In NATO Part I, we observed that with the winning of the Cold War in 1991, NATO began to look like a huge war machine without a mission – it had been created to prevent the USSR from absorbing more nations and now the USSR was no more. The 21 former Soviet states, including Russia, and the 6 other Warsaw Pact nations, which I will refer collectively as “the former soviets”, were now empowered to become free and independent nations. So, NATO was reconceived as a “cooperative security” organization whose mandate was to include two main objectives: to foster dialogue and cooperation with former adversaries in the Warsaw Pact and to “manage” conflicts in areas on the European periphery, such as the Balkans. Within a decade, nearly all of the former soviets, including Russia, became democratic republics with a parliamentary style government. There was real hope that Russia could become a viable member of the European Union. In 1997, the G-7 became the G-8 when Russia was admitted.
A big question was should NATO expand its membership beyond the 16 and allow some of the former soviets to become members? There were good reasons not to, and chief among them was that this would really freak out Russia. President Clinton promoted the expansion and in time 9 former members of the Warsaw Pact (count includes East Germany) would join NATO. By 2004, NATO membership grew to 26 which included the three Baltic States that all bordered-on Russia. That, combined with NATO’s bombing of Serbia, were key factors in Russia seeing NATO and the West as adversaries to be opposed rather than allies to join.
The only time that Article 5 of the NATO charter has been invoked was in the War on Terror following the 911 attack on the US. This was not at all what the NATO charter had envisioned. A member had not been attacked by a nation state or in Europe; the attack came from a stateless organization in Central Asia – Afghanistan. In October 2001, NATO joined the US in Operation Enduring Freedom. “NATO played a crucial role in stabilizing Afghanistan. By integrating various nations’ resources and expertise, NATO transformed its mission from combat operations to a comprehensive framework focusing on security, governance, and development initiatives.” As we all know, the Afghanistan War was handled badly by the US and turned out to be a huge and costly mess that ultimately caused strains within NATO. Even so, NATO certainly showed up and played a very valuable role. There was no doubt, it was worth keeping even though its original mission, checking Russian/Soviet expansion was no longer relevant. And then, it was again.
George W Bush, who I voted for twice, who got us into two long wars, is also responsible in part for Russia’s war with Georgia and to a degree with Ukraine. He proposed that both countries join NATO. There was no way that Russia could or really should accept two of the original members of the Soviet Union, lands that border Russia and at that at one time were part of the Russian Empire, to become military allies with its former arch enemies. It was also totally unacceptable for Russia’s only war water port Sevastopol in Crimea to be controlled by an enemy. And so it conquered and absorbed Crimea, which had become part of the nation of Ukraine.
Since neither Georgia nor Ukraine were members of NATO, NATO was not obligated to go to war over this. Still, here was Russia expanding into Europe with its military might. Nations that had been part of the Soviet Union and of the Russian Empire and that bordered Russia (ie the Baltic States) were now members of NATO. Clearly, NATO’s original mission was more apparent and vital than ever.
Two western European nations that had spurned offers to join NATO in the past, Sweden and Norway, clamored for membership and have been admitted. This brings the total NATO membership to 32.
Word limit exceeded.
I will finish this essay series with my next and final essay on The New World Order following WWII.