I. Istomin (email@example.com),
MGIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation;
I. Bolgova (firstname.lastname@example.org),
MGIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation;
A. Sushentsov (email@example.com),
Institute for International Studies MGIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation;
O. Rebro (firstname.lastname@example.org),
Institute for International Studies MGIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is perhaps the most successful and enduring intergovernmental military alliance in modern history. Such longevity can be attributed to the versatility of the Alliance. Comprising several institutional functions, it has been able to adapt to the changing security environment by successfully merging functional pluralism with reduction of multitasking. Such institutional agility, coupled with the U.S.’ willingness to assume a leadership role and the superficial homogeny of its members, often obscured the constant struggle between their various national security interests. This article observes the current tumultuous state of affairs in the Transatlantic Alliance, looks into the roots of these frictions and aims to chart the likely path forward for the Organization in the next decade. To achieve this goal, the authors study the evolution of NATO’s institutional mandate comprised of three key functions (collective defense, security community, global projection of power) and determine the limits of its adaptability that set the framework for the future development of the Alliance. Applying the method of scenario tree, the authors identify possible bifurcation points and key contradictions and, relying on the expert survey, outline likely trajectory of NATO’s evolution. The study concludes that the growing number of member states and internal processes within them contributed to the increased heterogeneity of the Organization, thus, making it more difficult to set common agenda and mobilize limited resources. However, current heated debate between the allies about burden sharing and top priorities, though might trigger inevitable cosmetic changes to the terms of the partnership, is unlikely to undermine the foundational principles. In this context, the resurgence of a “Russia threat” will continue to serve as a mobilization factor with little chance of turning into a direct military clash. Rather the relations between Russia and “the West” will be stipulated by the confrontation of attrition in other areas with NATO playing an auxiliary role.
NATO, United States of America, European security, security community, liberal consensus, power projection, burden sharing
1. The North Atlantic Treaty. Washington, DC, 04.04.1949. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/us/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm (accessed 25.03.2019).
2. Warsaw Summit Communique. Warsaw, 09.07.2016. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm (accessed 25.03.2019).
3. Williams H., Martin D. NATO Urges Calm After Turkey Shoots Down Russian Plane. CBS News, 24.11.2015. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nato-urges-calm-after-turkey-shoots-down-russian-plane/ (accessed 25.03.2019).
4. Adler E., Barnett M., eds. Security communities. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 462 p.
5. Mearsheimer J.J. Back to the future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International security, 1990, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5-56.
6. Duffield J.S. NATO’s Functions after the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly, 1994, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 763-787.
7. Waterman H., Zagorcheva D., Reiter D. Correspondence: NATO and Democracy. International Security, 2002, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 221-235.
8. Tuohy W. NATO After the Cold War: It’s ‘Out of Area or Out of Business’. LA Times, 13.08.1993. Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-13/news/mn-23409_1_cold-war (accessed 25.03.2019).
9. Roberts A. NATO’s ‘humanitarian war’ over Kosovo. Survival, 1999, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 102-123.
10. The Alliance’s Strategic Concept. Washington, D C, 24.04.1999. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natohq/official_texts_27433.htm?selectedLocale=en (accessed 25.03.2019).
11. Active Engagement, Modern Defence. Lisbon, 19.11.2010. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natohq/official_texts_68580.htm?selectedLocale=en (accessed 25.03.2019).
12. NATO and Afghanistan. NATO, 27.06.2018. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm (accessed 28.06.2018).
13. Nelson R. Refining NATO’s role in combating terrorism. NATO Review, 2004. Available at: https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2004/Interpreting-Istanbul/Refining-NATO-role-terrorism/EN/index.htm (accessed 25.03.2019).
14. Paris R. Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air? International security, 2001, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 87-102.
15. Bailes A. J.K. NATO’s European Pillar: The European Security and Defense Identity. Defense Analysis, 1999, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 305-322.
16. Bretherton C., Vogler J. The European Union as a global actor. London, Routledge, 2005. 336 p.
17. Youst D. S. The U.S. – European Capabilities Gap and the Prospects for ESDP. Defending Europe: The EU, NATO and the quest for European autonomy. Howorth J., Keeler J. T.S., eds. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, pp. 81-106.
18. DeYoung K., Jaffe G. NATO runs short on some munitions in Libya. The Washington Post, 15.04.2011. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html?utm_term=.36723e52d2cd (accessed 25.03.2019).
19. Landler M. Proposed U.S. Base Closings Send a Shiver Through a German Town. The New York Times, 22.08.2004. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/world/proposed-us-base-closings-send-a-shiver-through-a-germantown.html (accessed 25.03.2019).
20. Hudson A. German Angst as U.S. troops bid “Auf Wiedersehen”. Reuters, 27.01.2012. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-us-military/german-angst-as-u-s-troops-bid-auf-wiedersehen-idUSTRE80Q1A620120127 (accessed 25.03.2019).
21. Clarke M. The Global NATO Debate. Politique etrangere, 2009, no. 5, pp. 57-67.
22. 2018 Budget Request for European Reassurance Initiative Grows to $4.7 Billion. U. S. Department of Defense, 01.06.2017. Available at: https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1199828/2018-budget-request-for-european-reassuranceinitiative-grows-to%C3%83%C2%A2%C3%A2%E2%80%9A%C2%AC%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%CB%9C47-billion/ (accessed 25.03.2019).
23. Brooks S., Wohlforth W. America Abroad: The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century. NewYork, Oxford University Press, 2016. 274 p.
24. Zhdanova Yu.D., Istomin I.A. Reaktsiya ES na ekonomicheskoe vozvyshenie KNR [EU Reaction to China’s Economic Rise]. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2017, no. 5(56), pp. 91-113.
25. Parker A. Donald Trump Says NATO is ‘Obsolete,’ UN is ‘Political Game’. The New York Times, 02.04.2016. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/02/donald-trump-tells-crowd-hed-be-fine-if-nato-broke-up/ (accessed 25.03.2019).
26. Remarks by President Trump at NATO Unveiling of the Article 5 and Berlin Wall Memorials – Brussels, Belgium. The White House, 25.05.2017. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-nato-unveiling-article-5-berlin-wall-memorials-brussels-belgium/ (accessed 25.03.2019).
27. Merkel: Europe ‘can no longer rely on allies’ after Trump and Brexit. BBC, 28.05.2017. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40078183 (accessed 25.03.2019).
28. Defence cooperation: Council establishes Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), with 25 member states participating. The EU Council, 11.12.2017. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/12/11/defence-cooperation-pesco-25-member-states-participating/ (accessed 25.03.2019).
29. Fukuyama F. The end of history? The National Interest, 1989, no. 16, pp. 3-18.
30. Roth K. The Dangerous Rise of Populism. Global Attacks on Human Rights Values. The Human Rights Watch. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populism (accessed 25.03.2019).
31. Arango T., Yeginsu C. Turks Can Agree on One Thing: U. S. Was Behind Failed Coup. The New York Times, 02.08.2016. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/world/europe/turkey-coup-erdogan-fethullah-gulen-united-states.html (accessed 25.03.2019).
32. Withnal A. Erdogan blames ‘foreign powers’ for coup and says West is supporting terrorism. The Independent, 02.08.2016. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/erdogan-turkey-coup-latest-news-blames-us-westterrorism-gulen-a7168271.html (accessed 25.03.2019).
33. Orenstein M.A., Kreko P., Juhasz A. The Hungarian Putin? The Foreign Affairs, February 8, 2015. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/hungary/2015-02-08/hungarian-putin (accessed 25.03.2019).
34. Smale A. Germany to Withdraw Forces from Incirlik Base in Turkey. The New York Times, 07.06.2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/europe/germany-turkey-air-base.html (accessed 25.03.2019).
35. Pouliot V. International security in practice: the politics of NATO-Russia diplomacy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2010. 282 p.
36. O’Reilly K. P. Perceiving rogue states: the use of the “rogue state” concept by US foreign policy elites. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2007, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 295-315.
37. Press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following the meeting of NATO Heads of State and/or Government in Brussels on 25 May 2017. Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_144098.htm (accessed 25.03.2019).
Registered in system SCIENCE INDEX