Alliance will still not be taken. At least this will not happen in the near future.
“Hell Miral Stavidis, under whose command I had the honor of serving, said a little differently. There are options that if it continues, NATO is not so long. That is, there may not be a very accurate interpretation. Second, there are conversations. The Trump administration does not speak just so nor from this that we do not need NATO and we go out. And they say that: if Europe is trying to create a parallel organization, and in NATO they do not pay their share, then what is the point in NATO? We, the USA, are fully paying NATO. They – Europeans – continue to use NATO. And we pay. Then why do we need it? Such is the logic, ”Tabakh explains.
According to the military, now it all depends on Europe. If Europeans create some NATO organizations, the Alliance will really lose its meaning. In any case, our interlocutor is convinced that Ukraine will not be taken in NATO.
“Back in 2008, when I was in Bucharest at the summit, Ukraine was not accepted at the time … But it still insists that it will be in NATO. Ukraine has full right. But how, what is the mechanism? I don’t understand. First, NATO will have to change all its statutes. Secondly, Ukraine needs to work with neighbors. In Ukraine, you believe that joining NATO depends on the US President. But it’s not. It depends on all NATO members, all 32. Yes, America can “twist their hands” with some countries. But not all 32. And this is a job for your Foreign Ministry, ”the expert says.
Tabies are sure that NATO’s accession is unreal. But this is not the end of the world. It is not necessary to enter the Alliance at all. There are other formats of security guarantees.
“Ukraine does not have to enter NATO. There are a number of NATO countries and they are very successful. Japan is not in NATO. South Korea is not in NATO. Israel has been fighting for almost a hundred years, and he is not in NATO. But all these countries have good defense and protected from enemies. I think Ukraine needs to think about realistic approaches to the problem. And not to mouste things that are not real. Because in the near future of Ukraine there will be no NATO, no matter how it wanted. First you need to stop the fighting. Then stop the war. Then restore the economy. Create a highly paid, capable army, as other countries did. And it will be a safety guarantee, ”Gary Tabakh summarized.
NATO-NATO Public League Chairman Sergey Jerge He considers otherwise. In his opinion, Kiev should both strive in the Alliance and look at other formats in parallel.
“You need to strive in NATO and look for alternatives. The level that is in NATO is important to us. We thus raise the quality of our army. And any statements by Trump are not NATO’s collapse. Trump will leave his post 4 years. That is thoughts, and it all depends on many things. At one time, Biden and Congress decided that without the US Parliament, there can be no movements about NATO. Trump himself cannot solve this alone … NATO US is twice as strong. And without NATO twice the weaker. NATO is held on two pillars: North America and Europe. And if Trump says that they are the main problem for them, then how do the states plan to counter it? Single or still with Europe? It is better to act together. It seems to me that all these statements about NATO are “previous”. And we do not see any of NATO yet.
As for the new alliances, we can look for and support them … For us, any NATO agreements are positive. It’s better than nothing. But it is clear that no agreements are replaced by membership in the Alliance. NATO works. But any new alliances or organizations are still a theory, a dream, ”Jerge said.
The expert summarizes that there are no sharp movements to do any sharp movements. The EU and NATO course remains unchanged. But to participate in pan -European formats, if they are, Ukraine is also needed.
Political scientist, head of the Third Sector Center Andriy Zolotarev I am sure that today the issue of the Euro -Atlantic future of Ukraine has become something religious, into a “blind faith”. And everyone who exposes it to reasoned doubt begins to be called “enemies of the people.”
“We are called to” Euro -Atlantic tomorrow “today, which may be” day yesterday. ” When we come to NATO’s door, it may seem that NATO is gone. I think NATO is in deep crisis. The US is a 70% of NATO budget. And the basis of NATO military power is the US Army. Thus, in 2022, all united around America in confrontation with the Russian Federation, there was a moment of consolidation. But in these three years, much has changed radically. Trumpists’ approach is radically different. In 1987, Trump published an article where he developed the opinion that the Allies should pay the United States for safety and sufficiently, say, keep the parasites. Then it looked like a madman crazy. But, as we see, Trump did not give up this idea.
And Europe is now in a state of economic crisis. It is not ready for radical turns and increased funding for defense … We are told that we will be held without the United States in military assistance. But it’s a deception. In London, we were made sure that we still need to negotiate with Trump. Europe will help, but there will be no serious support without the US, ”Zolotarev said.
The expert says that today the future of NATO is under a very big question. Ilona Mask About NATO and UN – a visual marker: either Trump will put very harsh conditions, or the US can simply review the issues of its membership. New formats of alliances are possible, but it takes time, which is very small.
“The best security guarantee is to be strong,” Andrei Zolotarev summarized.
Summing up, we can conclude that NATO is currently undergoing a serious crisis. It will become transformational or final – time will tell. But it must be understood that the Alliance no longer fulfills its initial task as a military union. The low willingness of Member States to finance defense, the inability to respond promptly to the challenges of the modern world and the possible exit of the United States make its future uncertain.
Ukraine must realize that the security of the country cannot depend on anyone but ourselves. The Alliance is either transformed or completely ceased to exist in its current form. In these conditions, Kiev should consider alternative options: either the formation of new defense unions, or a radical strengthening of their own defense capability.
Nikita Trachuk