On April 3, 2024, the international multimedia press center of the Rossiya Segodnya media group hosted a roundtable discussion “NATO: 75 Years at the Forefront of Escalation,” marking the 75th anniversary of the alliance’s founding.
The speakers included Andrey Kortunov, RIAC Academic Director; Maj. Gen. Vladimir Romanenko, First Deputy Chairman of the Russian Union of Veterans; Dmitry Danilov, Head of the Department of European Security at the RAS Institute of Europe and MGIMO University Professor; Ivan Safranchuk, Professor at the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia of MGIMO University.
On April 3, 2024, the international multimedia press center of the Rossiya Segodnya media group hosted a roundtable discussion “NATO: 75 Years at the Forefront of Escalation,” marking the 75th anniversary of the alliance’s founding.
The speakers included Andrey Kortunov, RIAC Academic Director; Maj. Gen. Vladimir Romanenko, First Deputy Chairman of the Russian Union of Veterans; Dmitry Danilov, Head of the Department of European Security at the RAS Institute of Europe and MGIMO University Professor; Ivan Safranchuk, Professor at the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia of MGIMO University.
During the discussion, RIAC Academic Director Andrey Kortunov outlined three challenges that NATO faces today. First, even though NATO is an alliance of multiple nations, everyone knows who runs the show in it, which puts the bloc at the mercy of domestic political winds in the U.S. The second challenge is common to any multilateral alliance that grows geographically fast: the larger it becomes, the more difficult it is to reconcile the members’ interests. The third challenge is that NATO was created in the early days of the Cold War, but has not yet adapted to the new realities, which could become particularly problematic in the future. As security challenges change, recently emerged threats take the place of conventional ones. Russia, Europe and the U.S. all question whether NATO is suited to the realities of the 21st century and should be considered modern or a relic of the past.
A. Kortunov also pointed out that the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, held from April 3-4, effectively shifted the burden of funding Ukraine from the U.S. to European countries. The ministerial also discussed the issues of defense spending and decision-making, which have been complicated by the accession of Finland and Sweden, and NATO’s further enlargement, primarily in the Western Balkans.
Dmitry Danilov, Head of the Department of European Security at the RAS Institute of Europe and MGIMO University Professor, noted that NATO was currently at a crossroads, with little clarity on how to organize the anniversary summit in Washington, D.C. or how NATO’s strategy, recently adopted as a strategic concept, should be formalized. NATO says Ukraine is inching closer to joining the alliance. However, the more the front line is being pushed, the farther Ukraine is from the bloc. The expert spoke about two issues that topped the agenda of the latest ministerial: 1) NATO’s line of action amid strategic uncertainty within itself; burden-sharing between the U.S. and Europe and increasing Europe’s support for Ukraine through NATO given Europe’s existing contributions via the EU. It is unclear what will be driving burden-sharing and whether new funds to finance Ukraine will be agreed on. The defense spending target of 2% of GDP is clearly not enough to put the economy on a “wartime footing.” 2) There will be additional discussions concerning the next NATO chief, as the candidate — who in times of uncertainty should suit everyone — has to be picked in time for the summit in July. If these two points about bolstering NATO’s own capabilities and increasing support for Ukraine are put together, tensions within the bloc begin to rise. This raises the question of where and how the alliance’s resources should be reallocated — either for its own defense or for Ukraine, which has grown to be seen as the front line of NATO’s defense.
Adding Finland and Sweden into NATO makes it important to fortify the bloc’s northern flank and develop its potential in the region given the new landscape and two more members, D. Danilov said. This is a major challenge for Russia that requires an appropriate response and systematic deterrence. Tensions are running high in the Baltic. Previously, they were largely limited to the Black Sea region, but have now spilled into the northern direction as well. It is next to impossible to predict today how NATO will change its strategies in the northern flank.
First Deputy Chairman of the Russian Union of Veterans, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Romanenko, said that NATO was established to undercut the Soviet Union’s growing influence in Europe in the wake of World War II. The U.S. handed out loans to war-torn European nations whose governments and parties did not share Soviet ideology and views. The expert also noted that the recent exercises held by Western countries in the Baltic Sea have already proven to be aggressive. The overall situation ahead of NATO’s 75th anniversary threatens the development of Russia’s relations with the West, which are nearly nonexistent anyway.
Ivan Safranchuk, Professor at the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy of Russia of MGIMO University, stressed at the roundtable that NATO’s purpose was questioned back when the bloc was founded. The response was a famous tripartite formula — “to keep the United States in, the Soviet Union out, Germany down” — which left the U.S. dominating in Europe, the Soviet Union under an “iron curtain” and Germany with no say. There were attempts to step back from this approach during the Cold War. After its end, Europe was mulling lifting the “iron curtain” from the Soviet Union and empowering Germany, but this effort failed. All attempts of European countries to break away from the American dictate after the Cold War meant they had to shoulder more spending and reduce the U.S. role or put up with its lead in military expenditures.
Besides, I. Safranchuk emphasized that NATO’s activities and decisions fit into a pattern that shows attempts to build up material capacities of NATO mechanisms in Europe and reduce the dependence of military and industrial spheres from internal politics in European countries and the U.S.
