The NATO summit in Madrid showed how strongly Russia’s despot Vladimir Putin has welded the alliance back together with his war of aggression against Ukraine. But NATO remains dangerously far below its potential. The biggest obstacle to effectiveness: their inner makeup.
The Madrid NATO meeting was a festival of self-suggestion. The 30 member states outdid each other in proclamations of strength and unity – and the media applauded. “NATO summit: Bigger and more united against Putin,” comments Deutsche Welle. The pacifist “Süddeutsche” suddenly sees NATO as the “life insurance of the western world”. Spiegel reporter Markus Feldenkirchen raves about NATO as the “bulletproof vest of all countries bordering Russia”.
In times of war the helmet is buckled more tightly. The media marches in step with the North Atlantic Pact.
As a precaution, the misjudgment of the last ten years and the extensive inability to reform the military alliance will not be discussed. There are five solid reasons to doubt the military and political effectiveness of the North Atlantic military alliance – even after the decisions made in Madrid.
As a reminder: All NATO member states cover an area of 24.6 million km² and around 948.34 million inhabitants. This means that over 80 percent of global territory is free for other military powers to invade and over 85 percent of the world’s population is not protected by NATO.
In Hungary, too, “the media and the judiciary are being controlled more and more by the government”. The internal NATO guidelines do not provide for a renewal of the democratic status of the member states. Once you have become a member you can only dismiss yourself. Legally, even the most brutal torturer cannot be excluded.
5. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty reads: “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered an attack against them all.” Article 6 defines an armed attack “on the forces, ships or aircraft of either party”.
But what happens when buildings like the Eiffel Tower are attacked, not military forces? Or a terrorist group or a religious and at the same time stateless community attacking NATO territory? Or Separatists?
Al Qaeda’s attack on New York’s World Trade Center, which triggered Article 5 at the time, was considered a legally questionable action. Because in the course of the NATO mission Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan was occupied, although the government there had nothing to do with the attack. It housed the masterminds of the terrorist attacks on its territory, but was demonstrably not involved in the planning and implementation of the attacks.
Conclusion: NATO is the most expensive paper tiger in the world. He roars, but he doesn’t bite. Since the unsuccessful “Enduring Freedom” mission, which began after 9/11 as an Afghanistan mission and whose follow-up activity ended with the flight from Kabul, the alliance has been busy searching for meaning. The main stabilizer, despite not being a member, is Putin.
