Shall we discuss the possible “outcomes” of the NATO summit that is set to take place on Dec. 3-4, 2019, in London?
We need to interpret NATO and Turkey’s “relations” in the near future. It is possible to say that NATO will also receive its fair share of Turkey’s “objection to the global order,” which it directed to the UN and, by simplifying it, reduced to the U.S.
It is obvious that Ankara inviting NATO to northern Syria did nothing to corner the alliance into branding the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia as an “enemy” in the security plans, which were discussed in the Nov. 19-20 Meetings of NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Brussels. Congratulations, they bought it. Soon after, the U.S., along with a few other countries realized what was happening, and are thus trying to put together the approved plans.
However, this is a small part. The main part is France’s “brain death” aimed at the alliance. In other words, it is a call to pull the plug on NATO.
The only solution that comes to mind is, perhaps, to give the alliance the “real and big” enemy they need in London?
Brussels was London’s precursor, and we can list the main outlines of the final declaration before going to the U.K.
There are three topics on the agenda. In abstract, first is the institution of more aggressive policies against Russia; second is the militarization of space; and third is stopping China’s rise.
Can these three items possibly serve as a remedy that will present a “mission and vision” for NATO, which is claimed to be experiencing “brain death”?
On the contrary, would that be “overdose”?
Let us leave the space matter for another discussion as it is infinite. It is a new operational field and its command has been established. Its significance in terms of alliance ties is the services which members will receive from this new “universe coalition.”
In the meantime, let us remain grounded, but we should at least understand this much: in the NATO secretary-general’s words, “There are approximately 2,000 satellites in the orbit. Half of these belong to NATO countries.”
NATO and U.S. may officially call on their partners in London to recognize China’s rise as a long and rough challenge.
The U.S. secretary of state said: “Our alliance must discuss the existing and potential threat presented by the Chinese Communist Party. NATO’s founding countries came together 70 years ago for freedom and democracy. We cannot ignore the fundamental differences between our countries and the Chinese Communist Party.”
Let us focus on the closing sentences of the summit; it denotes nothing other than dragging NATO to the Indian-Pacific oceans. At least, this how Beijing will see it.
Is crybaby Europe ready for this? It does not need to be. It is sufficient to limit China’s increasingly rising population in Europe and restrict its economic relations – as long as the U.S. has a share/say in Europe-China affairs.
Sure, but with “which Europe” is all this to be accomplished?
The EU, or rather the EU project seems to have dissolved. We are unsure if it can be recovered; the fallout in Berlin-Paris relations is in interests of the the U.S., but it is detrimental to the Western alliance system.
France and, as a matter of fact, even if slightly less and quieter, Germany are against the conflict between Russia and the U.S. Thus, it keeps a new European military architecture independent of the U.S., which is said to be “impossible,” on the agenda. In fact, this is one way of interpreting the statement, “NATO is dead.”
Germany is currently intensely opposing France; it is lambasting its criticisms of NATO. France-Russia relations might need to be revisited once more after this summit.
However, this topic is highly important; Paris-Berlin relations are critical for Europe’s strategic future and the NATO alliance. French President Emmanuel Macron is making a mistake.
NATO convened on Nov. 20 in Brussels, while the Security Council of the Russian Federation assembled on Nov. 22.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said: “There are too many ambiguities. The competition is becoming increasingly rougher, constantly taking new form. As the NATO military organization gets closer to our borders, we are also very closely following their attempts at militarizing space. These conditions make it important to develop our military potential.”
One thing is for sure: U.S./NATO and Russia/China military activities, particularly the massive drills, are going to leave their mark on 2020; we are going to see risky business take place.
What about China?
BRICS held its 11th summit on Nov. 13 in Brazil.
China’s president said: “China is disturbed by the complex and deep changes, the instability and ambiguity in international circumstances. We need to establish closer strategic coordination towards forming a fair and just international environment in order to jointly support the fundamental norms regulating international relations with Russia, and stand against unilateralism, bullying and interference in other countries' affairs.”
Putin said: “Russia and China have important consensus and common interests with respect to global strategic security and the maintenance of stability. They must firmly support each other regarding the protection of their sovereignty, security and sustainability rights.
To conclude, the NATO summit will present interesting and strategic results. The developments in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Hong Kong, and the Pacific are going to provide the initial clues in relation to these outcomes.
There are pages and pages of incidents supporting this new development. We will be adding them to this file in time.
However, for now, let us ask: What will Turkey say about the competition between the U.S., Russia and China, and the NATO alliance – or about its options?