The NATO bloc is showing fractures

BRUSSELS – After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some wondered if NATO had a real reason to exist.

But the Russian invasion of Ukraine gave him a new urgency NATO as a defensive alliance designed to deter Moscow.

Now, at its annual summit this week at Madrid, the leaders of the 30 NATO members are ready to agree on the most important overhaul of defenses alliance since the Cold War.

There will be a strong increase in the number of troops assigned defend NATO’s eastern flank, closest to Russia and Belarus, with a strong commitment to stationing heavy military equipment there, such as tanks and artillery, which would bolster an Allied response to any Russian threat. or aggression.

There will also be declarations of unity on Ukraine, despite internal alliance debates about how long the war will last, how it will end and its rising costs for NATO and European allies.

“The summit will show Western solidarity as we enter a period of high oil prices and food shortages, with Russia now willing to use both as weapons of war,” said Kori Schake, director of foreign policy and defense studies. at the American Enterprise Institute.

“So we know and we can still be together.”

At the same time, he said, discussions about the future are echoing among member countries.

“The lesson that the United States is tempted to draw from Ukraine is the inability of the Russian armywhich suggests that Europe should be able to handle the burden of European security, “Schake said.

“But the European lesson is that unless the US is at the center of the Western response, there will be no Western response, so they are trying to secure American involvement.”

In Madrid, the alliance will also approve its first declaration of mission updated in 12 years, which portrays a world of new dangers, with threats not only from Russia but also from China, a US priority, and from new forms of warfare ranging from cyber and artificial intelligence to disinformation and restrictions on energy, food and rare minerals.

The mission statement, known as the strategic concept, frames defense planning, spending, and resource allocation across the alliance. It sounds arcane, but it has been the subject of heated debate, with France and Germany insisting on describing a rising China as a “challenge“to the transatlantic security order, not as a “threat“, what Russia has clearly become.

It will also discuss how to persuade Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, to remove his effective veto on requests for Sweden and Finland joining NATO, an issue that will inevitably have to involve the president Joe Biden.

One of the other key discussions during the summit, which will take place from Tuesday evening to Thursday, will be the question of the new NATO troops on the eastern flank:

how many, how they will be deployed and how permanent they will be.

As the war in Ukraine progressed, NATO established four more multinational groups the size of a battalion Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakiato be added to those already established in 2017, following the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

The Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are pushing for wider permanent alignments, to move from the current defense of the “cable to cheat“(the approximately 1,500 NATO soldiers on rotation in each country) to the”deterrence by denial“, which would imply more permanent deployments up to a division of American troops, as Estonia has requested.

They want larger deployments to better defend the entire NATO territory from any conflict early on, fearing that they would otherwise be swiftly overrun by Russian forces.

NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, he recently said the allies could agree to “strengthen battle groups in the east at brigade level,” which would bring them to between 3,000 and 5,000 troops.

A permanent American division is not in the cards.

Biden is expected to announce further deployments of one or two other brigade combat teams to bring the assigned level of US troops in Europe to around 100,000, up from 70,000 before the Russian invasion, NATO officials said.

But they are likely to stay Germany and Polandready to move in times of threat or conflict to previously assigned countries where they will also train with previously positioned teams.

Other NATO allies are also stepping up their deployments, with Germany announcing the addition of 500 troops to its forces in the multinational battle group it leads in Lithuania, as well as having previously assigned around 3,000 more troops in case of trouble.

There has been criticism from the Baltic nations that those troops will be stationed in Germany.

But the German government and other allies argue that it is too expensive to build permanent barracks and schools to house troops and their families in other countries when they can quickly reach the battlefield from established bases in places like Germany.

“They argue that large forces are needed in the country like a Maginot Line to prevent them from being invaded at the start of a conflict, “said Ivo Daalder, former US Ambassador to NATO and head of the Global Affairs Council in Chicago, referring to the Baltic states.

“But this is not the best way to defend them, because these countries are too small for real and regular training, which you can do in Poland or Germany. It’s best to have them there and train them constantly and rotate them regularly. “

The matter is now more sensitive, with Moscow accusing Lithuania of blocking its rail shipments to its heavily armed enclave of Kaliningrad in line with EU sanctions against Russia, and threatening retaliation.

Lithuanian and European officials say there is no blockade against the enclave, which is located on the Baltic Sea between Poland and Lithuania.

But the narrow strip of about 97 kilometers between Belarus and Kaliningrad, known as Suwalki Gap, is considered vulnerable.

The anxiety among the Baltic countries is justified, Schake said.

“I would also like more NATO deployments if I were them, because they live exposed,” he said.

“For smaller countries, the proximity to a Russia that would deny Ukraine is scary.”

Since the start of the war, NATO has now activated its “response force”. 40,000 soldiersin command of NATO.

Stoltenberg said on Monday that the force would be expanded to 300,000. It is expected to change its name to Allied Response Force and include more troops based in their home countries but pre-deployed on the eastern flank if necessary.

Daalder sees another flaw in the different perceptions of the Russian threat among NATO members.

Some, especially in the former Soviet bloc nations, believe that “Russia has fundamentally changed everything and we are back in a Cold War alliance, and we must keep the line from from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea“he said, referring to NATO’s northern and southern regions.

And there are other alliance members, including the United States, Italy and Spain, who say there are other big threats too:

terrorism, climate change and mass migration.

And then there is China’s inexorable rise as a technically advanced rival seeking global influence.

There is also the question of how big NATO should be, not only in light of the possible addition of Finland and Sweden, but also of its 2008 promise that Ukraine and Georgia would one day become full members, he said. said Daalder.

Both the European Union and NATO have now promised routes to Ukraine membershipbut they have been vague about that commitment.

“I don’t think NATO can simply move away from Madrid, as some would like,” he said.

And as always, there will be discussions on increases in military spending, NATO’s budget and burden-sharing, not only between the United States and its allies, but also between the European Union and NATO.

Christopher Skaluba, a security expert at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said “following money into NATO is always a good idea.”

NATO allies are working hard, “but that’s easier said than done, and inflation makes everything more expensive,” he said.

“The cost of not deterring Russia from entering Ukraine is very high and we are all paying the price, especially the Ukrainians,” Skaluba said.

The pressure to withdraw from alliance commitments, he said, “will also be real.”

c.2022 The New York Times Company