Don’t let the headlines fool you, things aren’t as rosy as they seem in NATO.
At the most recent NATO summit in Vilnius there was some big news: Turkey has finally agreed to lift its veto on Sweden joining the alliance. As I’ve made clear on the blog, I vehemently oppose Swedish NATO membership, and the entire drama between Stockholm and Ankara has only hardened that belief. NATO policy requires consensus on letting new members join the alliance, which is why Sweden’s application has not yet been processed. In theory, that is a good idea as it ensures allies are committed to mutual defence, as the NATO treaty insists they should be. In practice however, a drawn-out joining process, even if an eventual consensus is reached, instead ensures the joining party cannot trust any of the potential allies. Turkey dropping its veto changes nothing, as the fact that it has vetoed Swedish membership for over a year has already broken the trust needed for a successful alliance. At the same time, events at the Vilnius summit raise more and more questions about the future of NATO itself.
NATO has had a remarkable comeback between the low points of French president Macron calling it braindead and American president Trump threatening to leave it just a few short years ago. Now NATO is more unified than ever as it for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union deals with the type of threat it was designed for: Russia pushing west through military force. Yet even when the allies are at their most unified they still couldn’t agree on no-brainer choices like admitting Finland and Sweden; two rich, relatively militarily advanced, and strategically located countries. Turkey’s opposition to letting Finland and Sweden join NATO was primarily due to how the two countries treats Kurds, political rather than strategic issues. It makes sense to be weary of letting freeloaders join an alliance, but it doesn’t make much sense to quibble over politics when the local great power is attacking its neighbour. A reversal of the last few years of good fortune may be coming.
To me, the fact that Turkey is so intent on refusing Swedish membership due to politics shows that the issue is broadly trivial in Ankara. Your enemy’s enemy is your friend and as history has shown time and time again, when states really feel threatened they are willing to work with parties they would normally never engage with. The prime example is Nixon going to China, a case where geopolitics trumped normal politics. The fact that politics is trumping geopolitics in Ankara tells me Turkey doesn’t take the geopolitical threat from Russia very seriously. That’s a problem for NATO as it is ostensibly an alliance formed to counter Russian power in Europe.
At the same time as Turkey decided to play nice there were discussions about what the future of NATO looks like and, unsurprisingly, the US wants the alliance to focus on the strategic threat from China. Never mind the fact that the US is literally the only country in NATO whose interests are materially challenged by a rising China. The picture the Vilnius summit paints is of an alliance with a faulty foundation. Things may well look good now, but the most important part of a functioning alliance is having common interests. Neither the US’ nor Turkey’s actions speak to countries which consider Russia their biggest and most immediate threat, yet that belief is what NATO is built on.
I don’t think Sweden can trust NATO to show up when it counts, and given that the US is far more focused on the Pacific than the Atlantic, I think there are states already in NATO which may need to reassess how much they trust NATO too. It doesn’t make sense for anyone to publicly admit that their alliance won’t be honoured, and it certainly doesn’t make sense for the NATO bureaucracy to admit that the alliance is no longer relevant. But regardless of what the member themselves might say, the signs of decline are starting to show.
If you liked this post you can read my last post about Twitter and Threads here, or the rest of my writings here. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Cover photo by Natallia Photo from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Комментарии