View from Washington: NATO – What to do? Where to turn? What Is Next?

NATO – ‘a leap in the dark’.
Photo: British Army

NATO, once a simple defensive alliance, now faces a crisis, writes Stephen Bryen, a former US Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.

Today, NATO is a huge multinational alliance of 32 countries, far larger and covering vastly more territory than the original 12 countries. In raw numbers, it has a potential military force of 3.5 million people and covers 25.07 million square kilometers (15.58 million square miles) of territory.

While that would seem to be massive, for a variety of reasons NATO’s power and capability depend on the United States. This was true from the start, and it remains so today. Initially an American led anti-Communist defensive alliance, NATO has morphed into a US-led power bloc that is aggressively expanding. The alliance no longer coordinates with the United Nations (at least on any consistent basis), despite declarations in the NATO Treaty.

Despite efforts to reinforce its presence in Poland, Romania, and Estonia, the alliance faces significant problems: a critical shortage of armaments; untested and undermanned armed forces; and a US presence that is still mostly expeditionary.

Although NATO has expanded and continues to feed arms into Ukraine, the prospect for Ukraine surviving Russian attacks seems poor. Meanwhile, Russia has learned a great deal about how to deal with NATO weapons using its air defenses and electronic jamming capabilities. The cupboards in the United States are noticeably empty as a result of the conflict, and there is no reason to think that, aside from air power, NATO could do any better in Ukraine than the Ukrainians.

NATO is still strident when it comes to Ukraine and its posture toward Russia. Some non-factors such as the European Union are even worse rhetorically. But the new NATO is facing a dire situation in Ukraine and the risk of a wider European war. Will NATO cross the Rubicon of conflict, or seek some accommodation with its sworn enemy, Russia?

It is no small matter that the alliance is no longer focused on communism as a threat, but rather on Russia as a threat to Europe (and by extension, to the United States.) The American commitment to Europe puts Washington in a difficult logistical and military position to deal with the far more potent threat of China. But, it seems, US policymakers prefer to deal with the Russian threat – perhaps because that assures US dominance in European affairs and favors American interests.

If Russia was an actual threat, and if the Europeans were really committed to their own defense, then Europe could easily assemble a military force comparable to, if not bigger than, anything Russia could muster. Europe has a population of more than 700 million. By comparison, Russia has a much smaller population (144.2 million), a much smaller economy, and an army of around 470,000 soldiers. (The US Army numbers around 452,000 active-duty personnel).

The NATO Treaty defines the alliance as defensive. The key provision, Article 5, states:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Article 5 was only used once, on September 12, 2001, a day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. A decision was reached, after some controversy, by the North Atlantic Council, the political decision-making part of NATO. NATO carried out a program called Eagle Assist, sending NATO AWACS aircraft to patrol US skies. Although a symbol of support, NATO’s intervention was militarily largely meaningless. What NATO AWACS planes could do in US airspace was never explained.

NATO itself, however, has been involved in a number of operations that used military force – in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libya. NATO also is directly involved in Ukraine, though not with ground troops.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, NATO still regarded Russia as an existential challenge. That challenge, in the NATO view, took on added gravitas after Russia sent troops into Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014 and 2022). It is easy to overlook the fact that NATO had its own ambitions in Georgia and Ukraine and was actively promoting NATO in both places, including trying to force the Russians out.

Today all NATO military exercises, troop deployments, and operations are focused on stopping a Russian attack. NATO has reinforced its troop deployments and bases to protect the Baltic states (especially Estonia, which NATO sees as vulnerable), Poland, and Romania.

While the USSR was dissolving, NATO started an unprecedented round of expansion. While in 1991 and the following years there was little tangible to fear from Russia, the newly independent states needed defense help. Most had been utterly dependent on Russian weapons, and these would not be forthcoming in future. Moreover, they wanted to be protected. While the Russians, from time to time complained, and on occasion were given assurances that proved false, NATO expanded.

NATO also embarked on programs to offer future NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine. The offer came with NATO advisors and specialists, weapons, and intelligence support. Russian leaders saw the attempts as threats, especially when it came to Ukraine. NATO, along with the EU, put pressure on Ukraine to join Europe and separate itself from Russia. For its part Russia saw NATO in Ukraine as a visceral threat to Russian security.

Along with NATO expansion was the aggressive stance of the alliance beyond its defensive mandate. That includes operations in Afghanistan’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Bosnia and Herzegovina Implementation Force (IFOR), Kosovo Force (KFOR) and Libya (Operation Unified Protector.) The US tried to get NATO to support the Iraq war (2003) but could not, with Turkey strongly opposed. Instead, the US created a “Coalition of the Willing” (Multinational Force, Iraq) with troops from the US, Australia, UK, and Poland). Other states would subsequently send contingents to Iraq to support stabilization efforts.

NATO’s future is inextricably linked to Ukraine. As the war reaches an end point with Kiev potentially forced to deal with Moscow, Ukraine’s defense minister is working hard to convince Washington to give Ukraine long range weapons to attack Russian territory, especially Moscow and St. Petersburg. The Ukrainians know very well that if Washington cooperates fully, the Ukraine war will invite even more violent Russian attacks. They are counting on this to draw NATO in and have NATO troops replace Ukrainians on the front line. It is easy to understand that if NATO actually sent troops or brought NATO air power to bear on Russian operations in Ukraine, the war would rapidly expand to Europe.

This lifeline for Ukraine would put NATO in the eye of a storm to which it has already contributed in many ways. Could NATO be dragged into a war that will threaten European cities, infrastructure, and military bases? Despite the Ukrainian push into the Kursk area of Russia, and large-scale drone attacks on Russia including shelling of civilians in Belgorod, the Russians have not taken the bait other than to continue to put pressure on Ukraine’s army (AFU). Most reports are that Ukraine’s army is overstretched, short on manpower, and starting to crack.

The question is – What Is Next?

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs