Politics

¿El fin de la OTAN?

Jul 18, 2018 Carl Bildt

ESTOCOLMO – ¿Qué queda de la OTAN y del orden transatlántico después de la tumultuosa semana del presidente norteamericano, Donald Trump, en Bruselas, el Reino Unido y Helsinki, donde defendió al presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, contra acusaciones de una guerra cibernética de las propias agencias de inteligencia de Estados Unidos?

Si miramos cómo se desarrollan los acontecimientos con lentes color de rosa, podríamos pensar que la alianza estratégica más importante de Occidente está más o menos bien, o inclusive que se está volviendo más fuerte. En verdad, la OTAN está en peligro, y su destino hoy está depositado en las manos desdeñosas de Trump.

Antes y durante la cumbre de la OTAN, hubo mucho debate sobre el gasto militar de los estados miembro como porcentaje del PIB. Se espera que cada miembro incremente su gasto al 2% del PIB en 2024, pero Trump al parecer piensa que esto ya se debería de haber hecho. Y en la cumbre la semana pasada, de repente exigió un nuevo objetivo del 4% del PIB -que es más, inclusive, de lo que gasta Estados Unidos.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

Carl Bildt

Writing for PS since 2009
118 Commentaries

Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and prime minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 22 Comments on this article

Alex Tuz Aug 17, 2018

Bild represents outdated agressive Cold War thinking camp that promotes American imperialism. Time for him to retire.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chandrashekar Tamirisa Jul 23, 2018

Trump and the United States and the Europeans are on the wrong track with NATO. The future of security and cooperation in Europe should be the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) because it includes Russia as a member. NATO is an obsolete entity after the end of the Cold War, much like the now dissolved Warsaw Pact.

Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s program GPS points out that America had a historic opportunity to transform Russia after the end of the Cold War into a liberal democracy which it squandered and instead expanded NATO to Russian borders. He is correct but that was because America is not committed to the total nuclear disarmament of the world which only America and Russia can do together. Expecting the United States to maintain a nuclear arsenal while denuclearizing other countries is a poor and unrealistic strategy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Maitland Jul 23, 2018

It's shameful that Carl Bildt should shill for the EU's leadership. Sadly I recall that as a UN peace negotiator, he ignored the Serb genocide in Bosnia and Croatia and he shamefully opposed Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's call for NATO to intervene. That does not inspire confidence in his leadership and judgment.

How can we take Bildt seriously when his claims don't match with what we are hearing in the US? The reports I read say that Germany's Defense Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, has admitted that German will not reach the 2% of GDP level of military spending by 2024. In fact, Germany doesn't even have PLANS to meet the target. New reports here say that in recent maneuvers one-third of German elite forces were armed with broomsticks instead of guns. And Trump had a point when he said that Germany had made itself a "captive" of Russia by green-lighting the Nord Stream 2 project. Nothing Trump has said has inflicted as much damage on NATO as what Merkel has done.

NATO is the key to maintaining peace in EU. It is time European leaders like you woke up to your responsibilities. It is outrageous that you use Trump's clumsiness and boorishness to deflect attention from the ongoing failure of EU leadership.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 22, 2018

Carl Bildt asks if the world is seeing the “end” of NATO. Its secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg does not agree, claiming the Transatlantic bond is not weakening but actually strengthening. Ahead of the NATO summit in Brussels last week many feared that it would end like the G7 summit in June. Trump had previously been highly critical of the Alliance, complaining the US pays more than others.
By the end of the summit, he hailed "tremendous progress" and said he believed in NATO, claiming European leaders had caved in to his demands.
Military commanders in Europe and the US who have worked together for decades, had to fear for the first time that Trump could break up NATO or walk away taking the US with him, unless other countries increased defence spending. He set a deadline of January, which most experts deemed totally impractical. Both the French and Germans later denied such a commitment and cast doubt on Trump’s claim. In fact the EU’s total military budget is already second only to that of the US, and almost four times larger than Russia’s.
The author points out that Trump knows nothing about NATO and gets wrong about its raison d’être. NATO membership is agreed by a treaty that would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate to overthrow. The US forms the core of NATO, and sees the Alliance as indispensable, having the biggest defence budget in the world. “Over the past few decades, NATO’s primary focus was on peacekeeping operations in distant places, rather than on its core function of territorial defense.” Peace and stability had justified spending cuts in domestic military. All that changed since Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and aggression in Eastern Ukraine.
Trump has always accused European allies of being “freeloaders” and his claim is entirely spurious. The fact is that “roughly three-quarters of US military spending is directed toward regions other than Europe. Around half of the US defense budget is spent on maintaining a presence in the Pacific, and another quarter is spent on operations in the Middle East, strategic nuclear command and control, and other areas.”
The author also points out that keeping America safe, its bases in Europe – Ramstein, Fairford, Rota, Vicenza, and Sigonella – remain vital. Spending has been increased in recent years, because “forces and facilities there are actually focused on the geostrategic arc from India to South Africa.” These bases serve “as a staging ground for deploying forces elsewhere. And the early-warning and surveillance facilities that the US maintains in the United Kingdom and Norway are there to defend the continental US, not Europe.”
Trump’s obsession with higher spending levels will only be productive if the resources are properly managed. Europe needs to have the capacity and infrastructure to facilitate joint NATO missions and US operations on and around the continent. Moreover it “needs more military forces, and those forces need to be equipped for rapid deployment to critical areas” to thwart an attack or invasion without a protracted decision-making process, which the author finds “deteriorating.”
He points out Russia’s “advantages” over NATO, because it is a “single” country, whose forces are “more integrated, and can be deployed more quickly in pursuit of strategic directives” from one person – Putin. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2015 intervention in Syria had showed “such nimbleness”. As part of a hybrid warfare Putin conducted in 2014, special forces that wore no insignia, the so-called “Little Green Men” were deployed to masquerade an invasion.
Should a Crimea-style aggression unfold in the Baltics, the political process involved in responding to the crisis could be mind-bloggling, especially with Trump as president. First alarm would be raised. Then US intelligence agencies “confirmed that an act of aggression was indeed underway, despite Putin’s denials.” Trump might call Putin and ask what happened. And Putin might “make another ‘incredible offer’ to help US investigators get to the bottom of things.” The pressing issue would be: “Would Trump quickly invoke the principle of collective defense under Article 5 of the NATO treaty? Or would he hesitate, question the intelligence, belittle US allies, and validate Putin’s denials?”
In this regard, Europe needs to improve its military capability to defend its borders, instead of relying on America’s security umbrella, regardless of Trump’s rants about spending increases.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
eric zepp Jul 22, 2018

In defending NATO's limp response to agreed upon budget increases the author writes: "To be sure, over the past few decades, NATO’s primary focus was on peacekeeping operations in distant places, rather than on its core function of territorial defense." And "While the US military budget equals roughly 72% of combined defense spending by all NATO member states, roughly three-quarters of US military spending is directed toward regions other than Europe."

OK, so there's alot of military spending by both parties is for security reasons outside the Fulda Gap. This contributes nothing to the case why European members should be let off the hook.

Trump may be blunt to the point of obnoxious, but he has a legitimate beef. And all of Europe's fetish for "soft power" and other political unicorns, wouldn't fix it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anne Deighton Jul 19, 2018

Am I the only one to spot the irony of the Swedish take on NATO. There is argument to be made that Swedes and Finns have been free riding on NATO since its inception. What is Bildt's take on this?
- neel503bharat Jul 22, 2018
  
  though the Hegemon _US has to provide for some free riding in order to head the order, EU states have saved money from military expenditure ,used for a more productive purpose -towards social democracy & its welfare states while US has regressed as a welfare state & become controlled by the MIL_INDUSTL complex. RUSSIA wants to a part of the liberal western order ,but you have to ask nicely!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Raja Rajamani Jul 22, 2018
  
  Agree 100%. Some level of hypocracy in this article.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Skevas Chris Jul 19, 2018

the european nato member states have an obligation to increase their military spending to 2 percent. they had enough tome since 2014 to do it but until now they have not. there is a lot to criticise about the style and methods of Trump but he is right on that matter
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gunnar Eriksson Jul 19, 2018

There could be some hope that this article could help sobering up the political views of those arguing for Sweden submitting itself to US subservience through NATO membership.
We should be aware of that in spite of the eastern powers aggressive behavior, the US has damaged European stability more through its wars of choice in Middle East, and we have all reasons to fear the now planned conflagration in Iran and Palestine (as it appear).
The wars was surely motivated by profit, but the destabilization of a "Foe" could not be ruled out as a strong argument.
By listening to the debate in EU you would believe that refugees are the biggest problem facing Europe, but for some strange reason the perpetration of wars of choice that create the refugees are not discussed. The natural for Europe would be to receive refugees, but send the bill straight to Washington. In case of not paying a financial transaction tax is levied on US entities.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Charlie Hardy Jul 18, 2018

At least we have some real not false facts here! However perhaps we should remember the book 1984 (which of course happened not with a bang but whimper) and Brave New World. I would emotionally agree but good luck evicting USA forces out of Europe when they have 80+% of world's nuclear firepower. Could Europe sustain war on two fronts east and west? (Of course it would only last an hour for everyone in Northern hemisphere at least {China and Africa to pick up the glowing embers putting immigration in perspective} plus the cyber kickoff which is already underway).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jul 18, 2018

THE ATLANTIC ATOMIZER
Yet another fine slapped by EUSSR - this time on Google.
After slapping the largest ever fines - on Facebook.
And it was Microsoft - that invited the wrath of the EUSSR first.
The Brussels behemoth believes in its Infallibility.
Europe's Unionization has incubated The Atlantic Atomizer.
Underwriting the Reconstruction of Europe post 1945 - birthed Brussels.
President Trump has questioned the billions Merkel wants for Nordstream.
Perhaps slapping fines that ensures Germany achieves the 2 % NATO target.
And if America is spending 4% - then a New Target of 4% perhaps.
Retroactively will ensure the books on Economics balanced with Security.
Time to rein in Brussels - before THE EUSSR becomes The Fourth Reich.
Trump rightfully chose Blenheim to begin his British campaign.
Churchill not Chamberlain - is needed to stop Ribbentrop Molotov Act 2.0.
- Raja Rajamani Jul 22, 2018
  
  :)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry H Jul 18, 2018

European military defence has been allowed to slip into a state of geriatric dependence by allowing the job of protecting the continent to be conducted by the American-led Alliance. Our armies have been reduced to provincial relics of symbolic value only with the job of defending against Russian agression taken over by the United States.
There is no need to spend a single dollar more on defence, if Europe were to unite it's armies and put them under unified command. It can deal with whatever threatens it. What it does need is a big shake-up to get rid of all the dead wood gathered at the top, and to get injected with new energy and a new vision for it's purpose and future.
Abandoning NATO will do that job very nicely.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Jul 18, 2018

If Europe is really spending twice what Russia spends on defense, then the American contribution to Nato is no longer needed. The U.S. should just withdraw (or the Europeans should force the U.S. out) and Europe should defend itself. Seems pretty obvious that American participation in Nato is obsolete at this point.
- Ian Maitland Jul 23, 2018
  
  Peter:
  
  Your proposal is appealing, simple and wrong. The EU's capacity to defend itself can't be measured by bean-counting -- either military manpower or spending. Putin has a unified command and the ability to put Russia's economy on a war footing in hours or days. The EU is at sixes and sevens. Putin will be in Berlin before EU forces have purchased their train tickets to get to the front. Not to mention the environmental regulations they will have to comply with. In any case, one-third of German soldiers are armed only with broomsticks.
  
  Speaking bluntly -- and I don't like Realpolitik any more than you -- the surest way of deterring Putin is not US or EU battlefield superiority. It is US boots on the ground where Putin's attack will have no choice but to shed American blood. Putin knows from Japan's WW2 experience that no matter how successful his blitzkrieg would be, Russia would lose the war.
  
  That is why the US's role is crucial. But that is no excuse for letting our allies off the hook. Their weakness invites adventurism by Putin.
  
  It may sound callous to talk about "sacrificing" US lives. But the alternative is worse -- it is to sacrifice FAR MORE American lives. That is what history has taught us. Do you really believe that the US would not be dragged in -- and on far more disadvantageous terms?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Gunnar Eriksson Jul 19, 2018
  
  You miss an important point; One primary purpose of NATO is that the signatories should buy american hardware for its defence. If no NATO they would obtain what they need in the competitive market
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Bernhard Kopp Jul 18, 2018
  
  This is unfortunately not correct. The European defense spending is heavily on bureaucratic overhead expenses and personnel. All chiefs and no Indians in too many countries. The European total is not proportionate to deployable troops, systems and equipment. For instance, Germany spends only some 13% of its already measly defense budget on 'equipment', France some 20%, and the UK some 25%. The USA reach 50% even for the EMEA-theater. It is not just about money, it is also about military technology and firepower. Be it as it may: Trump is a short-term irritation, maximum 8 years, but, in whatever shape or form, Nato will live on.
  - Peter Schaeffer Jul 18, 2018
    
    BK, I would like to believe you. However, Mr. C. Bildt insists that Europe is already spending twice as much as the Russians. Time for him to get serious about kicking the U.S. out of NATO.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rachid ELAÏDI Jul 18, 2018

Votre peur n'est pas justifiée. Mais il est certain, ni la russes ni les américains ne veulent d'une Europe indépendante, militairement, économiquement, politiquement,... Et si l'Europe présente un cas comme celle de 1945 ,juste après la seconde guerre mondiale où toute l'Europe est à construire, il est alors certain , les américains refuseront un autre plan Marshal. Et cela y va de soi , car le vieux monde ,comme disent les américains est dur à digérer et par les américains et par les russes et par toute autre puissance ! Et il est vrai que les américains utilisent l'OTAN pour leurs business ,afin d'améliorer le rendement financier et en substance,de ce que les américains gagnent derrière toute intervention militaire (Pétrole, gaz , richesses naturelles...) . Et j'imagine l'idée derrière Trump est de remplacer ,de plus en plus de soldats américains en soldats européens(ou des soldats des pays annexés à l'OTAN). Donc les 2% du PIB ou 4% voire plus ,est justement pour renforcer un leader chip américain(car les européens n'en veulent plus d'un affrontement militaire ;ils préfèrent être protégés par des soldats américains) et de transformer l'OTAN en une organisation au doigt et à l’œil du Pentagone et c'est ce que les européens refusent qui met la puce à l'oreille du conseil européen et de la commission et du parlement européen de travailler dur pour avoir une défense purement européenne qui pourrait limiter les abus américains sur l'union européenne(les 28 États).

Car une défense européenne signifie une indépendance des américains et dont le commandement est purement européen et dont le budget serait traité au sein de l'union européen (au Parlement européen) où la contribution de chaque État serait débattue et corrigée par les parlements nationaux qui,le budget, serait fonction des interventions militaires en dehors de l'union européenne . Et 2% du PIB peut observer des augmentations ,mais dans tous les cas de figure, ce budget servirait l'union européenne et non les guerres américaines. Il faut remarquer que 2% est déjà important ,en sus des industries européennes qui devraient faire un effort dans la vente ,en contribuant correctement dans une défense purement européenne.

Et puis les exactions russes ne s’arrêteront pas . Trump ne peut rien faire et le contraire aussi vrai. C'est pour cette raison que les deux représentent deux systèmes(ou philosophies) différents et opposés. Tout ce que les russes ont annexé à leur territoire sont devenus russes et de facto !!. Trump veut utiliser l'OTAN car le territoire américain est loin de toute riposte ,immédiate,des russes. Et ,comme par enchantement, se sont les européens qui payeront les pots cassés des américains . Trump comme les européens savent cette ligne rouge et c'est une raison valable pour créer une défense purement européenne. La question qui s'imposerait ,par la suite, si une défense purement européenne,s'est constituée, est que faire de l'OTAN? Car un État européen ne peut pas être dans les deux organisations à la fois... Mais me semble que la coupe aux lèvres est encore loin . Car cela suppose un consensus politique européen et que les américains feront tout pour faire avorter ce consensus ,car ce n'est pas dans l’intérêt des américains. Et c'est pour cette raison que Trump se dresse de plus en plus, contre le vieux continent et prend séparément chaque pays européen pour le minimiser et l'humilier;l'Allemagne en paye le prix d'utiliser le gaz russe aux détriments de l'offre américain et que les américains veulent envahir par des pipe-lines toute l'Europe.

En outre, les agences de renseignements américains sont aux services des lobbys ,des politiques, ...il suffit de voir comment Tenet avait menti à Colin Powell sur les armes de destruction massive en Irak , alors qu'il s'est avéré ,par la suite que Saddam n'en possédait pas et c'est le général Colin Powel qui disait que Tenet lui avait menti. Donc les services de renseignements sont des outils et se ne sont pas des vérités !!! mais il est certain que les russes peuvent encore et encore annexés d'autres régions frontalières ou non . La question de Syrie ,annexée ,sous une certaine forme par les russes en dit long sur un comportement d’hégémonie. Car si les russes veulent une paix en Syrie , la paix serait réalisée en concordance avec les américains ,avec cartes sur table et, ce n'est en aucun cas la faute au régime ou aux opposants armées . Car ces deux composantes sont alimentées et par les russes et par les américains et c'est un peuple innocent qui paye ... et ,il n'est pas exclue que Trump veut utiliser l'OTAN afin de contrer les russes en Syrie , mais seulement voilà, les européens ne sont pas d'accord car leur dernier accord était sur la Libye qui souffre encore aujourd'hui et il n'y a pas encore de perspective de paix. Et puis , l'OTAN sous mandat des nations unies en Libye montrait les limites et de l'ONU et de l'OTAN qui ne peuvent se concorder pour une action commune ,injuste qui met en doute le droit international.

Et comme vous l'avez remarqué , les capacités politique en manquent cruellement ; les pays membres de l'OTAN sont plus divisés qu'unis . Et pour cause, les objectifs ne sont pas définis politiquement avant leurs réalisation militaire. Si nous supposons que le côté militaire s'améliore car il est purement financier , mais la question qui s'impose et que faire après toute intervention militaire de l'OTAN ? C'est à peu de chose près ,après un coup d’État militaire ,comment construire un État démocratique ,viable et donc cela suppose des politiques chevronnés... les politiques européens se rendent compte de cette insuffisance et comme les systèmes politiques en Europe engendrent de moins de politique chevronnés ,il est donc impératif pour l'Europe d'avoir sa propre défense purement européenne ...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cr7 Cr7 Jul 18, 2018

Split of Europe and NATO has already started with Brexit on one hand and with Turkeys decision to buy S-400 from Russia on the other. Reliable option would be to get turkey into EU,this would counterbalance Eurasian Politics in a long run.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/PpqYIypes

¿El fin de la OTAN?

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

¿El fin de la OTAN?

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification