NATO needs to “shift to wartime mindset”
In his first major speech as NATO chief, former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte minced no words in urging member states to “shift to a wartime mindset and substantially increase defense production and spending.” I called out.
Perhaps cynics would say this is because the new Secretary-General has taken a “better safe than sorry” approach, warning of existential threat or even calling for an increase in the budget. But now is not the time to be cynical or look for ulterior motives, but to recognize that this is a real battle cry for the West in the face of military threats coming from many directions.
For too long, the Western powers that make up this international security organization have clung to the post-Cold War euphoria of “total victory” over the Soviet bloc, from a military and, more importantly, ideological point of view. perceptual perspective. The combination of military superiority and values-based victories gave the West a false illusion that it was invincible.
Serious military security challenges have existed since the early post-Cold War era of the 1990s, including Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, wars in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda, and many other flashpoints. Furthermore, major powers, primarily Russia and China, are becoming increasingly dissatisfied and are beginning to challenge the unipolar international system dominated by the United States.
Despite growing evidence to the contrary, NATO member states are deferring investment in defense to counter growing global threats, investing in their own economies and improving living standards and public services. He preferred to believe that he could enjoy the benefits of peace by allowing But Mr. Rutte’s speech provided a strong case for ending danger denial, urging members of the organization to remain indifferent to Russia’s aggression against Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014, and President Vladimir Putin. It was rightly reminded that it refuses to accept the possibility of launching a military attack. An all-out war against Ukraine demonstrated Russia’s weakness to Moscow and had dire consequences.
NATO also pays little attention to Russia’s longstanding support and abetting of the Assad family’s atrocities in Syria. Although the Assad regime only recently fell, it has caused more than 500,000 deaths and untold suffering to its people over almost 14 years. remaining population.
There are two messages. Firstly, Russia spends 7-8% of its GDP on defense, which is a third of its budget, and China is also rapidly catching up in terms of its own defense spending, with Europe joining NATO. The country’s average spending and Canada’s is estimated at just 2% of GDP, insufficient to address future threats.
These numbers are a significant increase from just a few years ago, largely due to the epiphany moment brought about by President Putin’s initiation of the current war against Ukraine, but also due to the This is due to more than mere lobbying from the United States during the first Trump administration. It was one of his articles of faith at the time, and he would pursue it even more fervently in his second term. Admittedly, these numbers are somewhat deceptive from a military preparedness perspective, as the majority of countries’ defense budgets tend to be allocated to pensions and other items that do not directly contribute to combat power.
The second challenge for NATO members is to accept that the world has entered a period of long-term instability, with increasing threats to Western values and ways of life. This situation requires improved military capabilities and preparedness, which should be complemented by diplomacy in the broadest sense, including investments in soft power.
The challenge for NATO members is to accept that the world has entered a period of prolonged instability.
Yossi Mekelberg
Modern warfare is becoming increasingly hybrid, with kinetic warfare still proving to be a major aspect of warfare, such as the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Lebanon, but it is also driven by cyber security and cyber disinformation, With the introduction of AI, immigration, regular and irregular forces will all require close attention in terms of new skills and readiness.
The cost of military platforms is also rising exponentially, and while public services are desperate for additional resources as growth in Western economies slows, diverting resources to defense spending is not seeing measurable returns. It has become a polarizing issue because it is not easy to do or prove. many societies.
As the new NATO Secretary-General emphasized in his remarks, the threat to Europe is no longer theoretical or abstract, but is now at hand. “Hostiles against the Allies are real and accelerating. Malicious cyberattacks on both sides of the Atlantic. Assassination attempts on British and German soil. Explosions at ammunition depots in the Czech Republic. Poland, Latvia, Weaponization of illegally entered migrants in Lithuania and Finland; sabotage of civil aviation in the Baltic region.”
Delays in building the capacity to respond to these types of threats will only encourage Putin and others to undermine NATO members.
While much focus has rightly been on Putin’s threat to Europe since February 2022 as a result of the Ukraine war, the challenges emanating from China and Iran, and the pair’s cooperation with Russia, are also of great concern. This is a matter of concern. Donald Trump’s election to a second term is almost certain to increase tensions with Beijing, but at the same time his return to the White House does not necessarily mean a return to NATO, given his troubled relationship with NATO during his first term. This is not to suggest that the relationship is easy.
President Trump views the remaining NATO members as free riders at the expense of the United States, but the situation has changed significantly and most countries now meet expectations of spending 2% of GDP on defense. There is. Still, after four years of resolute commitment to the NATO ally by the Biden administration, Trump and his hawkish appointees to key foreign and defense posts are taking a leadership role in NATO. I don’t know yet if it’s suitable. Including providing a nuclear umbrella.
NATO as a collective security instrument has come full circle since its creation in 1949. In 1949, the fault lines between the two rival blocs, the United States and the Soviet Union, were very clear, demonstrating the need to protect Europe and the rest of the world from Soviet aggression. However, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, NATO became a collective security organization in search of a purpose, with member states acting unilaterally rather than collectively, with several disagreements over how to respond to crisis situations.
The Ukraine war and the challenges arising from China are contributing to a 21st century model of NATO as a defender of the West and its values, and NATO with Finland and Sweden has been sitting on the fence for decades. The decision to join NATO demonstrates common NATO values. Fear of Russia. However, this does not mean that Member States can continue to address current challenges by developing a clear collective security vision, supported by diplomacy and appropriate resource allocation, as encouraged by the new Secretary-General. Questions remain as to whether all of these can be addressed. .
• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate research fellow in the MENA program at Chatham House.
X: @YMekelberg
Disclaimer: The views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Arab News.
