The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Madrid at the end of June was not just an ordinary summit resembling its predecessors. It looked so different that one might think it could mark a major turning point in the Alliance’s path.
This summit took place four months after the start of the war between Russia and Ukraine. And because it is a war that has presented NATO with an unprecedented challenge, as one of the European states nominated for membership faced a direct Russian military invasion for the first time since the end of World War II In the history of the Alliance, it is natural that each Summit that takes place thereafter becomes a kind of thermometer, measuring not only the level of Alliance cohesion in the face of a challenge of this magnitude, but also the extent of its willingness to respond to it and to all similar and potential challenges in the future.
The treaty coincided with a time when the alliance had to issue a new document outlining its strategic concept for the next ten years. Since the last document of this type was issued in 2010, it was assumed that 2020 would be the date of issue of the document covering the third era of the twenty-first century, which did not happen due to the outbreak of the Covid 19 pandemic that prompted the convening of the summit in 2020 and 2021. Thus fate decided that the date of a summit tasked with formulating a new strategic vision for the Alliance coincided with the outbreak of a major crisis, some of which do not rule out that this would be the starting point for a third world war , added to the Strategic Concept document signed by NATO leaders on June 29, that the past is doubly important and exceptional for the period up to 2030.
The 11-page Document 2022 contains 49 points divided into three axes: goals and principles, the strategic environment and the main tasks of the Alliance (deterrence and defence, prevention and crisis management, cooperative security). Emphasizes clearly that NATO’s strategic concept has changed fundamentally, especially compared to the concept contained in the 2010 document. First, it reflects a marked change in the Alliance’s perspective on the sources of threats to its security, since the previous 2010 document, which reflected the Alliance’s strategic approach to the period up to 2020, identified terrorism Top of the list of threats to peace and security at various levels Source took a step back in the 2022 document and is no longer seen as a key source of threats to the security and stability of the Alliance.
The Russian Federation moved to the top of this list. This document spoke of the Russian Federation as “the greatest and most direct threat to the security of the Alliance and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region … because it aims to destabilize the countries of our east and south in the far north.”
It assesses the magnitude of the direct impact of the war in Ukraine on the Alliance’s changing perspective on the sources of threats to its security and stability. It also notes that the Alliance no longer views Russia as a potential or indirect threat, but rather as a direct military threat. “The Russian Federation’s ability to disrupt Allied reinforcements and freedom of navigation across the North Atlantic is a strategic challenge for it, and Moscow’s military build-up, including in the Baltic, Black Sea and Mediterranean regions, along with its military integration with Belarus is a challenge to our security and interests,” the document says.
On the other hand, it is noted that the 2010 document avoided viewing China as a source of a threat to the alliance, only describing it as an ambitious competitor trying to strengthen its position at the regional and global levels by strengthening its economic and scientific position to strengthen and technological skills. As for the 2022 document, it considers China not only an honorable competitor, but a no less dangerous source of threat than Russia. It is true that it does not view China as a direct military threat to the Alliance, as does Russia, but at the same time it recognizes that “the People’s Republic of China’s stated ambitions and adoption of a wide range of political, economic and military instruments, to increase its global footprint and demonstrate strength, and through the use of malicious methods, it aims to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, strategic materials and supply chains, and use its economic influence to create strategic dependencies and its increase influence, etc., which pose a direct threat to Alliance interests, security and values.
The most interesting point is that this document considers that “the deepening of the strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutual attempts to subvert the rules-based international order are incompatible with our values and interests.” and should therefore be faced with due determination.
Second, it reflects a marked shift in the Alliance’s vision of how to address sources of threats to its security and stability. After the Alliance’s previous documents focused on “collaborating, building partnerships, and connecting with others” as effective means of countering various sources of threats, we note that it focuses on the current document, which focuses on “building our own capabilities and the mobilization ‘concentrates resources and increases military spending.’ It is true that the document clearly emphasized that the alliance “does not seek to confront or pose a threat to Russia,” but at the same time stressed “the determination of the alliance to strengthen itself.” the deterrence and defense capabilities of all its members and that it will respond to threats in a unified and responsible manner.’ And it will keep its channels of communication open with the Russians to prevent escalation.
On the other hand, it is noted that the document does not recognize any role of NATO countries or the ruling regime in Ukraine in provoking Russia and pressure to use force in Ukraine under the pretext of protecting the citizens of Russia ensure provenance, nor did it relate, near or far, to feelings of concern. President Putin signed a strategic partnership agreement with the United States after Ukraine on November 10, still responding to the demands contained in his message to NATO member states in response to that agreement, which included: A promise that the Ukraine will not join the alliance NATO, which does not station offensive weapons on Russia’s borders and is withdrawing NATO troops from Eastern Europe to Western Europe, demands that the United States refuse to even discuss, which eventually led to the outbreak of war. Instead, the document affirmed the right of all countries in the region, especially Eastern European countries, to determine their fate and future, including joining NATO and the European Union, and rejected any interference by the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of these countries.
If we link what has been said in this document to the course of the ongoing war in the Ukrainian arena, we will come to a number of conclusions: The first is how to slip into the current raging military confrontation in the Ukrainian arena It is not at all improbable that the United States, through its organs and institutions expressing the thoughts and orientations of the deep state, deliberately lured Russia into a confrontation on the Ukrainian arena, and they have been preparing for this confrontation in earnest since Russia Ukraine occupied Crimea in 2014.
The second: refers to the essence of the current conflict in this arena. All parties involved recognize that their main goal is to end unilateral Western hegemony over the current world order and establish a multipolar world order, or at least a tripolar system, involving Russia and China, which the United States-led West opposed and declares the return of NATO cohesion. for its victory means immediately the collapse of the unipolar international system.
The third: refers to the instruments used in this conflict, since Western countries recognize that Russia is the world’s first nuclear power, forcing them not to directly intervene in the ongoing conflict with her in the Ukrainian arena, and then themselves on the one hand to limit the use of the weapon of comprehensive sanctions against Russia and on the other hand to provide the greatest possible military, political and economic support to Ukraine so that it can win the war.
Fourth: On the future of this conflict. The path taken shows, on the one hand, that the economic sanctions have not brought the desired results and that Russia is on the way to winning this round of the conflict, but on the other hand shows that the support provided has helped Ukraine It not only allowed her to have a to sustain and prevent a quick and decisive Russian victory, but also to regain the many lost lands and begin the liberation of what was left of them, including Crimea. Since it is inconceivable that a nuclear Russia would accept a military defeat in Ukraine, an escalation and the use of tactical nuclear weapons can no longer be ruled out, especially since the events of the past few months have proven that the United States has used all its technological intelligence capabilities serving Ukraine, which Moscow could interpret as direct American involvement in the conflict.
So I think the whole world could go down a dark tunnel in the next few months. Unless all of its leaders realize that all of humanity, not just Russia or NATO, faces many sources of threats, not the least of which are climate change and infectious diseases, and therefore urgently needs a New World Order that faces all sources of threats for its collective security, it will not be able to survive the specter of nuclear war is slowly approaching.