The recently completed 75 years since the founding of the North Atlantic Alliance (and 20 years since the admission of Bulgaria into it) is a good reason to reflect on the current condition of the most powerful military alliance in the world - does its behavior in the geopolitical arena really correspond to its potential and demands? Even more so, in the context of the upcoming election of a new Secretary General of the Alliance.
The current one - Jens Stoltenberg - recently gave an interview to the BBC, in which he emphasized how dictatorships such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are acting in ever-increasing synchronicity and are practically uniting against NATO and the democratic world. He also mentioned that Ukraine "must decide what compromises to make" to achieve peace, and "we have to give them the opportunity to be in a position where they can actually achieve an acceptable result at the negotiating table".
Of course, the interview does not stop there, but it is clear that the Secretary General is trying to justify NATO for the insufficient (or even half-hearted) support for Ukraine. And the suspicion that the West does not adequately help Kiev has its solid grounds - both in the inability of the European Union to provide the necessary amount of shells, and in the refusal of American senators to vote on military aid packages for Ukraine (although these aids involve the American military-industrial complex).
It is frivolous to claim that NATO cannot hit a stronger arm of the Ukrainian army. It is true that thanks to Western aid, Kiev has held the front for over two years now, but is that all we can do? Let's recall how long the international forces, dominated precisely by NATO, drove the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait ("Desert Storm" operation)? A little more than a month... Yes, Russia is a much bigger and more powerful country than Iraq, but against the background of NATO's potential (population, armed forces, GDP and military budgets of the member countries) both are more or less equal away.
But Putin can push the "nuclear" button... Again? Nuclear weapons deter possible aggression against the country that possesses them. And this is not about attacking Russia at all. The goal is to expel the Russian aggressors from the territory of Ukraine (this basically includes Crimea, although the peninsula can be a bargaining chip in peace negotiations), to liquidate the Donbas separatist entities, and to have their leaders follow the fate of Saddam Hussein.
History shows that nuclear powers (the USA and the USSR) have clashed on the territory of third countries before - during the Korean War (1950-53). And no nuclear apocalypse has followed from that.
And if the Alliance's passivity is dictated by reasons not to advertise itself directly as a party to the war in Ukraine, this is also no longer "catch dickish" - at the beginning of April, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov quite unequivocally announced that NATO and Russia are in a "direct confrontation".
The truth is that NATO has no commitment to Ukraine. And for the most part, he doesn't want to help her more seriously. Simply because most countries don't care about the war there. But at the expense of this, they are fed up with the inconveniences that this war brings with it. That is why they send indirect signals (first Pope Francis, now the Secretary General of NATO) to Kiev in the style of "for two years you pretended to be heroes, but let's end this story".
Let's start with the United States. What impact does the course of hostilities in Ukraine have on the lives of the average Texas/Nebraska/New Jersey/Oregon resident? And if Russia wins the war, what will change for these American citizens? Practically nothing. They are excited about completely different things - the migrant pressure from the south, the price of real estate, unemployment, even the "boutique" in our eyes a topic about abortion. And this is realized not only by Donald Trump, but also by other American politicians (for example, Ted Cruz), who do not burn with the desire to strengthen tens of billions of dollars to a front line that is difficult to find for a large part of their voters. And to the extent that the administration of President Biden has engaged with the conflict, it is mostly because of its outbreak in this term. And if they had completely "slept through" it, it would reflect on the image of the US as a global hegemon. (Although this image was damaged by Biden himself saying in the first hours of the Russian invasion how the United States would not intervene. But let's not dwell.)
For identical reasons, Canada has no reason to be particularly excited about the development of the war in Ukraine. When you're so far away, you certainly have other priorities.
Turkey is not worried either, although it is geographically very close to the conflict. Simply because Ankara has arranged the solitaire so that it can benefit from any outcome. Even if he plays a mediator for peace before that.
Most Western European countries don't care enough either. There is some concern in their societies that a negative development in Ukraine could bring them trouble, but at the same time they want someone else (ie the United States) to do the dirty work. And this is an attitude from before the start of the Russian invasion - the mass "slaughter" from the Wales Agreements 2014 (minimum 2% of GDP for defence) it was there earlier. As well as "the meager interest" to military service.
Only on NATO's eastern flank are they really worried. (And not all of them - Orban's Hungary, for example, is squeamish about the common European line of support for Ukraine and tries to "individual rescue".) The danger to Europe in the event of Ukraine's defeat is realized only in countries such as Poland, Romania, the Baltic countries, Sweden , Finland (the latter two therefore hastily joined NATO, and Sweden ended over 200 years of neutrality). It would probably be realized in Bulgaria as well, if our society was not so susceptible to Russian propaganda.
In general, the member states of the Alliance, being democratic (without Turkey), fall into one of the traps of democracy - the dependence of politicians on the feelings of voters. In North America, voters are not excited about Ukraine, but in Europe they dream of "passing a meter". And the politicians have to please them in order to be re-elected.
While in dictatorships this problem does not exist. Moreover, dictators use external aggression with the aim of internally rallying society behind the regime.
If Stoltenberg sees a coordinated attack by authoritarian regimes against democracies, he may be right, but that is a minor detail in the big picture. The main drama of democracies is that they cannot produce adequate leaders. And it turns out that only dictatorships have vital leadership. Which is bad news for supporters of democracy. But that's their problem. However, the threat to Europe is a problem for all of us.
Many have come to see NATO as a defender of democracy, freedom and "Euro-Atlantic values", whatever that means. And in reality, NATO is the protector of Europe. Including Bulgaria, which, if it leaves the Alliance tomorrow, puts its territorial integrity under direct threat, given the systematic attacks on the state of the Bulgarian army and the imposition of the pernicious attitude "NATO will protect us". The question is who will benefit first - Turkey or Russia.
That is why the question of whether NATO will be taken over is of prime importance. The answer also depends on the election of a new general secretary next summer.
There is still time until then, but the signals at the moment are not encouraging. If the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is the favorite over the Romanian President Klaus Iohannis (and it seems so given the reactions of many member states), then for the future we can only expect "more of the same". Striving for a "negotiation with Russia", actually delaying the inevitable.
NATO today is a pale shadow of itself. And it should be realized. Otherwise, and Art. 5 will stop respecting his opponents.