Is NATO really obsolete ?

 By Patrick BAHZAD

Very shortly, Donald Trump will be sworn into office as the 45th President of the United States. By all accounts, his Inauguration will resemble no other in recent history. The country is deeply divided and the gap between the pro- and anti-Trump will be very visible, even today, when the whole country should regroup around its new elected leader. To a European audience however, Donald Trump's recent comments about NATO being "obsolete" and "not dealing with terrorism" matter much more than the internal dissent in the US itself. Those statements have created a spark of outrage across NATO members and triggered a salvo of reactions pointing to POTUS' ignorance about NATO's record in both regards. While Mr. Trump's statements are definitely debatable, there is lots to be said about his critics as well. Here are a few thoughts on the topic.

The latest controversy touches on two core issues: 1) NATO's commitment to defending its members and 2) NATO's record when it comes to dealing with terrorism in general, and global terror organisations in particular. Both issues are closely linked to highly volatile situations: the new "cold war" with Russia on the one hand, and the fight against IS (or AQ) on the other.

Remember what NATO was meant for ?

NATO itself was created in 1949 as a system of collective defence aimed basically at defending Western Europe (and North America) against the Soviets first, and more broadly against the Warsaw Pact after 1955. Large scale engagements in faraway lands were never supposed to be part of NATO's core business, which is one of the reasons some NATO members – Germany in particular – had a hard time adjusting to the concept of "out of area" missions, after the end of the Cold War. While there is no doubt as to NATO's essential contribution to peace and stability in Western Europe, NATO itself was not the only decisive factor in this achievement.

What has kept us safe from war is not so much the existence of the Alliance as the inherent risk of "mutually assured destruction" that any conflict between East and West could have morphed into. There has also been a dynamic at work in Western Europe , based on the realization that war as a means of achieving political gains was no longer an option. Without such fundamental awareness, it is difficult to imagine NATO could have united countries that had just emerged from the most devastating war the continent had witnessed since the 30 Years War. After the unravelling of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact however, the main "raison d'être" of NATO disappeared and the Alliance should have undergone major restructuring, yet it maintained its "business as usual" stance.

From that point of view, Donald Trump's statements are not that far off the mark. Carrying on as if nothing had happened meant that the US basically continued to provide most of European members with military security, thus enabling these countries to spend much less on defence. The financial burden of NATO lay mostly on US shoulders, but both the US and the Europeans were pretty happy with this unequal burden sharing. The US provided the security and thus maintained their influence over the continent, the Europeans spent more money on social policies and remained very much a junior partner in the Alliance.

The numbers' game

To the businessman Donald Trump, this deal is no longer a good one. He has a point there, and many European countries should have come to their senses a long time ago. The upside of the political panic that has now taken hold of a number of European capitals is that the current reality check may trigger a consistent and thorough reshuffling of defence budgets and policies across the continent. An increase in global expenditure is not necessarily on the menu, although some members do need to do more and better, but streamlining the many redundant programs and procedures among European countries would already be a good start.

Looking at numbers alone, it appears that NATO's five biggest European spenders, with a population roughly the same as the US, spend around 190 billion dollars annually on defence. This may equate to only 33 % of US spending, but taken together, it still represents the second largest defence budget in the world. It is three times the Russian budget and 40 billion dollars more than what the Chinese spend. What is missing here is not so much the money but a consistent, collective policy about means and ends. This is probably where a "business" centred approach could help or at least point the finger at the most blatant weaknesses.

With no existential threat looming around the corner, the Europeans just dropped the ball in the 1990s. Every country had its own procurement policies, armed forces structure and defence policies. NATO was something they were formally part of, but it was the Americans who provided the goods when push came to shove. Even the new Eastern European members, allegedly on the frontlines of the new "cold war" with Russia, don't spend that much on defence. In the Baltics, Estonia is the only country that meets the informal 2% of GDP mark.

BUt this is also where Trump's statements about "fulfilling obligations" is not exactly relevant. There are limits to applying accounting standards only in order to determine who is doing enough or not. By that rationale, Trump should be praising little Greece, the biggest European NATO spender in relatives terms (2,6% of GDP). Greece's concerns however are not so much their contribution to NATO's defence but rather making sure they could stand up to their powerful neighbour and also NATO-member Turkey, another big spender (2.1% of GDP), but an ally who has not proven very reliable of late.

NATO's Article V

Regardless of those numbers, there are many reasonable people in Europe who would agree that Trump is "onto something". NATO is not merely a defensive alliance anymore, but a military organisation with a global reach, engaging in a number of operations around the world that have nothing to do with defence. Meanwhile, the situation has changed on the European home front, and the Alliance is lagging behind, after it failed already to adapt to the post-cold war world. This needs to be addressed and we should see Donald Trump's statements as a chance to fix this.

There is another part of his statements that is much more contentious however. As a system of collective defence, NATO is built around the notion that all member States would come to the rescue in case one of them is attacked. This is basically what is stated in article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. Arguably, article V does not provide for automatic declaration of war by all members. Each one is simply compelled to provide the assistance it deems necessary in case of an attack. But questioning this principle, or raising doubts about US commitment to honour its word, carries serious risk. It was an ill-advised statement to make, based on a misguided accounting principle that only grasps part of the geopolitical reality. The upside is that it has caused such a stir that it will force some European partners into reconsidering their defence policy and waking up to their part of the "deal".

Now of course, we may argue in this regard about NATO's past decision to expand into Central and Eastern Europe. The fact remains nonetheless that the Baltic States, or Poland for that matter, are full members and should enjoy the protection they are entitled to. Whether this needs to be underlined by sending a few hundred troops into the area, patrolling their skies and preparing local forces for insurgency warfare against an unlikely Russian attack is a different matter. Troops can be moved out anyway, if and when a satisfactory political settlement is reached with the Russians. Therefore, the question is more about the political willingness (on both sides) to reach such a settlement. No doubt though, there are people – not just in Moscow – who will do their best to prevent such a deal from happening.

Ukrainian logjam

In that regard, there is probably more to come from those D.C. armchair strategists who promoted the idea of Ukrainian NATO membership. But Ukraine – a parody of a country ever since its independence – is much too hot to be handled safely, curtesy of the same armchair strategists who pushed the whole area on the brink of open war. A number of European countries are perfectly aware of this high volatility and have not forgotten about the chain of events that led to World War I. Giving Ukraine the guarantees of NATO protection is a recipe for disaster, as this could potentially encourage the "die hard" anti-Russian faction in Kiev to go ahead with a more confrontational attitude.

The Europeans have agreed to the current sanction regime against Moscow, but they will not allow Ukraine to be part of NATO, not now, and probably not ever. At the Bucharest summit in 2008, there already was serious push back from major European powers against a Washington fostered project of Ukrainian membership, and there will be even more if the topic is put on the table again. Ukraine is not exactly on its own militarily, but it is not part of the Alliance, and it will have to rely on individual States' help if it wants to carry on its protracted war against Eastern Ukrainian militias backed by the Russians.

The worst part in this mess is that Ukraine has now become a financial liability to the West and it will take years as well as massive cash inflow to turn this country around. And not even then is the outcome guaranteed. Surely, the Russians have now lost any chance at attracting Ukraine into their big Eurasian project, but it is the US and the EU which now own the Ukrainian can of worms, at least from a financial and economic point of view. A ludicrous lose-lose outcome, with no winners in sight. Maybe – hopefully – Donald Trump's comments were also aimed at those among the US political establishment who would like nothing better than further escalating the situation. If so, he certainly sent a stern reminder to these people that he will not be dragged into a foreign policy adventure like some of his predecessors did.

NATO's role in fighting terrorism

The other point Trump touched on was NATO's record in the fight against terrorism and on this issue, there is even more confusion. A number of op-eds and essays have been published in recent days, arguing that Trump has no clue and that he should read a history book to get the facts right. Possibly, but then again so should the authors of these pieces. As a military organisation, NATO as such has not carried out any operation in the fight against IS or Al-Qaeda. Some will say "wrong, look at Afghanistan and ISAF".  Well, sure, why not. Things are pretty simple …

ISAF was established under UN resolution 1386 and it was not designed as a NATO operation at the time of its inception. Initially, ISAF's goal was to provide security around Kabul and NATO only took over because the mission was in such a state of disarray it had to be salvaged somehow. After NATO stepped in to take the lead, the mission was considerably extended beyond Kabul and an increasing number of nations contributed to it. ISAF however was never intended at doing counter-terrorism, although it had a combat role and took part in counter-insurgency operations, notably during the unsuccessful Afghan surge.

So unless anyone is arguing that counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency are one and the same thing, NATO as a military organisation never did anything against transnational terror groups like the "Islamic State" or Al Qaeda. To be fair however, this is not NATO's or its European members fault. After 9/11, when the US invoked NATO's article V, America's allies offered military assistance, but they were rebuffed and side-lined by Bush Jr.'s administration which had other plans in mind already. Who needs NATO when you got the world's most powerful military ready to go ? It was the Bush administration that made NATO irrelevant and obsolete at that point, even though the attack on the US homeland was a clear cut case for triggering article V and mobilizing NATO's forces.

As for the "mission accomplished" adventure of Iraq, a small number of European NATO members got involved – the UK obviously, but also Italy, Spain, Denmark and Poland to various degrees – but not the Alliance as such. The only instances where NATO as a whole operated in foreign lands had nothing to do with terrorism, and even less with collective defence of its members. The Kosovo War (1998-1999) and the "No Fly Zone" over Libya (2011) obviously come to mind. Both were mostly airstrike campaigns. Although successful militarily, both operations had very mixed results from a political point of view.

Trump may not be an experienced strategist or political leader. If he manages however to push NATO into fixing its many shortcomings and focusing on genuine threats, that is not only those that have been mostly fabricated by a bunch of lunatics with an agenda, he will have done more for NATO's relevance and future than the three previous administrations put together.

Comments

[A.Pols]

Nato should go. Having morphed from a defensive alliance into an instrument of American foreign policy with the other "members" being satraps, it is no force for good and should have been liquidated when the Warsaw Pact was.
Eventually in the evolution of history Nato will go bye bye, but maybe we can give it a "Decent Christian Burial" ahead of that.

[JohnH]

Said another way: "What is NATO's purpose?" Like the goal of most of its recent military interventions, it's purpose seems to be whatever its leaders choose to make it at any given moment.

Or maybe it's just an entrenched, obsolete body that's mostly interested in careers for its staff and in self-preservation...

[Stu Wood]

The best thing about NATO is the alliance of Germany, France, and England whose many wars between them have killed millions and millions.

[scott s.]

I don't claim any great knowledge, but it seemed to me NATO, even more-so than the US combatant commands, was designed as a collection of fiefdoms. From a US POV, these were SACLANT, SACEUR, and AFSOUTH. Each had its own bailiwick to play in and at least on the Navy side, it seems like things moved fairly seamlessly from US-centric to NATO-centric viewpoints. In the post-cold war world, those divisions seemed to no longer make sense for the US at least, and resulted in a "new" NATO, but I'm not sure the American people at least have been brought onboard with this. Hence the questioning as to NATO's purpose.

My understanding of history is that Poland has been something of a flash point in Eastern Europe for maybe 300 years but I'm not sure American strategy has really figured how Poland fits into things.

[Degringolade]

http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/01/nato-obsolete-trump-afghanistan/

[Bandolero]

Patrick

As a German I know two narratives about what NATO was in history adn what it became today. The western one is like you described it, NATO was founded as a defense organization against the threat from Moscow, and after the Warsaw treaty was dissolved more Eastern European countries took their chance and join it so they are protected against the threat from Moscow. The eastern one is that NATO was always designed to expand American hegemony eastwards in Europe, and as Moscow was weak for some time, the US used NATO to take advatage and did just that where Yugoslavia is a case proving that point.

However, while these different narratives do a lot in seeding mistrust, it doesn't matter much as looking forward is needed. What I think what the weak point of design in NATO is, is that it by design excludes Russia (and some others) from a common security architecture. The result of that design mistake is that NATO leads to a permanent posture of a US-led Western block opposing a Moscow-led eastern block - whereever the borders of the blocks currently are, and so instead of spreading common security, NATO inadvertantly spreads insecurity. Yugoslavia may be a point here, that without NATO Western Europe would likely not have been willing to try to gobble up Yugoslavia into the western system by subversion and by force, and thereby much bloodshed may have not occured if there would have been no NATO. Ukraine may be another point. Being members of NATO, Poland and Lithuania felt so secure, that they were not shy in trying a coup to unseat the Russia-friendly Yanukovich government in Ukraine and pull Ukraine into the western system, thereby massivley provoking Russia. If Poland and Lithuania were no NATO members, I doubt they would have pulled off that distrastrous provocation against Moscow. So, NATO may have become inadvertantly an organisation that encourages reckless behaviour of it's eastern members against Russia, which would likely not occur without NATO, meaning that NATO inadvertantly spreads insecurity.

Among German politicians it's quite popular to say that one can't devide security, so feeling secure must be achieved for all people in Europe including Russians, ie one needs a common security architecture in Europe including Russia. Putin is more than willing to make that happen. But some cold war warriors in the west seem no matter what to want a new cold war versus Russia instead, which brings no benefits for no one except for some special interests like the MIC.

I think having Trump stirring up things regarding to NATO may prove a good opportunity to think about such strategic questions.

[Dave Schuler]

If NATO had stopped expanding in 1999 (or 1955) the argument for its continued relevance would be stronger. Does the admission of Latvia to NATO really make the U. S. more secure? The U. K.? Or is it actually a provocation against Russia that works by deliberately making the U. S. and U. K. secure?

Would admitting Ukraine, which had been part of Russia until 60 years ago, make the other members of the alliance more secure or less secure?

As well as I can tell, NATO is serving as a means of venue-shopping to enable military adventurism, a dubious role for the alliance.

Additionally, Erdogan's Islamist Turkey is not the same as Ataturk's secular Turkey.

Given those considerations and more it would seem that the alliance deserves reconsideration at the very least.

[Freudenschade]

Europe probably should revisit it historical allegiance with the US. It's interests are more aligned with those of Russia in the short to medium term, and those of China in the long term.

With the US pulling back from its international commitments, the institutions set up by China as a countervailing force to the World Bank and the IMF could offer Europe greater influence more aligned with its own interests.

[Kooshy]

PB, in my understanding, fairly said, American people understood and comited themselves at all costs, to protect war torn western Europe, after WWII, aginst USSR, and Warsaw Pact. Honorably they stood by thier commitment, and protected Europe at all costs for over 70 years now, with blood and money. They did not mind how little Europe contributed all this years since they thought Europe need and is recovering the war. But, after the fall of USSR and end of Cold War, they don't see or understand why they have to continue to be the bigest contributors to protect Europe from a financialy and or militarily much weaker power (Russia) then Europe is today. I don't know and understand why a US tax payer has to pay for 70k US troops in Germany to protect 2nd or 3rd bigest economy of the world who has a universal health and pension plan we can't afford here in US for ourselves. I guess/ hope that's what president Trump is saying.

[BraveNewWorld]

The American plan to bring Israel into NATO first as an observer state and then later as a full member tells you every thing you need to know about why NATO has to go. Adding the small Eastern European countries is folly. Adding Israel is insanity.

[charly]

Some people say that the purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, Germans under and Russians out. It seems to me to be a more realistic answer than to say defense pact which the EU in itself already is. It also explains why countries like Serbia want to join the NATO.

ps. With respect to defense budgets. The US has the habit to include as much as possible in the Defense budget. Europe has the reverse habit. See for a very obvious example Japans SS-520. A road mobile solid fuel rocket that put 4 kilo into (very low) orbit. Its civil use is like an AK47 which everybody knows is a great hammer and the reason everybody buys one.

[J]

IMO NATO is OBSOLETE, and should have been dissolved when the Warsaw Pact went the way of the DoDo Bird.

Since the fall of the former Soviet Union, NATO has become little more than a hog trough.

[Ken Macaulay]

"even though the attack on the US homeland was a clear cut case for triggering article V and mobilizing NATO's forces..."

I thought it was only a military attack by a country that invokes article V - which has little to do with a terrorist attack by a non-state actor.

[crone]

"Or maybe it's just an entrenched, obsolete body that's mostly interested in careers for its staff and in self-preservation..."

Excellent observation.

How 'bout we also close some of those over 800 military bases we have outside the USA? The late Chalmers Johnson wrote much about the "American Raj" - here's a link to a David Vine article some may find informative.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176043/tomgram%3A_david_vine,_our_base_nation/

[Balint Somkuti, PhD]

Originally it was Russia out USA in abd Germany down. Russians are in Germany is up and the US wants out. Questions?

[Edward Amame]

More Trumpy disconnect.

At his hearing, Gen Mattis, Trump's choice for Dec of Defense, said that he thinks Russia is our top threat and that US support is needed to counter Moscow’s attempts to break up NATO, which he called “the most successful alliance in modern history, and maybe ever.”

[Peter Reichard]

I completely agree with your comments. If NATO didn't already exist would anyone but a hardcore neoconservative think to create it today? Beginning with Yugoslavia the reasonable defensive alliance of 1949 has been transformed into an offensive instrument of power projection that now requires the US to defend the geographically and logistically undefensible borders of the Baltic States and perhaps in the future even those of Georgia and Ukraine. This is insane and an accident waiting to happen.

[JJackson]

PB and all.
I have no problem (as a UK citizen) with a military alliance with other States, but NATO, in its current form, must go.
I wonder about this "... even though the attack on the US homeland was a clear cut case for triggering article V and mobilizing NATO's forces." was it?
This seems a stretch based on a plain text reading of Articles 5 & 6. I very much doubt that the authors, in 1939, were thinking about a tiny non-State group with no military that managed to hijack a few civilian planes with minimal weaponry. To complicate matters it was the Government of Afghanistan that was the principal recipient of the US intervention not AQ. This seems very 'doggy dossier' to me. The US did not like the Russian backed government so it attacked and NATO members got drawn in.
If you think this is a just justification let me put to you this hypothetical. It’s the 1970/80s and various South & Central States have formed a military pact. They decide that 'The Camp of the Americas' is a terrorist training camp and the US Government are a direct threat and decide to remove it and replace it with something less belligerent. This seems to be any easier case to make - albeit impractical due to their military disparity.

Re, NATO. If not this NATO then what? The fundamental problem between Europe and the US is the role of NATO and the perceptions of threat. The US has for a long time spent an obscene amount on its military so it is now dis-proportionally powerful compared to any other State. It views Russia and China as threats and thinks it and its allies should prepare to counter them. The European public are less convinced thinking they are not, unless we keep poking them with a sharp stick. Euro-Borg tow the US line but are finding it increasingly difficult to control their public. The MSM are losing street cred. and, like the US's Trump, we keep getting annoying politicians who failed to drink the coolaid and who the public still follow despite the establishments attempts to trash them. Now new have Corbynites, Trump, Le Pen and other supporters who just don't trust the press or the establishment.

Personally I would prefer an alliance of European States, sans the US, who could provide deterrence against any likely threat but whose aim was to gradually improve relations & reduce military hardware, by treaty, along the Eastern border to a point where neither side felt threatened.

[LeaNder]

I basically like Patrick Bahzad's take. Vague connotation? Every Cloud has got a Silver Lining. Why not? ...

But yes, true, I had the same problem too. Not that I was a fan of the Taliban, quite the opposite really. But as far as I recall no one ever claimed they were responsible or sponsored 9/11.

Irony alert: Remember the Hamburg Cell? Why didn't the US declare war on Hamburg, or Germany for that matter?

[David Lentini]

Like most large peace-time military organiations, NATO has become a source of corruption and co-optation. Created as part of the phony Cold War dialectic, less to stop a Soviet attack that was very unlikely unless provoked (for which NATO would be very useful as we see today), NATO served a variety of political needs for the Anglo-American élites. In particular, NATO functioned to justify a large American military presence that satisfied Wall Street's investments in military-industrial complex, and enabled Americans to be held hostage to whatever game the CIA could cook up as needed to support the MIC and globalist strategy to link East and West.

This all became apparent when the Soviet Union collapsed. Suddenly, the neocons started moving NATO into threatening positions against Russia, and the service suddenly became a "force for peace and protection" around the Balkans and Mediterranean. Now the EU wants to use NATO as its personal Army.

NATO needs to be scrapped now. We can develop a new force based on reality if needed.

[b]

I believe NATO should be carried to grave as soon as possible. It has become solely an instrument of aggressive U.S. foreign policy that is often in opposition to the security interests of the European people.

The EU defense pact is too wide ranging and needs to be buried too. It should be replaced by a strictly defensive pact that also has levers to prohibit or prevent aggressive behavior (against pact internal and external enemies) by individual members.

There is no need for any country in Europe to spend 2% of GDP on "defense". That is way more than is necessary.

To compare European spending to U.S. spending is nuts. By simple geography it is one the most safe countries one can think of. The U.S. spends on "defense" to be THE global supreme nation. That's lunacy so why should Europe attempt to follow such an example?

[Willy B]

It was Lord Ismay, first secretary general of NATO who is credited with saying that.

While Secretary General, Ismay is also credited as having been the first person to say that the purpose of the alliance was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down," a saying that has since become a common way to quickly describe the alliance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Ismay,_1st_Baron_Ismay

[Willy B]

"After 9/11, when the US invoked NATO's article V, America's allies offered military assistance, but they were rebuffed and side-lined by Bush Jr.'s administration which had other plans in mind already."

THis is not entirely true. NATO did deploy a number of its AWACS aircraft to the US for the Noble Eagle air patrol mission, so that the US AWACS fleet could be dedicated to Bush, Jr's upcoming wars. I know of no other NATO involvement in the so-called war on terrorism, however.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Nah, Iran is, she is one or two steps away from destroying the World Peace.

[Willybilly]

Spot on, you're absolutely right. The mischief started in earnest right after the fall of the Berlin Wall....and it was deliberate in its various provocations, and its still continuing today.....