The alliance’s performance in terms of sanctions is scattered, with mixed results so far and a uncertain future. Military aid is uneven, although the UK and Eastern Europe’s response has been excellent. The biggest failure is Joe Biden’s uneven political leadership: weak, often backward, outraged, and strategically incoherent. Germany, France and others are lagging behind. This war is not over and the negotiations that will follow will eventually be labyrinthine. This is not the time for NATO members to caress their backs. However, now is the time for policymakers to consider the future of the alliance. We must not forget that Henry Kissinger’s classic study in 1965 was called The Troubled Partnership. still is, and will be, though for radically different reasons. First, the good news. Finland and Sweden appear ready to apply. Public opinion in both countries has shifted dramatically in favor of NATO membership following Moscow’s aggression. These additions will strengthen western dominance in the Baltic Sea, further isolate Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave, and eliminate an ambiguous gray area between NATO’s eastern and western borders. Other “neutrals” could now be added as well. I’m looking at you here, Ireland. On the downside are Turkey and France. Turkish President Erdogan is now the least ally of NATO allies. Despite the effective use by Kyiv of Turkish-supplied drones, Ankara’s acquisition of Russian S-400 air defense systems risked jeopardizing the critical F-35 program, thus endangering other NATO allies. If the 2023 elections in Turkey are free and fair, Erdogan’s defeat, which is entirely possible, will significantly repair the damage he has done. If he wins, his neo-Ottoman ambitions in the Middle East (and other disturbing attitudes) will remain threatening. France, which is facing a potentially imminent second round of the presidential election, is problematic, especially given Emanuel Macron’s persistent efforts to bolster the European Union’s military capabilities in ways that undermine NATO. Marin Le Pen went further, explicitly calling for a second withdrawal of France from NATO’s integrated military command. None of this is constructive. The most important is the German issue. Chancellor Olaf Solz’s commitment to invest € 100 billion in defense, including the purchase of 35 nuclear-capable F-35s, is useful. However, much more is needed to upgrade Germany’s sadly inadequate military capabilities and to ensure that Scholz’s dramatic commitment is maintained over time. Will Germany return to the Cold War with its determination to maintain adequate national defenses, or will it relapse into pretending that it is too dangerous for weapons to trust it? Central to NATO’s future is a proper division of labor with the EU. For Macron and others, increased EU political integration is the highest goal, leading them to support the EU’s increased military capabilities and related programs in NATO responsibilities. For example, the EU made its first budget expenditure on military aid to Ukraine, even though NATO made exactly the same allocation decisions. This was no accident. Do these leaders who are obsessed with membership believe that the EU has no other problems that deserve their attention? Is that why they are focusing on extending the creep of the EU mission to NATO territory? For America, such efforts are knives aimed at the heart of NATO. If anyone really believes that the EU Treaty Mutual Defense Clause is equivalent to Article 5 of NATO – good luck. Let us remember, the EU has only one state with nuclear weapons, while NATO has three. The insistence that Europe is responsible for its defense risks undermining US support for NATO, leaving Europe largely protected from political rhetoric. Better leadership in Washington, new members of the alliance, renewed German (and even post-election, Turkish) commitments to NATO, and a substantially enhanced British role, as evidenced by its current performance, would be all significant advantages. In addition, the growing threat from China should prepare every NATO country for global threats to their security. History still has a lot to offer NATO if it can justify itself by successfully attributing it to the current crisis in Ukraine. John Bolton is a former US National Security Adviser
