NATO AND GLOBAL DIVISION

The NATO Summit held in Madrid at the end of June approved the organisation's new Strategic Concept. There is no doubt that the implementation of this vision, which outlines the development priorities of the Alliance for the next decade, will have a huge impact on the content and nature of global policy. Apparently, we are going to see the advent of an extremely significant new world order, by and large, due to the activities of NATO as a military and political Western organisation.

Threats and challenges

Three decades after the Cold War, which ended with the victory of the US-led Alliance, followed by its commitment to establish a unipolar world order dominated by the West, NATO has had to make major adjustments to its strategy. The world is changing as well as Europe and Asia, being the most important parts of the world in terms of NATO's interests. Thus, NATO decided to renew its fundamental approach to current geopolitical processes and their prospective analysis.

The Russian-Ukrainian war was the key event that prompted the alliance to adopt not only a new but a different strategic concept. The largest armed conflict in Europe since the Second World War has clearly challenged NATO's role given the substantial shifts in security on the continent, which is the organisation's priority area of political-military influence. Hence the first significant difference between the new Strategic Concept and the previous one adopted at NATO's Lisbon Summit in 2010. Back in the time, twelve years ago, the leaders of the member states stated assessed the level of "threat of conventional attack on the territory of NATO" as low. According to the new concept though it is unacceptable to underestimate the "attack" on the member states because of the following fundamental difference in the status of Russia, previously considered as NATO’s strategic partner and the main threat to the alliance now.

"Russian Federation's aggressive war against Ukraine has destroyed peace and seriously altered our security environment. Russia’s brutal and illegal invasion, repeated violations of international humanitarian law and horrific attacks and atrocities have caused unprecedented suffering and destruction," states the Madrid declaration of the NATO Summit. Hence the conclusion: "The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to the security of NATO member states and to the peace and stability of the Euro-Atlantic region. It seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct control through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation.”

Meanwhile, viewing Russia as a major threat to its existence, NATO is trying to ensure a balance between confronting Moscow and preventing developments that could lead to a direct confrontation with it. To overcome this difficult task, the NATO leadership has decided to somehow smooth the edges of bilateral relations. On the one hand, the new strategic concept of NATO asserts that "in light of Russia's hostile policies and actions" the alliance can no longer consider it a partner. On the other hand, it nonetheless states: "However, we intend to continue to keep channels of communication open with Moscow in order to manage and mitigate risks, prevent escalation and enhance transparency".

Above all, this is a clear message to Russia implying that if it stops "its aggressive behaviour", NATO will be ready to change its attitude towards it. But until then, the alliance intends to continue to contain Russia, both by maintaining and tightening the sanctions and by increasing the NATO rapid reaction force in Europe from 40,000 troopers currently to more than 300,000.

According to the new concept, Russia's deterrence must be accompanied by a strengthening of the security of NATO member states. But not only that, for the provision of appropriate assistance to partner states, primarily to Ukraine, is also seen as a factor contributing "to the advance of the common interests of Euro-Atlantic peace, stability and security".

Parallel challenges

The next important point of the new NATO concept concerns China, which was not mentioned at all in the previous version of the document. During the twelve years following the Lisbon summit, China's role in global political and economic affairs has increased significantly. This is reflected in NATO’s current guidelines. For the first time, China has been identified by NATO as a country that poses serious challenges to the alliance. According to the concept, these challenges are caused by China's intention to take control over key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure and strategically important resources, while its "malicious hybrid actions and cyber operations, confrontational rhetoric and disinformation are against NATO allies and harm the alliance's security".

Overall, NATO's new Strategic Concept underlines that "the People's Republic of China's stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values. China uses a wide range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global influence and demonstrate power, while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up.”

However, as with the statement on the Russian threat, NATO leaves room for softening its stance on China as well. Hence the caveat: NATO remains open to constructive engagement with China. However, NATO’s assessment of the deepening strategic partnership between China and Russia is apparently negative, as it views the ongoing rapprochement "mutually reinforcing, contrary to our values and interests, attempts to undermine the rule-based international order". In doing so, NATO has, in effect, officially acknowledged that it views the developments between Moscow and Beijing as a challenge to the Western world and its global leadership.

The new Strategic Concept of NATO re-confirms the international terrorism, climate, disease and hunger as global threats. However, the quintessence of the document is undoubtedly the alliance's corresponding assessment of Russia and China in terms of its strategic interests. An assessment that will largely shape global policy over the coming decades.

Opponents of tentacles

The new NATO Strategic Concept was unanimously adopted in spite of certain contradictions within the alliance itself. In particular, traditional disputes over the perception of the US leadership within the Western community by leading European states remain unresolved. Nor is there complete unanimity in Western attitudes towards Russia and China. However, there is a convergence of views within NATO on key issues, namely, that there is no alternative to unity within the alliance and that it should not allow Russia to expand its influence on the international stage, win the war with Ukraine, or allow China to push the West off as the leader of the global economy and politics.

The reaction of the West's main adversaries to the key provisions of the new NATO Strategic Concept is not surprising. Russia believes that "in Madrid, NATO completed the evolutionary twist in its development since its founding in 1949 and returned to its origins, that is, to the military security arrangements of the Cold War period". Moscow views the recognition of Russia as a threat to NATO as "a real bid to contain Russia on all fronts, in all spheres".

China is also criticising the provisions of the new NATO concept for "failing to reassess the changed balance of global power". Similar to Moscow, Beijing believes that the Madrid document encourages confrontation and is "filled with a Cold War mentality". "China expresses serious concern and strong protest in this regard," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, accusing NATO itself of being a "systemic challenge to world peace and stability".

It is noteworthy that North Korea has also strongly condemned the new NATO Strategic Concept. The country’s leadership accused the US and NATO of "not only militarising Europe, but also its intention to turn the Asia-Pacific region into a zone of their sole influence, creating a threat of nuclear war through their actions".

The positions of Beijing and Pyongyang clearly show their aversion to NATO's spreading its influence into the Asia-Pacific region as well. The invitation of leaders from Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries of the region to the Madrid summit of NATO has caused evident irritation in China and North Korea. Also, both countries expressed their concern over plans to strengthen the US-Japan-South Korea trilateral military alliance as well as the AUKUS military bloc between the US, Britain and Australia. Beijing and Pyongyang, and by and large Moscow, believe that these plans are designed to contain China, Russia and North Korea. And as such, their essence fits perfectly within the logic of NATO's new Strategic Concept.

Obviously, NATO’s new strategy is an indicator of growing global tensions, a toughening confrontation between the leading power centres. The West led by the US and NATO stands on one side of the global division, with Russia and China on the other. In this clash of the giants the ability of the rest of the world primarily represented by Russia and China to unite their efforts against the ‘golden billion’—the collective West, which pretends to maintain its leadership on the planet—will be imperative. However, irrespective of any positional success of the key actors of the global confrontation, the whole mankind is facing serious risks. For, no matter how pathetic it may sound, there is indeed a growing threat to the future of peace and security on the planet.