INTERNATIONAL ORDER IN 2022

The planned NATO enlargement amid the war in Ukraine raises many questions about the current geopolitical situation in the world. Some of these questions concern the future of neutrality and non-alignment, agreement or disagreement between the NATO member states, confrontation between the US and China, as well as the effects of these factors on the global economy, climate and health. 

Who else’s for neutrality?

On May 18, Sweden and Finland officially applied to NATO to join the alliance, hence renouncing their long-standing neutrality. Many observers have pointed to the symbolism of this decision, since these Scandinavian countries have long been committed to the idea of neutrality and non-alignment with military blocs. This position has been a solid constituent element of their national narrative, one of the basic principles of their foreign policy supported by the majority of population.

Joining of Finland and Sweden to NATO will alter the assessment of the potential of small countries in the context of the emerging structure of international relations. It is clear that there will be increased reliance on force within various alliances or blocs. Neutrality no longer guarantees security, rather it can be regarded as a threat. For example, the situation is quite paradoxical in Finland. On the one hand, admission to NATO guarantees Helsinki security from Moscow. On the other hand, Finland officially becomes a potential enemy of Russia. After all, the 1,300-kilometre border between Russia and Finland could become the longest NATO-Russian border. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow would closely watch how NATO uses Finnish and Swedish territories to “draw respective conclusions”. However, it is also clear that in the current situation Sweden and Finland have no other way. At least for the time being.

Getting closer

It may seem there is little to worry about. NATO, which had just recently been declared "brain-dead", is getting better demonstrating unprecedented strength and solidarity, while Europe and the US are joining forces amid Russia's war in Ukraine. Therefore, the enlargement of NATO has been stated necessary as a quick opportunity to further strengthen the alliance, and unsurprisingly, almost all of its members have enthusiastically supported the plan. All except Turkey, NATO's oldest member state, which has never opposed the accession of new members. To consider the applications of Sweden and Finland, Turkey has put forward a number of tough demands, including the cessation of military support for the terrorist organisation PKK and its Syrian offshoot PYD. Ankara also wants the embargo and sanctions against Turkey lifted, including by the US, which has blocked the deliveries of fighter jets F-35. However, Turkey has a number of disagreements with the bloc too - at least in Syria and the eastern Mediterranean.

Therefore, it is not surprising that some Western experts call for Turkey’s exclusion from NATO. Although it is practically impossible to do so because there is no formal mechanism for exclusion. In addition, if we compare the overall authority and benefits that Turkey brings in to the alliance with those of Finland and Sweden, NATO will definitely opt for Turkey, for various reasons. Firstly, Turkey is the second strongest army in NATO. Secondly, the US uses Turkish military bases. Thirdly, Turkey is an important buyer of US weapons. Fourthly, Ankara plays an instrumental role as NATO’s sea gates to the Black Sea. Fifthly, Turkey prevents the lion’s share of the inflow of illegal migrants and refugees from the Middle East to Europe. And finally, Turkey’s geopolitical role in the Middle East, the South Caucasus and Central Asia has grown considerably. Plus, Turkey functions a bridge between Europe, NATO and the Muslim world, also being the most significant energy and logistics hub in the region. Despite its refusal to support sanctions against Russia, Turkey generally supports the West's position on Ukraine. Finally, and most importantly, if Turkey leaves NATO, it could turn towards Russia and China. Considering the above, Ankara's demands amid such a strong background are quite appropriate and far-sighted. NATO has to ensure the security of all member states, and this would be a fair approach. Even Croatia, which is in no way comparable to Turkey, is thinking about the same thing.

It is fair to say that some circles in the US, which pays back the bulk of bills in the alliance reaching billions of dollars, demand that Washington distance itself from NATO, or even leave the alliance altogether. However, these are mostly marginal votes because, as it has been repeatedly mentioned that NATO is Washington’s seat behind the European table, the main one. And Washington doesn’t mind to pay for that.

Chinese position on global security

But we should remember that, despite the ongoing developments in and around Ukraine, China is the main rival of the US. AUKUS, including the US, Britain and Australia, has been created against China and may expand by getting in a few more countries from Europe and Southeast Asia for the perspective confrontation with Beijing. The trigger may well be the dispute over Taiwan. For example, during his recent tour of Asia, US President Joe Biden discussed in Tokyo and Seoul the development of regional alliances. Biden also said that China was playing with fire by threatening Taiwan and promised that the US military would intervene if the island came under attack. A truly remarkable event of the tour was the summit of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), including the US, Japan, Australia and India. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi very meaningfully referred to the organisation as an Indo-Pacific NATO. Washington’s other moves to counter Beijing include the launch of a major economic cooperation program in the region called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), including Australia, Brunei, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and the US.

So far Beijing has not taken any steps to escalate the situation, but it has made a few harsh statements addressed to the White House. On May 19, there was a telephone conversation between Yang Jiechi, a member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, who is also the head of the Office of Foreign Affairs Commission under the CPC Central Committee, and Jake Sullivan, National Security Adviser to the US President. Mr. Yang said China would take strong measures to protect its sovereignty and security interests in case of US interference in domestic affairs. In addition, Beijing continues to make statements about its readiness to act as a unifying hub for an alliance of states capable of "introducing stability in an era of radical changes in international relations". Earlier, on April 21, Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward a global security initiative at the opening ceremony of the annual meeting of the Boao Asia Forum. Americans immediately interpreted the initiative as pro-Russian, noting that China was repeating the Kremlin's theses, apparently referring to the concept of indivisible security.

On June 29-30, the NATO summit is going to adopt a new strategy for the next decade. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has roughly outlined what we can expect: “It is important that we focus on a global NATO.” We can expect that Russia be identified as an "immediate threat" in the text of the proposed document, while China will likely be on focus of the Atlanticists too.

NATO’s position on global security

To what extent will NATO enlargement, Chinese plans, Russia's suppression in Ukraine and any other new initiatives in this area contribute to international security?  Or can we expect that they lead to further escalation and deepening of the gap between Russia and the West, the West and China, etc.? In his address to the graduates of the West Point Military Academy, General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, explicitly spoke of the increased risk of conflict between the world powers. As Milley said, Moscow and Beijing have significant military capabilities and intend to change the current international order. Notably, the Russian media recalls the words of George Kennan, the architect of America's strategy of containment and isolation of the Soviet Union, who warned that NATO expansion following the collapse of the USSR "would be the most fatal mistake of American policy since the end of the Cold War”. They also quote other experts, such as Henri Guaino, special adviser to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He believes that by expanding NATO and pushing European Union borders close to Russia, the US and Europe have "awakened in Russians the feeling of encirclement, which has been at the origin of so many of European wars… The West has convinced itself that if Russia wins in Ukraine, its desire to dominate will have no limits. Conversely, Russia has convinced itself that if the West attracts Ukraine into its camp, it is the West that will no longer limit its hegemonic ambitions," Henri Guaino said.

The overall situation is rather unpleasant, even threatening. The 30(+2) NATO member states have almost four times as many personnel as the Russian army, and many more tanks, aircraft and artillery weapons in total. But the Kremlin is reported to have a larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons deployed near European borders. In other words, you can easily ignore the rest of the document focusing on these two sentences only. The meaning of the message will not change. Yes, that is the world order (or disorder) we collectively have in 2022. There is a full-fledged military and political crisis in Europe and in the world that can lead to a clash of nuclear powers. And regardless the outcome of this confrontation and the winners, its indirect victims will inevitably be the global economy, food security, health, education, climate and culture...