The North Atlantic Treaty Organization observed its 74th birthday a few weeks back on April 4, 2023. The outmoded bedrock of American statecraft in Europe almost precludes the need for justification. Indeed, the topic of jubilance in the west is that Finland, a historically neutral and non-aligned country, finally formally joined the North Atlantic alliance.
With Helsinki’s entry, the alliance expands to 31 member-states and increases its shared border with Russia by over 830 miles. The shift from non-alignment to a spear-tip member of the US-led military alliance leaves Austria and Ireland as the only European countries left to keep to and act on a neutral position in foreign policy.
It’s unclear what role Finland will play in the US-backed, Brussels-based military alliance. The alliance’s newest member has refused to quarter American nuclear weapons on its soil, but Helsinki is unsurprisingly participating in alliance exercises and entering the pact’s nuclear planning group.
Questions left unasked by authorities and journalists are too many to count. Most importantly, how does adding another defense commitment and expanding NATO’s border with Russia – a country with which the alliance is fighting a proxy war – make America any safer?
Congress answered that question months ago when the authorities almost unanimously approved Finland and Sweden’s membership resolution.
The other question to ask is what effect will the abandonment of Finnish neutrality have on the future of European security? Is reducing European security to the question of joining a military pact really the best course of action?
The day-to-day uncertainties of the Russo – Ukrainian war and the west’s direct involvement in it make sketching a post-war European security structure very difficult. It’s clear, without some sort of ceasefire or political resolution, fighting will be the primary means of settling disputes.
The Finns joined NATO in reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year. Yet replacing the practice of non-alignment in favor of a policy of bloc politics is a significant step, and Finland’s neighbor, Sweden, which also shares a history in neutrality, is next to join the alliance if things go accordingly. By year’s end, Europe will most likely have two less non-aligned countries that could have played a unique role as neutral actors in resolving conflicts, and the NATO-ification of Europe will be one step closer to complete.
An increase to the pact’s overall size and territory is not the only change. “Deterrence by denial,” as detailed by the The Times, is a revolution in strategy which breaks from the longstanding practice of forward defense. “More troops based permanently along the Russian border, more integration of American and allied war plans, more military spending and more detailed requirements for allies to have specific kinds of forces and equipment to fight, if necessary, in pre-assigned places.” The shift in strategic thinking follows the establishment of the first permanent US military base in Poland. More and more American military personnel are heading to Europe, not to advise and listen, but to lead and decide on matters that are oftentimes irrelevant to most Americans.
As Steven E. Sokol, the president of the BlackRock and Goldman Sachs-sponsored American Council of Germany, honestly said, “Ukraine is waging Europe’s war.” But it’s not Europe’s war — it’s the cross-Atlantic pact’s proxy war. Certain European countries might be the dealer in some cases, but the United States is the house.
European security will be increasingly more militarized and henceforth more unpredictable if it’s tied to the idea of Ukrainian battlefield and political victory against Russia. Supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes is not a policy that encourages any sort of timely conclusion to the conflict.
The alliance has long been the sole and most important instrument of European security. Europe’s dependence on it, as well as on American troop deployments, and massive amounts of US military aid, has only increased since Russia’s invasion. Enlargement is a scheme that puts more emphasis on fixing a broken status quo, then it is about trying to create a workable peace for all parties.
Washington refused to address Russia’s concerns about Ukrainian NATO membership in negotiations between the two powers weeks before Russia launched its attack. The War Party now opposes providing Ukraine any sort of roadmap to NATO membership. Ukraine’s entry isn’t off the table, but it isn’t on the docket either. Neutrality would be one option, but that avenue seems less likely by the day.
An antique of modern statecraft, the aged alliance plodded through the Cold War and marched its alliance eastward after the Kremlin’s state-communist system collapsed. Its first operation came not during the Cold War, but during the Gulf War.
Soon after its maiden foe vanquished was the alliance really inspired to act, intervening in Yugoslavia in the 1990s under the Clinton administration. That confidence in Bosnia and Serbia was muffled, then slung farther outside the shores of the North Atlantic – to the Middle East and North Africa.
NATO is the “single most consequential alliance in history,” remarked President Joe Biden during a trip in Poland. “We have to have security in Europe.”
Security viewed only as a test of defense or deterrence overlooks the importance of trust. The existence of NATO as the only means through which European countries can access security is more a triumph of dullness and war than it is anything. If Europe is to be more secure, it’s better off looking for something else.
