by Dr. Manlio Silverstri

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On April 4, 2024, NATO celebrated its 75th anniversary. This transatlantic alliance, renowned for its strength and tenacity throughout history, marked the occasion at its Brussels Headquarters. Despite modest media coverage due to pressing national and international news, the significance of NATO's role in maintaining international peace and freedom during the Cold War remains undeniable.

Following World War II, the Atlantic Alliance proved instrumental in preventing further devastating conflicts. It successfully navigated Cold War challenges, including the Cuban Missile Crisis and the fall of the Berlin Wall. As the geopolitical landscape evolved, so did NATO, actively managing crises beyond its borders, as demonstrated by its interventions in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

NATO has also addressed emerging threats, such as international terrorism, epitomized by ISIS. The organization played a key role in combating terrorism in Afghanistan and broadened its agenda to promote stability beyond its borders. For example, it initiated training programs in Iraq among other initiatives.

Significant changes have occurred within the Alliance in its approach to Collective Defense and Crisis Management. These changes underline the importance of policy coherence among Allies, planning capacity, and interoperability among allied forces. Moreover, cooperation with other actors, particularly the European Union, has become increasingly vital in effectively addressing global challenges.

Despite its successes, NATO must continue to evolve to meet future challenges. These challenges include shifts in the international political landscape and emerging threats such as the manipulation of public opinion, or hybrid threats. Cooperation between NATO and the EU remains crucial to address these challenges and to ensure security and stability in the transatlantic area and beyond.

FULL ARTICLE

On April 4, 2024, the strongest and most enduring Alliance in history, NATO, celebrated its 75th birthday. That morning, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Chairman of the Alliance Military Committee Admiral Rob Bauer honored those who served under the NATO flag. They laid a laurel wreath on the commemorative plaque at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, paying tribute to those who contributed to peace and freedom.

However, the 75th anniversary news didn't feature prominently on the front pages of national or international newspapers, barring a few subtle references. The media spotlight focused on other captivating stories. Major Italian political headlines covered the struggles of a couple of Honorable Members between opposition motions of no confidence and support from their allies. There were also articles about scientists and Nobel Prize winners who called for better government actions in public health matters. Stories about the struggle to repatriate an Italian citizen, Ms. Salis, who was imprisoned in inhuman conditions in Hungary, also found space. Notably, most Italians focused their anxieties on the Great Football, specifically the famous Zirkzee and his availability to the Milan soccer team. In international news, coverage included comments on the Eurozone, the tragedy in Gaza, debates on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and the earthquake in Taiwan. In contrast, the 75th anniversary of NATO barely garnered any attention. The content of every national or international newspaper seemed like an endless "War Bulletin", leaving little room for the peace that the Atlantic Alliance facilitated over its 75 years.

Still, it's essential to remember that NATO kept people safe during the long years of the Cold War, preventing a recurrence of the tragedies experienced during the two World Wars.

Historical moments such as the Berlin airlift, the Cuban missile crisis, and the fall of the Berlin Wall define the first fifty years of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These events underscore how real the fear of another devastating war was in the years following World War II. On April 4, 1949, the foreign ministers of twelve European and North American countries signed the Washington Treaty to establish the Alliance. Since then, the world has changed drastically, transforming our perception of reality. This transformation is partly due to the proliferation of various communication means in both public and private spheres.

Changes in the world have produced a society increasingly filled with individuals who are quick to pass judgments rather than listen to the opinions of others. Commonly held misconceptions include: "NATO was built to fight the Soviet Union, but it's no longer necessary because the USSR no longer exists", or "NATO is controlled by the USA who decides for us and makes us spend a lot of money to buy their weapons. We would be better off without it." Another popular belief is that "A European Army would make us independent from the capitalist influence of the Americans." However, such statements, often spread through social media and misleading articles, are largely baseless. These misconceptions can sow doubt even in the most balanced politicians, incumbent rulers, political scientists, military leaders, and entrepreneurs. No one is immune to their influence.

Some may argue that the Atlantic Alliance is turning "brain-dead," as even the French President Macron warned. Others might recall how former American President Trump threatened to withdraw the USA from NATO due to a perceived financial imbalance between American contributions and those from European countries. However, no newspaper has compiled a detailed analysis of the political dynamics behind these unfortunate expressions, choosing instead to highlight only the explosive and impactful sentences of the moment. Furthermore, it's not possible to dispel the simplistic thinking of those who lack an adequate educational background or training experiences in international organizations and the nuances of diplomatic exchanges through a tweet or a brief background article. However, the problem doesn't only lie in the ability to impart competency, knowledge, and wisdom as the "old School" did to inspire young people. The lack of a tool capable of stemming the tide of those who, through a fabricated judgement on Facebook, manage to attract masses of uninformed individuals and spread misleading or often terroristic messages is also a significant issue.

Still, merely studying NATO’s structure, understanding its hierarchies, or experiencing the complex procedures of meetings between allied nations won’t suffice to understand the Alliance's alchemy and intriguing dynamics. Even those who have served as military members, possibly in prestigious roles, aren't necessarily equipped to navigate the complexities of diplomacy effectively or smooth out the rough edges of political-military resolutions. These resolutions often transition from clear-cut black and white to the notorious "Fifty Shades of Grey" after exhaustive committee meetings and informal discussions. Contrary to the belief of the "usual pub-goers," the Atlantic Alliance isn't just a military organization that flashed its powerful claws at the old Soviet bear to deter a direct confrontation, though that is part of its role. Nor is it merely a tool of political persuasion, despite its essential role in the conflict prevention process. A purely political framework would falter against autocracies and dictatorships that disregard international conventions and human rights without the backing of military deterrence. These are the beautiful principles that emerged during the pragmatic development of our democracies.

If we examine NATO's Defense and Foreign Affairs ministerial meetings or its Summits, we notice that the Atlantic Alliance has engaged in continuous and systematic transformations throughout its history. These transformations ensure a clear line of conduct, capabilities, and structures that adapt to shifts in the international security scenario and address current and future challenges.

Its command and control structures and political-military decision-making mechanisms have evolved over time. Most notably, the Alliance has advanced its approach to the collective defense of its member countries. From a military perspective, with allied forces participating in operations and missions across various geographical areas, NATO must ensure that its countries' armed forces are modern, effective in deployment, interoperable, and sustainable. Essentially, NATO needs to continually renew itself.

To contextualize the changes in the Atlantic Alliance, we can divide the 75-year journey of NATO into three eras, starting obviously in 1949, a few years after the horrors of the Second World War.

The countries of Western Europe and North America understood that isolation led nowhere. Instead, it resulted in centuries of bloody conflicts, eventually drawing the United States of America into devastating World Wars. Choosing collective defense over isolation transformed the situation, positioning them advantageously against international tyrants and enabling them to resist aggression firmly. The establishment of the Alliance and its transatlantic bond provided everyone with the security of defending themselves and their allies, and protecting their territories and populations. As a result, Western Europe and North America experienced 40 years of unprecedented stability and prosperity.

From a military standpoint, the central focus was on the concept of collective defense in the European and North Atlantic area. This approach was designed to respond to potential threats. However, it did not prioritize peacekeeping operations. In essence, the Alliance functioned based on contingent defense and quick response plans.

Then, the world changed dramatically. The Cold War ended without a single shot fired. The Soviet Union dissolved, and the people of the East found themselves in newly formed states or vanished from Europe's geographical map. Russia transitioned from an enemy to a "Partner" of NATO. This shift sparked great optimism and hope for many but also instilled fear and violence in others. The brutal and bloody wars in the Balkans during the 1990s confronted European and global society with another potential genocide, reviving memories of the Holocaust from only 50 years prior.

During this period, NATO entered a new phase, transitioning from collective defense to crisis management beyond its borders. This shift was necessary to end the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and later halt the pursuit of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The Atlantic Alliance effectively assumed this new role, thanks to its robust planning capabilities and well-organized political and military structures for rapid interventions.

That's why it didn't surprise anyone when, after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, NATO countries stood in solidarity with the United States. They invoked Article 5 for collective defense and later offered to assume political control and military command of ISAF operations in Afghanistan, a land far from the traditional operational area. Troops from all Allied countries and Partners from other parts of the world, such as Australia and New Zealand, joined the fight to eradicate Al-Qaeda, combat the Taliban, and assist in increasing stability in Afghanistan. Since 2001, or more formally since 2003, the members of the Alliance supported the development of Afghan defense forces for about a decade. Starting practically from scratch, they built a force of 350,000 soldiers and police. This significant achievement is primarily due to the "stronger than ever, more united than ever" ethos that characterized the first two phases of NATO. However, what transpired at the end of 2021 with the withdrawal of allied countries from Afghanistan, leaving it in Taliban hands, cannot be classified as a mere planning error by NATO. Instead, it is the result of complex international political dynamics that demolished the exit strategy prepared a while ago by the allied International and Military Staff. It was a missed opportunity for the democratic development of a civilization.

We must acknowledge that the appetite for collective defense and international crisis management within NATO has grown, especially during the operations in the Balkans. This growth has made the importance of unity and cohesion transparent. However, it has also highlighted how world events can rapidly change perspectives. A prime example of this occurred in 2014, when, for the first time since World War II, a European country forcefully annexed part of another sovereign state.

In annexing Crimea, the Russian Federation disregarded the international rules of engagement that had been beneficial to all European countries, including Russia itself.

Russia rejected the principles of the Helsinki agreements, which affirm that all nations are sovereign and independent and should resolve any disputes through peaceful means. These principles were, among other things, promoted and supported by Russia during the drafting of the Helsinki agreements. This attitude of domination over weaker nations, a decision made by powerful leaders behind closed doors, is an outdated concept that we can no longer accept.

Similarly, the rise of the self-proclaimed Caliphate and the establishment of the ISIL or DAESH terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq in 2014 were unacceptable. Their attempts to spread their influence across North Africa and other parts of the world through acts of terror committed in their name, both in Europe and the United States, were reprehensible.

Now, we find ourselves in the third era of NATO, a time when member nations must commit to collective defense, crisis management, and promoting stability beyond their borders. They do not have the luxury of choosing between these commitments. This is precisely the result of NATO's evolution in a dynamic and ever-changing world.

To date, NATO has implemented the most potent enhancement of its collective defense program since the Cold War ended. It has deployed Multinational Battalions, which eventually turned into Brigades, primarily along the entire Eastern flank in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. Different allied Nations command these deployments. To reassure the Southern Europe Allies, NATO has also increased its collective defense presence in the South. As participation grows, the message becomes clearer: any action against an Ally will be considered an attack on the entire Alliance.

This stance showcases NATO's transparency and its intent to convey its strength and unity. However, it doesn't indicate - contrary to what some people suggest - that the Alliance's countries are seeking direct confrontation with Russia. If this were the case, a request for aid from a sovereign state like Ukraine, a NATO Partner, could have sparked immediate intervention to defend international security endangered on the eastern borders of the Atlantic Pact. The Cold War remains a part of history, and the pursuit of dialogue continues. Still, a comprehensive dissertation could be written on this topic.

ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, presents a unique challenge.

Eradicating terrorism is essential for promoting stability beyond our borders, a goal that the Alliance actively pursues. NATO plays a pivotal role in combating terrorism, as evidenced in Afghanistan. The fact that numerous allied countries form part of the Global Coalition against international terrorism, alongside the United States and other partners, is a testament to the strong cooperative relationships and interoperability fostered through NATO operations and exercises.

Drawing on the extensive experience gained in the Balkans and Afghanistan, it becomes evident that the key to sustainable stability lies in strengthening local forces. This involves training local forces and strengthening their institutions, tasks that were highlighted in the previous edition of the Strategic Concept. If the Allied forces had received political approval to extend their work in Afghanistan for another 5-8 years, working alongside international civilian operators, the Afghan forces and civil society would have greatly benefited.

NATO’s transformation in a rapidly changing world is also evident in other operational activities aimed at promoting stability beyond its borders. For instance, the Operations Division of the International (Civil) Staff in Brussels dispatched a team to Baghdad to implement a training program for Iraqi officers. This program aimed to enhance the fight against ISIL. Along with this strategic advice and support to the Iraqi security forces, surveillance provided by AWACS bolsters the Coalition's air operations against ISIL in Syria. Similar training programs are currently in progress in Jordan, among other activities planned in this sector.

However, these initiatives come at a cost. The silver lining for those who prioritize our countries' security lies in the balance sheet and projected investments in the Defense sector. Contrary to the trend of defense budget cuts that started at the end of the Cold War, a counter trend has been apparent since 2020.

The United States, often referred to as "Uncle Tom" by Europeans, undeniably provides a significant contribution to the collective defense of the Alliance. They accomplish this through various means, such as nuclear deterrence and maintaining a robust military presence both within America and globally, always ready to defend democracy and their allies. Equally important for Europeans, the U.S. has consistently prioritized European stability in its foreign policy since the World Wars, with only a few episodes of isolationism.

In this U.S. pursuit of European stability, NATO remains a crucial link in the dialogue between Europe and the other side of the Atlantic. If the transatlantic bond were to falter, the proposed "European Army" with its self-made headquarters, a concept that resurfaced after the Brexit crisis, wouldn't necessarily provide an ideal solution to emerging global threats. It becomes apparent that the European Union alone lacks the capabilities to address Europe's current security challenges. However, this doesn't imply that the project should be discarded. Instead, the solution lies in interconnection or interlocking institutions. Only a combined effort employing political means and military instruments suited to current challenges could ensure the ability to manage crises early on, preventing them from escalating into conflicts or potentially ending those conflicts that pose threats to the security of the Alliance and Europe. A few years ago, Secretary General Stoltenberg and then EU High Representative Mogherini made their joint statement clear: NATO and the EU complement each other, forming a formidable team.

Consider a few examples. Regarding the issue with Russia, the EU has imposed sanctions, and NATO has strengthened the collective defense program, adding value to deterrence against potential threats. In addressing human trafficking in the Aegean Sea, the joint action of NATO monitoring assets and EU naval operations significantly reduced illegal passages from thousands per day to zero. However, when it comes to organizing "legal" migrations, each European country, whether a member of the European Union or NATO, has conflicting ideas. Yet, the exchange of information between the two organizations has reached an impressive level. In addition, cooperation projects, particularly in defense against hybrid threats, maritime security, and defense against cyber-attacks, are positively shaping interconnection.

For those closely following NATO's work, it's evident that recent years have been a time of significant transformation for the organization, in line with the most intense global changes.

But should we assume that NATO has undergone enough transformation and will now stop to evolve? Clearly, the answer is no. If we could fast-forward to the next Summit, we would be better prepared. However, even now, we can theorize what we should aim for, despite the rapid changes in the international political landscape.

The results of European elections and subsequent national developments might alter European threat perceptions concerning Russian policies. European sanctions against the Russian Federation might also change. Russia, as it has done in the past, might try to manipulate European public opinion through a subtle cognitive war. There's a risk that President Putin, to keep the Russian people united, might escalate military pressure in Ukraine and display harmful interventionist activities abroad, threatening European security. In this context, the agenda of the next Washington DC Summit will likely focus on aid for Ukraine, its potential membership in the Alliance, and examining the role that NATO and its members must play. In parallel, the struggle against international terrorism and the Israel-Palestine debate could trigger further instances of political violence in Europe, given the presence of militants among us. The discussion within the Alliance will certainly find worthy subjects to debate. After the Summit, whoever emerges victorious in the U.S. elections will undoubtedly have views on burden-sharing, that is, the division of responsibilities among European countries. Meanwhile, we hope that common sense will triumph over the manipulation of European public opinion.

In sum, the Alliance, in its first 75 years, has learned crucial lessons that have shaped and continue to shape its policies and decision-making. The essential aspects are:

• Political coherence among allies remains the driving force in both decision-making and executive processes.
• The capability to plan, referring to the NATO command structure and the specific command structure of the deployed forces, has shown efficiency, flexibility, and swift reactivity in critical situations, indicating how similar response capacity is vital at a national level.
• Given the increase of 'non-article 5' type operations in response to international crises, the availability of forces for immediate reaction becomes crucial, especially concerning the 'critical enablers,' initial components on which to build the complex operational structure.
• Interoperability within the Alliance, resulting from a lengthy process of standardization, training, and multinational exercises, has fully confirmed its validity during the experience in various operational Theaters.
• Every contribution from partnership countries takes on significant political and operational importance. The opportunity to cooperate in NATO operations becomes a substantial incentive to attract even small contributions and becomes an effective method for the integration process.
• Lastly, the so-called 'Berlin-plus' agreements have provided a solid basis for NATO-European Union cooperation. Further development of cooperation between the two organizations becomes crucial today.

The political and structural journey along with its strong points described in this short article aimed to highlight the significant transition NATO made from a pure collective defense during its first 40 years to the more complex international crisis management complemented with the more recent projection of stability and security outside the Alliance’s borders. The continuous NATO adaptation was probably the correct and best response possible to the emerging challenges. Nonetheless, the complexity of these contests foresees that this successful path must be conducted in synergy with other stakeholders. Both NATO and the EU are organizations based on the values of democracy, freedom, respect for the law, common interests, and close solidarity. By keeping these principles intact, the final wish is that organizations can find adequate support from public opinion and tirelessly renew themselves to face the challenges that will continue to arise before them. We must remember that transformation is a process, not an event.