THE WATFORD MELANCHOLY

The two-day NATO summit in Watford held on December 3-4 and dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the alliance was hardly a joyful event. The greatest achievement of the meeting was the approval of an updated plan for the Baltic States and Poland, which was a technical document that Turkey refused to sign having been unsatisfied with its partners in the Alliance, albeit its softened position later.

Before the Watford gathering, French President Emmanuel Macron made a number of critical remarks about NATO comparing the existing situation within the organisation with a 'brain death'. President Donald Trump, who had repeatedly expressed unflattering remarks about NATO, was offended by the words of his French counterpart, and argued emotionally with him on various issues, including Turkey’s actions in Syria, and added his usual dissatisfactory comments on partners who refuse to pay the agreed amount of gross domestic product NATO member nations are supposed to contribute to defence spending.

The most embarrassing moment of the summit was the mocking of the heads of Great Britain, France and Canada at Trump. But the joke intended only for four was captured on videotape and seen worldwide, including by Trump, who called the Canadian prime minister 'two-faced' and left the summit ahead of schedule.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was too calm, which has recently become a trend in her behaviour, while the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was busy with general elections and Brexit, frankly shied away from political discussions. In general, the atmosphere of the event was not constructive, friendly, and not at all relevant to the anniversary of the most powerful military-political alliance in the world.

Every joke hides some truth

Perhaps, we could end the narrative about the unity within NATO right after mentioning about the above video footage broadcasted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Trump's partners began to make fun of the fact that he had held a big impromptu press conference to touch on the issues of concern to himself. Such an untimely jest of partners was not welcome during the reception at the Buckingham Palace either. Chatting in a loose circle with Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, and Princess Anne, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the group the following: "He was late because he had an off the top press conference for 40 minutes. You just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor." The video went viral across all social networks. Everyone immediately understood who they were talking about, and Trudeau himself didn't later deny that he was talking about Trump, though he nevertheless tried to soften the awkwardness in the "you misunderstood me" style, noting that he had in mind Trump's unexpected decision to hold the next G7 summit at his residence at Camp David. But it seems the American president did not really believe this and therefore cancelled plans for the final press conference, noting that he had already answered many questions. Finally, he called Trudeau "two-faced". Some of the American media outlets critical about Trump, mentioned that the incident deprived Mr. Trump a chance to make a historical speech that would be useful before the upcoming presidential campaign and the ongoing impeachment procedure.

According to the British media, it's not the first time Trump is mocked and laughed at behind his back. He came to the summit in Watford as a persona non grata, even his political associate Boris Johnson made it clear that he did not need Trump's support, perhaps because many of Johnson's supporters do not like Trump. Later during a press conference, Johnson never mentioned Trump by name. The US president, however, links the situation with the annoyance of his colleagues about his next reminder of payments to the NATO budget.

Indeed, Trump raises the same question that Europeans "underpay" for their security, while the US spends up to 70% and more at every official and unofficial gathering of NATO leaders. This time, he even promised to push on non-paying states with his favourite trading levers. Back in 2014, NATO member nations agreed in the next ten years to "approach" the level of military spending of 2% of GDP, but at the end of this year only eight Alliance countries get to the target level, and, interestingly, most of them are not the most strong militarily and economically, but quite the opposite - Greece, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That is, it is obvious that Trump is annoyed by the attitude to this issue, primarily from France and Germany. At the same time, the secret response of the partners to these claims is well known - NATO brings the most benefits to the United States, these are the prevailing rules of the game, and no one is to blame that Trump is more a businessman than a politician.

Does one need hope?

By the way, the exchange of unflattering definitions also began on the European side of the alliance. Thus, in his interview with The Economist in early November, the French president said that NATO had a "brain death." Macron also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of Article 5 of the Charter, which assumes a collective response of all NATO member nations in the event of an attack on one of them. His conclusion was prompted by the Turkish military operation in northern Syria and Turkey's purchase of S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia. "We have uncoordinated aggressive actions by the NATO ally, Turkey, in the region where our interests are at stake [...] And if the Bashar al-Assad regime decides to attack Turkey in response, will we enter into conflict within NATO? This is a crucial issue." Macron also noted that Turkey had consulted only with the US, which undermines the unity of within the alliance.

Meanwhile, several days before the summit, it was reported that Turkey threatened to veto a new plan to defend the Baltic countries and Poland from Russia if NATO allies did not recognise the Kurdish People's Self-Defense Forces (YPG) operating in Syria as a common enemy and a terrorist organisation. The problem is that those whom Ankara considers terrorists have long been members of the US-led coalition in the fight against ISIS.

In the end, it was possible to agree on the approval of the updated plan for the Baltic states and Poland, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg presented this as a great achievement and as a sign that NATO members "are able to move forward, update and revise our positions." Although, in essence, this is a technical issue: this is a routine update of the list of military measures and until a new version of the plan has been approved, the old one simply remains effective.

Although everyone forgot about the plan soon, Macron’s words continue to be discussed at different levels. After all, the French president also said that due to the Turkish invasion of Syria, ISIS was returning there, and at some point he generally accused Ankara of collaborating with terrorists. "I am sorry we do not have the same definition of terrorism around the table. When I look at Turkey, they now are fighting against those who fight with us, who fought with us, shoulder to shoulder, against Isis. And sometimes they work with Isis proxies! If we just have discussions about what we pay and we don't have clear discussions about such a situation, we are not serious. Not serious to our soldiers and our peoples." In other words, Macron threw stones at both Ankara and Trump, not in a "jubilee" way. But he also was criticised—his words about military sovereignty were criticized by many European politicians, including the German leadership, who said that the NATO was and will be the basis of European security. Trump was most offended by the words about "brain death" calling them offensive and "very, very unpleasant" for 28 participants, although he had previously called the alliance "obsolete".

If we take into account that the celebration of the anniversary and the general background of the event was extremely negative given a large-scale nationwide strike against pension reform in France, the ongoing impeachment procedure of Trump in Washington, early elections and Brexit in the UK, terrorist attacks on the London Bridge and shooting in The Hague, then we should not be surprised that the general impression on the Watford meeting is contradictory. It is clear that the tension inside the alliance has reached a point where it is no longer considered even necessary to hide it.

But the most alarming thing is that the NATO members cannot decide on main threats and the ways to react to them. They still do not know who is the major enemy of NATO—Russia, China or terrorism. It is strange that the leaders of NATO member nations do not recognise that the world has changed and there is no longer a consolidated and clear threat that NATO was once created to fight against. Rather, it is time to be able to respond to constantly emerging challenges that depend on a large number of factors. Russia, China and Kurdish military units in Syria can equally be rivals and partners of certain members of the Alliance depending on what to take as a reference point and what is the desired result. But the NATO structure, at least for now, is too conservative to adapt to such dynamism. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract investment in the military potential of the Alliance and to agree as a whole. "We have bad external symptoms, but very good content. That is wonderful. NATO, of course, is still strong and can be reorganised," Jens Stoltenberg said. However, it seems that the question is not whether NATO can be reorganised, but whether it is necessary at all.