The global agenda is shifting swiftly. Before the last NATO summit could be thoroughly discussed among international relations experts, news of an assassination attempt on presidential candidate Donald Trump in the U.S. stunned the world. The competition between U.S. President Joe Biden and Trump is expected to dominate until the end of 2024. Meanwhile, the NATO summit held before the assassination was equally dramatic.
The summit, which marked NATO’s 75th anniversary, overshadowed the ongoing debate about NATO’s relevance post-Cold War. It addressed critical issues from Ukraine’s NATO membership process to escalating tensions with China. The summit ended with a declaration that resonated globally and sparked numerous debates. Following the summit, analyses in international media question the true impact of NATO’s decisions and statements.
Assessing ‘bridge’
A major point of contention at the NATO summit was the ongoing war in Ukraine. Since early 2022, this conflict has become a new ideological divide between the West and Russia. Critics argue that the West may be escalating the war instead of pursuing diplomatic solutions, while others call for increased support for Ukraine. David Herszenhorn of Politico raised concerns about NATO’s promises to Ukraine, citing uncertainties about Ukraine’s NATO membership and the effectiveness of NATO’s decisions. He suggests that limited support reflects internal political struggles within the alliance and a lack of a clear strategy for integrating Ukraine into NATO’s security framework.
Similarly, Rikard Jozwiak, European rditor at Radio Liberty, highlighted the inadequacies of NATO’s support for Ukraine, noting that most statements from the summit were symbolic. He pointed out that the F-16 aircraft promised to Ukraine had not arrived as expected, signaling structural issues in NATO’s support. Jozwiak argued that NATO should recognize Ukraine’s right to self-defense and allow more flexibility in using provided weapons.
A crucial aspect missed by Jozwiak and Herszenhorn is the influence of the U.S. within NATO and its potential changes after the U.S. presidential election. With polls suggesting a high likelihood of Trump’s reelection, there are concerns that expectations for Ukraine could be unmet.
In Just Security, David J. Kramer and Ian Kelly criticized the $43 billion military aid commitment as insufficient, emphasizing the need for rapid and comprehensive support. They argue that structural changes, such as the new NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) center, will not suffice. NATO must accelerate Ukraine’s membership process and provide more concrete security guarantees.
Kramer and Kelly also missed the impact of U.S. influence within NATO and whether all members agree on Ukraine. They did not address Hungary and Türkiye’s roles in not providing concrete guarantees. Additionally, the recent changes in European politics have not been considered.
NATO and China: New front?
Another notable development was the NATO summit’s new stance against China. By accusing China of supplying weapons to Russia in Ukraine, NATO has outlined its position in this new era. This has resonated globally and highlights NATO’s strategic shift toward China following its previous focus on Russia.
Sarah Shamim, in Al Jazeera, emphasized that NATO’s labeling of China as a key supporter of Russia’s war signifies a significant hardening of its stance. Shamim views this as a sign of NATO’s strategic expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. Claims of China’s support for Russia’s military and involvement in global cyberattacks reinforce this perception.
Alexander Smith from NBC News noted China’s strong response to NATO’s accusations, labeling them as “Cold War mentality” and “war-mongering.” Smith suggests this may increase tensions between NATO and China, potentially leading to a new Cold War that includes economic and ideological warfare.
Kramer and Kelly also discussed NATO’s relations with China in Just Security, noting that China’s support for Russia poses a growing threat to European and Euro-Atlantic security. They argue that NATO members should review trade relations with China to reduce strategic dependencies.
Global polarization
The Washington Summit reflects not only current threats like the Ukraine war but also a “new encirclement concept” that requires NATO to expand and encircle Russia and China. However, global polarization complicates NATO’s effectiveness. Some member countries, like Türkiye and Hungary, adopt a conciliatory attitude toward Russia, while others take a hard stance. The summit’s positions on Russia and China may not have broad support in Europe postelection.
Should Trump become president, such divisions could impact NATO’s decision-making and alliance unity. The summit’s decisions and statements, while striking, reveal strategic inconsistencies and raise questions about NATO’s effectiveness. The alliance’s harsh statements on China and lack of comprehensive support for Ukraine reflect internal political tensions. These issues may weaken NATO’s effectiveness and create uncertainty about its future role.
In conclusion, the NATO summit’s decisions are significant but must be viewed in the context of the alliance’s fractures and changing global security dynamics. Analysts might interpret these changes as signals of a potential World War III. NATO must clarify its role and reassess internal cohesion and strategic decision-making processes. As the largest military defense alliance for 75 years, NATO must not only address current threats but also prepare for future conflict dynamics in a multipolar world. Strengthening member solidarity and developing diplomacy over confrontational responses will enhance NATO’s effectiveness in this evolving global landscape.
