In 2024, NATO will celebrate its 75th anniversary, facing major challenges. Has the invasion of Ukraine and subsequent war confirmed that Russia remains the greatest threat to NATO countries?
Yes, the invasion of Ukraine not only brought back the war on the European continent, a classic war of imperial and territorial conquest, but also brought back the new-old threat to European security: previously in the form of the Soviet threat, now in the form of the Soviet threat. form of the Russian threat. But it brought more: this new, old threat gave NATO a new meaning. During the Cold War, the Soviet threat gave political significance to the Atlantic Alliance and made collective defense the centerpiece of its military mission. The end of the Cold War and the Soviet threat transformed the Alliance’s military mission from the collective defense of the North Atlantic to the achievement of global security. The invasion of Ukraine and the return of the Russian threat give renewed political meaning to the transatlantic alliance, reorient NATO within the scope of the Treaty and place collective defense at the center of its military mission.
The conflict in Ukraine appears to have strengthened transatlantic unity, but two years after the start of the war, this unity in support of Kiev appears to be softening. It’s inevitable?
Yes, the invasion of Ukraine has strengthened the transatlantic relationship. Before the invasion, the relationship between the US and Europe was at a critical juncture. Consider: Merkel enforced the EU-China investment deal on the eve of Biden’s inauguration, and Macron said NATO was brain dead. Russian aggression united both sides of the Atlantic, coordinating the response to Russia politically and militarily. But yes, it is true: after two years of war, support seems to be declining. It happens in every war: it is war fatigue. And it occurs in all areas: in the war economy, necessary to sustain the war effort; in politics: maintaining consensus in support of the war; and especially in public opinion, which is fundamental in democracies. Why? Because the incumbent party leading the war will be judged in the next election.
This threat on NATO’s doorstep has already led to Finland joining and Sweden asking for membership. How far can an expansion of the Atlantic Alliance go? And where does it stop being acceptable to Russia?
Sweden’s request and Finland’s accession to NATO are of great importance for the change in the European security framework after the Russian invasion. And it means that the two Scandinavian countries, which historically believed that neutrality was the best strategy to guarantee their security, today understand that neutrality does not guarantee their security and that they must join the Alliance. Let’s be clear: guaranteeing security here means guaranteeing territorial integrity. For Russia, and this became very clear in the document presented before the invasion of Ukraine, all enlargements after 1999 are not acceptable, that is, all former members of the Warsaw Pact. The question arises today for Ukraine and Georgia. But both yesterday and today, the question is between the imperial principle of the great powers who believe that they have the right to impose their spheres of influence and limited sovereignty on their neighbors, and the democratic principle that people have the right to rule over themselves. available and to make choices in a democratic manner. their national destiny…
Despite the new transatlantic commitment, the 2% of GDP target for defense is still far from being achieved by the majority of Member States – including Portugal, but also Germany itself. Will resistance continue despite the pressure?
Yes, it is true, the goal has been defined, but there are many Member States that are still on the right track. But this path is urgent and especially urgent for Europe. Because the European Union, faced with the new European security framework after the Russian invasion and if, as a result of North American political vicissitudes, the transatlantic bond weakens and the United States does not have Europe on its list of priorities, the European Union will have to cope provide to the threats its security of autonomous way. Germany was among the countries that took the change in the European security framework seriously: it radically changed its energy dependence on Russia and prioritized its defense. It may not have reached 2% yet, but it is consistently following the path and paying attention: 2% of German GDP will transform Germany into the third power with the highest military investments in the world. Regarding the Portuguese case, I said that it is necessary to achieve this goal to which Portugal committed itself at the Wales Summit now, and not in the Greek Kalends. The 2% of GDP target was in fact expressed in the document that I coordinated for the revision of the strategic concept of national defense and which is under discussion in the Assembly of the Republic. The next government will say that.
NATO has made China one of its strategic priorities for the next decade. Are Beijing’s ambitions the biggest challenge for the future?
Doubtless. In the context of great power competition and especially the US-China rivalry for global hegemony, China must necessarily be one of the priorities of any international player. But it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the direct and territorial threat posed by Russia and the strategic challenge posed by China, which is indirect and of a completely different nature. For NATO, strategically speaking, they are two different things.
A possible return of Donald Trump as US president next year is a very likely scenario. Would the spirit of the US leaving NATO return with him?
Yes, a possible return of Donald Trump as US president next year would be a nightmare for the transatlantic relationship and for NATO in particular. Her fascination with dictators and her hostility towards democracies would not facilitate relations with Europeans and her transactional view of international relations would once again call into question NATO’s Article 5 and undermine trust between the two sides of the Atlantic. As for the US leaving NATO, the spirit would certainly return. But the mind is one thing, reality is another. First, institutions have inertia. And an institution like NATO, large, established and with 75 years of political and military successes, has resilience. Second, NATO itself is a foundational pillar for the North American military, which would welcome no way out. But you never know. Trump is a surprise. Always bad.
Jens Stoltenberg’s mandate as NATO Secretary General has already been extended, but his successor should be announced next year. For now, several names are being discussed, including the first female Secretary General. As a founding country, Portugal has never had a general secretary. Could this be the moment?
Portugal has an international presence more in keeping with its history than its geography. It is a small country, it already had a President of the European Commission and a Secretary General of the UN. There has never been a Secretary General of NATO. There are personalities with more than personal and political competence for the position. He has competent diplomacy. But being a founder is not enough.
Source: DN
