When discussing the developments and changes within the international system, it’s crucial to address the significance of NATO as one of the most essential systems upon which European countries rely in facing the dangers posed by Russian threats and the challenges brought about by China’s rise.
However, alongside these external challenges, there are other internal risks of great importance that threaten the cohesion of the alliance as it strives to remain unified in the face of Russian threats and Chinese challenges.
NATO faces internal risks of greater importance than external ones, particularly related to the stance of the United States, which forms the main base from which NATO derives its ability to survive.
With the United States on the brink of elections and the likelihood of Trump’s return to the presidency, NATO anticipates significant changes, especially after Trump made a statement that can be classified as serious.
He mentioned that he would not be inclined to protect NATO member countries from any future Russian attack if their contributions to the alliance were delayed. This statement serves as an American green light that bolsters Russia’s ambitions in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region.
Moreover, Trump’s electoral statements about not protecting NATO member countries if their contributions are delayed constitute a serious indicator, as they undermine the primary foundation upon which the alliance was built.
This foundation emphasizes that an attack on any of the alliance members is considered an attack on all, and consequently, alliance members must respond accordingly.
This is incompatible with the policy of disengagement that the United States seems to intend to apply to countries that are lagging in their financial contributions, placing them in a state of exposure to Russian threats.
Furthermore, it is impossible to view Trump’s statements, which undermine NATO’s cohesion, as part of election rhetoric given that there has been an American trend, since the era of Barack Obama, to diminish interest in NATO in favour of issues that are more important to Americans.
This is within the framework of “strategic realignment”, which produced the “Pivot to Asia” theory, prompting Washington to prioritise its interests in East Asia and address China’s rise.
Consequently, Europe is not significant enough to make Washington eager to maintain the cohesion of NATO and preserve the foundations upon which it was established.
NATO has succeeded in maintaining its cohesion in the post-Cold War period by facing the security challenges that escalated during that time (the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s dissolution, terrorism, and piracy).
However, the question now is: Will NATO succeed in maintaining its resilience and existence in the post-Russian-Ukrainian war era and the new international system that has resulted from the rise of Russia and China, especially in light of Washington’s disengagement strategy?
