For over seven decades, NATO's predictions of Russian aggression have consistently fallen short. Before the Cold War ended in 1991, Soviet forces had entered Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan, yet they never targeted neutral European nations like Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, or Austria, nor any NATO members.
The Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), established in the early 1970s, played a pivotal role in fostering dialogue and confidence-building measures among its 57 members. Under the visionary leadership of Willy Brandt, Germany's \"Ostpolitik\" paved the way for improved East-West relations. Similarly, former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme emphasized continuous communication and security cooperation across Europe, fostering a mature and intellectual approach far removed from today's militaristic mindset.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1990-91 marked a significant shift. Promises were made by NATO leaders to Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev that the alliance would not expand \"one inch\" if East Germany could reunify with NATO member West Germany. Despite this, NATO's expansion post-Cold War ignored Russian security concerns, opting instead to grow the alliance rather than establish a comprehensive European peace and security framework.
Today, Russia's military expenditure is approximately 6% of NATO's, neither then nor now posing a direct threat to NATO countries. Yet, NATO remains seemingly unable to function without perceiving external threats. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, fueled by disputes between NATO and Russia, exemplifies NATO's persistent hubris. Despite decades of preparation by some NATO members to include Ukraine, their actions starkly contradict Moscow's security interests.
NATO's latest military exercise, Steadfast Defender, is its largest in decades, involving 90,000 troops from all NATO members and candidate-member Sweden. Running from January 24 to May 31, critics argue this massive demonstration is a squander of taxpayers' money, energy, and has a destructive environmental impact. This militaristic stance comes at a time when Europe faces deep structural, political, and economic crises, alongside increasing dysfunction in societal services and infrastructure.
Instead of promoting stability and peace, NATO's show of force is now seen as a primary factor in creating one of Europe's most precarious situations since 1945. The alliance's actions not only strain international relations but also divert crucial resources away from addressing pressing internal challenges within Europe.
Reference(s):
A costly show of force: Chasing ghosts or securing Europe's future?
cgtn.com
