The evolution of NATO strategy at the present stage

In 2019, the NATO bloc celebrated its anniversary. The military-political structure turned 70 years old. The organization was created at the beginning of the Cold War, when the bipolar confrontation between the USSR and the USA gained momentum. The main tasks of the alliance were to contain the influence of the Soviet Union on states that became allies or fell under the influence of Washington in Europe. The block also served as an instrument of control over post-war Germany, where revanchist sentiments could again prevail. Through NATO, the United States could monitor the state of the domestic political situation in its territory.

The founders and initial members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization were 12 states: Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, France and the USA [6]. The organization’s goal is to create and ensure collective defense and security of the participating countries with the following tasks - protecting freedom and promoting the development of comprehensive partnership in the Euro-Atlantic region [8].

The organization’s policy included the promotion and search of future participating countries. So, in 1952, Turkey and Greece joined the Euro-Atlantic alliance, which marked the first stage of expansion. The entry of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO structures in 1955 caused discontent on the part of the USSR. In response to this, the Soviet Union created an alternative political-military formation to the capitalist alliance - the Warsaw Treaty Organization, which finally consolidated the bipolarity of the world for the remaining 36 years.

In the framework of the current paradigm, NATO continues its expansion and has 29 states: the seventh expansion took place in 2017 with the accession to the Montenegro bloc [2]. It is known that in the near future North Macedonia may become the thirtieth member of the alliance. “Based on the experience of Montenegro, which officially became the 29th member of the alliance in June 2017, the ratification of the Macedonian Protocol will take no more than a year,” sources in diplomatic European circles inform [9]. According to REGNUM news agency, on February 11, the parliament of Northern Macedonia ratified the North Atlantic Treaty [8]. "NATO expects North Macedonia to join the bloc in the spring of 2020." There is a process of gradual "absorption" of the remaining European states by Euro-Atlantic structures.

What lies at the basis of such increased admission of new member countries to the alliance, when, it would seem, today the modern alignment of forces in the world does not allow us to conclude in favor of the existence of a bipolar system of international relations? After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the socialist camp, the Euro-Atlantic alliance faced problems in determining its future existence - a complex crisis of self-identification and the search for an external enemy arose. The latter presented the threat of possible armed conflicts in the zone of responsibility assigned to NATO, the factor of international, and later cyberterrorism, and their impact on Euro-Atlantic security, illegal trade weapons and drug trafficking. The leadership of the alliance was faced with the task of finding a traditional and "existentially important" problem for Europe, until its absence finally led to a crisis of organization and the decline of American hegemony in the Old World.

Temporary participation in humanitarian and international operations, the fight against “ephemeral” threats and challenges are perceived as an attempt to extend the life of the alliance. “If during the Cold War the allies in the bloc had no divergence in the definition of such an object (the USSR and its allies were considered a priori according to the Warsaw Treaty), then in the conditions of the 5st century geopolitical picture. There are more than enough applicants for a new deterrence in the West, ”says Yu.I. Associate Professor of Moscow Humanitarian University Nadtochy [24, p. XNUMX]. Such, according to the author, is China today: the strengthening of China in the economic and military spheres is of concern to both the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region - Japan and South Korea.

“Apparently, the main efforts of the American military strategists and planners will be directed precisely at its neutralization. Under the same long-term goal, the anti-Chinese “coalitions of the willing” led by the Pentagon will begin to take shape. They will begin to form not from the NATO member countries that are located over many thousands of kilometers, but from those directly adjacent to the Greater China zone - and therefore from the strategic point of view of the United States that are more useful to the USA — the countries of Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania, ” Yuri Ivanovich believes [ibid.].

“The escalating conflict between the United States and China, which in the extreme scenario can go into the military phase, will make the European allies decide: are they ready to fulfill the allied duty to protect the economic interests of the senior partner very far from the original zone of responsibility? The answer is at least not obvious, and probably negative, ”says F.A., editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs. Lukyanov [4].

Russia is also playing the role of aggressor and main enemy of some European countries. If since the 1990s. the new Russia made attempts to establish and build relations with the West in all directions, including with NATO, to move from confrontation with Western countries to relations that would be based on allied principles, a completely different picture is being observed today. Joining the Partnership for Peace program in 1994, signed in 1997, the Russia-NATO Founding Act, and subsequently the Russia-NATO Council established on this basis in 2002, began to lose their significance and perspective against the backdrop of the events taking place. The final breakdown in relations occurred in 2014 under the influence of the Ukrainian crisis, thereby marking the uncertainty of further cooperation. “Since then, Brussels has repeatedly stated that they consider Russia a threat to the security of the bloc countries; several times, an increase in the number of NATO response forces and an increase in their ability to respond to aggression by the Russian Federation was announced, ”said K. Benyumov, a journalist and correspondent for the online publication Meduza [1].

If the confrontation between the Soviet Union and Western European countries led by the United States and NATO was previously formally ideological, now the cause of the new turbulence is the independent foreign policy of the Russian Federation aimed at protecting national interests and multipolarity.

With the transformation of the system of international relations and a shift in emphasis in world politics, a new alignment of the balance of power in the world is observed. The consequences of globalization, unsuccessful attempts to represent the world in the value system of the liberal-idealistic paradigm and the failed "end stories”Within the framework of F. Fukuyama’s interpretation, they make it clear that the modern world is not yet ready for the transformation that advanced democratic countries imagined. The experiment that broke out, attempts to “decorate” the world in such tones were not to the liking of many states for various reasons. And NATO has a direct relationship to this: both to time and to the immediate implementation of the planned strategy as a tool. But what could lead to a move away from NATO's traditional task of ensuring security and stability in Europe to expanding its presence in different parts of the world?

The answer lies in changing the geo-economic and geopolitical map of the world, mainly not in favor of Western countries. The pursuit of hegemony caused systemic tensions at the level of international supranational institutions of a universal nature: an attempt to replace the pro-American NATO structure with a universal UN structure, as well as the desire of the Euro-Atlantic alliance to fulfill the functions of both a police judge and a peace judge and prosecutor, are not welcomed by all world powers.

The organization of the North Atlantic Treaty will sooner or later inevitably face a crisis of an existential nature: the semantic supply will run out, and you will have to do something about it. The objective shift of the world hierarchy from "pluralistic unipolarity" to a "multipolar concert of powers" sets the tone for shaping the future world order system: NATO may not find a place in it. “The leaders of the bloc will have to take this circumstance as a given, and therefore will intensively seek new ways to maintain NATO relevance in the 5st century” [28, p. 3]. “Everything that happens in NATO and the EU is an integral part of the crisis of the entire institutional and ideological legacy of the Cold War, mechanically, without any fundamental transformation transferred to the XNUMXst century. The validity of the approaches and assessments arising from the philosophy of postmodernism is confirmed: we lived and still live in the shadow of the past - hence all the problems, ”writes A.M. Kramarenko. “I am sure that the endgame of this“ twilight ”existence is not far off. At least there has been a movement, even if not in the wrong direction, but such is the logic of self-destruction of what has worn out to holes ”[XNUMX].

List of sources
1. Benyumov K. Shameful questions about NATO. What is an alliance for? Does he have an army? Is NATO an Enemy of Russia? [Electronic resource] / K. Benyumov // Meduza: website.
2. Kondrashova N. Montenegro officially joined NATO [Electronic resource] / N. Kondrashova // RBC: website.
3. Kramarenko A. NATO as a business project and Euro-Atlantic as a layer cake [Electronic resource] / A. Kramarenko // RIAC: website.
4. Lukyanov F.A. It seems, but not to be [Electronic resource] / F.A. Lukyanov // Russia in global politics: website.
5. Nadtochy Yu.I. Back to the Euro-Atlantic: why is NATO no longer a global organization? / Yu. I. Nadtochey // World Economy and International Relations. - 2014. - No. 6. - S. 18-30.
6. Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) [Electronic resource] // RIA "News": website.
7. Northern Macedonia has ratified the agreement with NATO // IA REGNUM: website.
8. The North Atlantic Treaty [Electronic resource] // NATO: website.
9. Sysoev G. North Atlantic Macedonia [Electronic resource] / G. Sysoev // Kommersant: site.

Comments

[Pessimist22]

It is also necessary to officially declare that the United States and NATO countries pose a danger to Russia and are the main enemies.

[Alexga]

It is also necessary to officially declare that the United States and NATO countries pose a danger to Russia and are the main enemies

And enter flight missions into the heads of rockets standing on the database.

[Lelek]

Quote: Pessimist22

It is also necessary to officially declare that the United States and NATO countries pose a danger to Russia and are the main enemies.

What for? We are not looking for enemies for ourselves, and if the United States and NATO declare us their enemies, then this is their problem. And we need to equip our Russia, strengthen its defenses, improve the lives of our people and not be provoked by our near and far "neighbors" on the globe. Well, if something happens, answer harshly without verbiage and liberal snot.

[Gene84]

Quote: Lelek

do not be fooled by provocations from near and far "neighbors" on the globe

It is difficult not to fall for Western provocations when they come up with something new every day. By not responding to provocations, we thereby undermine Russia's authority at the international level. It is necessary to respond in such a way, to Western provocations, so that they would never again have a desire to repeat their provocations. Otherwise, we will be completely pecked for our "concern" and mirror responses.

[Lelek]

Quote: Gene84

It’s difficult not to be fooled by Western provocations when they come up with something new every day.

And who promised that it would be easy? By "don't be fooled" I mean - don't get hysterical and don't try to shout down the enemy. Only verified arguments and facts and beat them from the shoulder. We make many tactical and strategic mistakes, which our enemies whip us without embarrassment. And that shouldn't be.

[knn54]

The strategy has not changed - protecting US interests,

[Lamata]

NATO versus China, far away. There seems to have been ASEAN in that region.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Lamata

NATO versus China, far away.

Well, this is unlikely ... Look at their contract. According to Article 5 of the Treaty, the Alliance will protect the victim of aggression. But China is not going to attack the United States, which cannot be said about the United States. Therefore, even the author is very doubtful of this.
Further. A few words about the article. The name is intriguing - "The evolution of NATO's strategy ..." Well, and this "strategy" with its "evolution"? Where is the analysis? Links to authors of publications, of course, is a good thing, but where is the "vector" of development, problems and actions of the organization itself to resolve them. Alas, none of this exists. Continuous pulling of quotes, without theses that they must confirm / deny. Eclecticism, in a word.

[ccsr]

Author:
Ivan Degtev

The organization of the North Atlantic Treaty will sooner or later inevitably face a crisis of an existential nature: the semantic supply will run out, and you will have to do something about it. The objective shift of the world hierarchy from "pluralistic unipolarity" to a "multipolar concert of powers" sets the tone for shaping the future world order system: NATO may not find a place in it.

A very controversial conclusion, if only because there were many crises in NATO, for example, between Turkey and Greece, or the last purchases of our air defense systems by Turkey, but this did not lead to the collapse of the alliance, and even more so because of some kind of "semantic reserve ". So it is not worth predicting NATO's funeral on such very shaky grounds, because in the foreseeable future (which is at least 5-10 years), no serious destruction will occur in their structure. And the proof of this is that all the participants silently swallowed Trump's blackmail, and grudgingly began to increase their military budgets, and financial injections into the maintenance of the alliance.

writes a member of the INF Treaty A.M. Kramarenko. “I am sure that the endgame of this“ twilight ”existence is not far off. At least there has been a movement, if not in the wrong direction, but such is the logic of self-destruction of what has worn down to holes ”

"It's a pity - to live in this wonderful time
I don’t have to - neither to me nor to you. "
N. Nekrasov

[parusnik]

Maybe, maybe ... NATO will fall apart ... but there is still a reserve, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus is also possible over time ... After using the last reserve, what are the prospects ...? .. Actually, no, this block ... But it will not be tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, much time will pass ...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Lamata

There seems to have been ASEAN in that region.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is a purely economic education in 10 countries of Southeast Asia. This is free (duty-free) circulation of goods in the markets of these countries, mutually beneficial economic cooperation, etc.

Carrying out cooperation in the field of security, members of the association are guided by five basic principles: non-alignment with military blocs; non-violent conflict resolution; the formation of the positions of member countries, based on a peaceful approach to international problems; abandonment of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the prevention of an arms race in Southeast Asia; refusal to use force or threat of its use.

In general, everything is peaceful.

ASEAN is the core of integration processes in the Asia-Pacific region. Around it several multilateral associations have been formed. Among them are the ASEAN Regional Security Forum, which also brings together Australia, Bangladesh, East Timor, India, Canada, China, DPRK, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Russia, USA, Sri Lanka, Japan, EU.
The interaction between ASEAN and Japan, China, the Republic of Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and the USA is carried out within the framework of the East Asian Community.

There is no military component here. The United States on a bilateral basis concluded treaties between the countries of the region in order to thrust its "face" into the affairs of the APR. But, unlike Japan, for example, the President of the Philippines R. Duterte has already asked the Yankees with things to leave their country ...

[bandabas]

The fact that they are enemies and sycophants has long been clear. Sadness with little and white russians. Although .... Judging by the History, they behave like "Gop, stop Zoya. Who did you give while standing?"

[Boa kaa]

I expressed my attitude to the article in a previous post. But, nevertheless, I would like to say "thanks" to the author for the raised topic and express my attitude to those messages with which I do not agree.
1. NATO is the brainchild of the States. Moreover, they blinded it artificially, laying the foundation for the union in a union, not territory, but the AQUATORIA of the Atlantic Ocean. A similar practice was only with fascist Germany when creating the axis of Berlin - Tokyo. Therefore, the Yankees are glorious followers of the Fuhrer of the Third Reich. And their goals are identical: containment of the USSR / Russia.
2. The evolution of strategy... The author apparently does not fully understand what a "strategy" is. This is a general (master) plan for the long term to achieve a global (very significant) goal.
In my opinion, NATO’s strategy has remained unchanged - to confront Russia in all directions. This Anglo-Saxon paradigm has remained unchanged since the time of Ivan the Terrible. The nuances and tactics of action change over time, but the goal remains unchanged.
3. With an unchanged purpose, What has changed in tactics?
From a head-on confrontation of the Cold War times, the Alliance leaders switched to the tactics of creeping annexation of territories, their transfer to the "arm" of the bloc. For this, a number of programs were included, such as:
- NATO Membership Action Plan (2 countries - Northern Macedonia, 1999, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2006);
- Program "Accelerated Dialogue" (2 countries - Ukraine, February 1994, Georgia, March 1994), Cyprus is also planned for 2020-2021;
- "Individual partnership plan" (4 countries - Azerbaijan, May 2005, Armenia, December 2005, Kazakhstan, January 2006, Moldova, March 2006) ...
As you noticed, all these countries are republics of the former USSR. They are trying to withdraw them from the zone of influence of Russia. There is a creeping expansion of NATO to the east, to the borders of Russia. Naturally "for the sake of strengthening peace"!
4. What about domestic issues we can say that if the goal is achieved - the USSR and the Department of Internal Affairs have sunk into oblivion. All: - "At ease, disperse!" But no ... Russia has not collapsed, that's bad luck ... And many did not understand, hence the problem of the continued existence of the alliance, and the search for an enemy ... But on the continent of Europe it does not exist, so the United States finds it in the person power number 2 - China! at the same time, presenting their Wishlist and the desire of Japan and South Korea ("the coalition of those who wish"), for the policy of the entire bloc! (The author refers to the opinion of MSUMU associate professor Mr. Nadtochy, who famously portrays the interests of the United States as the aspirations of the European participating countries.) substitution of concepts: when the USA is associated with the entire Alliance. (What the master wants, the servants also want!) But this is far from the case. And the President of France, Mr. Macron, openly stated this, saying that NATO had a brain dead! The US no longer aligns itself with Alliance members, no coordination inside the block! (Donkeys don't count!)
5. At the mention of the bloc's "international humanitarian operations" in the 21st century, Yugoslavia immediately comes to mind! There, too, they bombed "for the sake of peace and prosperity" ...
6. First, the reason for presenting Russia as an "aggressor" is a voluntary (after the all-Crimean referendum!) the annexation of Crimea to Russia, and then when the record is over - independent foreign policy of Russia. After this, I want to say with the words of the joke about Lieutenant Rzhevsky: - Hmm ... Fried eggs ... This is - a frying pan in the balls, or what !? Original-s !!!)))))
7. But what the US wants NATO replaced the UN, noticed for sure! But the thesis that in a multipolar order of the world the Alliance may not find a place for itself is at least controversial. The United States is not driving billions of dollars into it in order to just take and release its instrument of implanting "democracy", its reliable screen in all military adventures!
8. The author is right in saying that cold war bugs are not working now. But poorly you know our counterparts! They are great masters of inventing some kind of thread crap. I think they will not blunder this time: they will create a worthy myth for the challenges of the time!
Somehow, however. AHA.

[maidan.izrailovich]

NATO is a herd. In which the Anglo-Saxon shepherds drove the European sheep. From these sheep a little that depends. They are needed for extras and for slaughter in case of war.