Why would a peaceful country join NATO?

Why would a peaceful country join NATO?

The brutal Russo-Ukrainian war threatened to go on “as long as it needs to” is thought to be the reason Finland and Sweden are seeking to join NATO. On the day NATO leaders gathered in Madrid, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel called the move “America’s mistake.” Some critics in the West also argue that the expansion of NATO is not only “bad news for the United States” but also more of a threat to Europe than a boost. In addition, as the United States and NATO celebrate the loss of neutrality between the two Nordic countries, Biden’s claims that the two countries are willing to join the group have also come under scrutiny.

The news from Madrid is that NATO has formally invited Sweden and Finland to join the security alliance. The only delay for the two Nordic countries to join the security bloc in a year or less is the ratification of the Madrid decision by the 30-member parliament. Describing the decision as NATO’s most significant expansion in decades, the global media chose to downplay the move that could make Europe a more dangerous place than a safer place. Comments such as “NATO brings war into Ukraine, expansion of NATO membership could push Europe into war” are now commonplace in major European capitals, as well as in Washington.

What is NATO?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), also known as the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance established by 12 countries in Washington, DC on April 4, 1949. During the Cold War, the purpose of the US-led European security alliance was to protect its member states from threats from the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, instead of disbanding, the alliance further expanded its membership and military operations. It now has 30 member states – 28 in Europe, the US and Canada.

In the years following the Cold War, analysts in both Europe and the United States argued that NATO had no reason to continue after its main security threat, the Soviet Union, had disappeared, and should therefore be disbanded. In the years that followed, however, the alliance was not only increasingly seen as no longer defensive, but also continued to conduct military operations in the Balkans, the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. In China, analysts and foreign ministry officials now refer to the world’s most powerful military alliance as “global NATO.” Or, as Professor John Mearsheimer puts it: “It is completely false to say that the Ukrainian crisis was largely the result of Russian aggression. The United States and its European allies are primarily responsible for the crisis. The root of the problem It’s about the expansion of NATO.”

NATOization Finland: Threat or push to Europe

President Biden welcomed the two Nordic countries to the NATO family, saying in May that “NATO is an alliance of choice, not an alliance of coercion.” Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Anderson seemed to agree with Biden’s remarks , also stressed: “I must say that Sweden has chosen a new path at this moment.” However, the facts are completely different. Efforts to bring Finland and Sweden into NATO were reportedly in the works for months before Russia’s clash with Ukraine in February.

Speaking of expanding NATO membership and the common security of Europe, Biden said in Madrid, “Putin thinks he can break the transatlantic alliance. [Putin] Hope NATO is Finnish. He got the NATOization of Finland. Well, first of all, the term “Finnishization” entered the political debate in Germany during the 1960s and 1970s, referring to a country – modeled after Finland – that decided not to challenge a stronger foreign policy neighbouring countries.

Moreover, it is now widely acknowledged in the West that the Russian leader “successfully” achieved “his own goals” by invading Ukraine. Or to put it another way, the immediate short-term consequence for Russia of Sweden and Finland’s quick decision to join a military alliance for Russia – with specific military consequences that are huge and irreversible – is an additional eight hundred miles of border with NATO. As Susan B. Glasser writes in her New Yorker column, the two Nordic countries will bring in two other of Europe’s most capable militaries. “This will raise the prospect of the alliance being able to limit the Baltic and keep the Russians from coming out,” she added.

For NATO and Europe, on the other hand, there is an urgent need to overcome current challenges, such as overcoming rifts in alliances and building “anti-Russian” political unity among major European powers such as Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Otherwise, as several analysts have forewarned, admitting two new members “would increase rather than decrease the likelihood of war on the one hand, and increase the risk of future conflict across the coalition on the other.”

NATO expansion: What are the risks for the US?

Polish scholars try to put the “hot and cold” relationship between Russia, the United States and Europe into historical perspective DebskyQuoted above, the Russia-NATO Foundation Act is said to be the root cause of the dramatic ups and downs between Russia and NATO. Signed between NATO and Russia in 1997, the bill, which no one talks about today, is essentially NATO’s political commitment to Moscow not to deploy large numbers of combat troops to the alliance’s new members. Even as a brutal war rages in Ukraine, as in the past Russia has attacked Georgia and annexed Crimea, respectively, NATO agencies came together at the Madrid summit to protect the Foundation Law.

In a June 29 statement, the White House claimed that all NATO decisions in Madrid were made in the spirit of the Foundations Act.However, commentators claim that when some union members in Madrid called for condemnation of the bill, the response was compromise formula, that is, “don’t ask, don’t tell”.Indecision or misjudgment Signal from NATO to Russia could mean more war on Europe. [My emphasis]

In fact, the decision of the two Nordic countries to accept NATO has been overwhelmingly positive in both Europe and the United States. However, no one knows what further risks are posed to Europe from Russia (currently only 6% of its borders border with NATO), which is already feeling threatened and surrounded by its existing 30 member states. Within days of Sweden’s announcement to renounce its neutrality, the Swedish capital was transformed into a “navy garrison” with the arrival of the American amphibious battle group consisting of attack ships and more. U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley stood on the attack ship USS Kirsachi and announced that the United States intends to turn the Baltic Sea into a “NATO Lake”?

Furthermore, compared to former U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L Davis, he said that “expanding NATO seems like a wise move, [but] Adding more members could have the opposite effect, “what does the claim that Russian military aggression “reshapes” US-EU relations really means? Interestingly, according to a US political affairs analyst, even US and European security issues long-time supporters of NATO 31stone and 32nd member. The analyst quoted former State Department policy planning director Anne-Malter Slaughter as saying:[But] A weak and humiliated Russia is a dangerous Russia. With the power of ‘foreign enemies’ encroaching on Russia’s borders, Putin is likely to be able to stay in power longer. “

All in all, not only within Europe, but even in Sweden, there is disagreement over whether the expansion of NATO membership will increase tensions with Russia. “Joining NATO is preparing for war,” said Gabriella Irsten of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association. Undeniably, the simultaneous announcement of Finland and Sweden to join NATO has sparked the most heated debate in Europe about NATO’s mission since the end of the Cold War. The ongoing debate has once again brought back what one of NATO’s early critics warned about its European member states at the end of the last century.

In a New York Times op-ed in 1997, George F. Kennan wrote: “NATO expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union would be the deadliest mistake of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Since these two Nordic countries NATO membership of the country is almost granted, imagine how Europe will transform, especially for Finland post-NATO, recall Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage in Foreign affairs Just days before Russia launches military attack on Ukraine on February 24: What if Russia wins?

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button