© AFP 2019 / Ludovic Marin
The statement of the President of France Emmanuel Makron that NATO is “dead brain”, caused a chain reaction in the European political community, and an angry rebuke from official Berlin. But the main consequence is that now the London summit, NATO is perceived by Western experts as a medical consultation, during which we will discuss the fate of the “patient by the name of NATO”, which is in poor condition. Nobody said a key word “euthanasia”, but judging by the hysterics of those who try to prove that the Makron was wrong in his assessment, the question of what to do after the Alliance finally over the edge of capacity already literally soars not only in the Paris air, but also in the European information field.Reuters reports on Berlin’s dissatisfaction with the rhetoric of Macron: “foreign Minister of Germany Heiko Maas on Sunday warned against undermining NATO (and it is. — Approx. ed.) the most decisive to date, the response of Berlin to the critical comments of the President of France Emmanuel Makron about (the North Atlantic. — Approx. ed.) of the military Alliance”.
The British press, which is now engaged in information support of the London NATO summit, adding fuel to the fire expert discontent. The tabloid Express quotes the opinion of Fabrice pottier, former Director of NATO planning: “It would be much more constructive if the macron said he was ready to think about how nuclear weapons could be used to protect the rest of Europe that Europe can rely on the containment of France. But of course he didn’t. France has their own idea about when and where it will be used by their nuclear weapons. How can you criticize NATO without having the game have some alternatives?”These accusations against the Makron from high-level (albeit former) functionary of NATO — a real godsend for those who want to understand the essence of the conflict between Paris and Brussels (and, indirectly, Washington). The President of France kicked NATO and personally by Donald trump in the most painful point. In addition to the allegations that NATO “dead brain”, he publicly doubted the U.S. willingness to fulfill the obligations under article 5 of the NATO Treaty (the legal basis for NATO’s existence). If we translate the position of the Macron with a very diplomatic and polite (with the exception of the thesis about “brain dead”) French conversational Russian, it boils down to reasonable suspicion that, “if anything,” Washington just “throw” their allies, especially given the fact that the U.S. such behavior would not constitute a departure from the American foreign policy tradition.
The implication, which directly indicate the European media (particularly the BBC): trump’s willingness to take Syrian Kurds, who counted on the support of Washington, is probably perceived as a signal of weakness and unwillingness to fight for those who were promised protection. Macron criticized this decision in his scandalous interview just brought their position to its logical conclusion the idea that NATO “will only work if the guarantor of last resort function as such. I would say that we should reconsider the reality of what is NATO in light of the obligations of the United States.”Of course, the Kurdish formations are not signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty, but from the point of view of critics that does not negate the claims against the United States, especially given the fact that the trump publicly questioned America’s commitment to the execution of the article on collective defense in case of an attack on one member of the Alliance. This approach, of course, Angers the functionaries of the NATO and Fabrice pottier rights, stating — “as soon as the credibility of NATO would be undermined, forget about how much you have tanks or planes — the game is already over.” But the Makron just need to “game over,” and that he “undermines the credibility of NATO,” because he needs to clear the way for its geopolitical project — pan-European army.In fact, the London summit of the Alliance will be the scene of the collision of three incompatible views on the future of military cooperation between the countries of the West.Representatives of the United States will require that EU countries began to pay four percent of GDP (about 752 billion dollars) on military expenditures, that is actually on the maintenance of NATO and the purchase of American weapons. The representatives of Germany, judging by the statements of Minister of foreign Affairs of the Maas, will again insist that the increase in costs is not required, and also criticized Washington and Paris for selfishness. The representatives of France will blame NATO and to promote the idea of a European army (without the US and without the UK) to ensure that the European Union finally implemented the strategic vision of the Macron, which (according to his own admission) wants the EU understood itself as a “geopolitical force” and “retained control over their own destiny.”
It is easy to notice that to find a compromise that would suit all and connect all these items as a whole, is impossible. And politics is still the art of the possible, and no more. NATO is dying on the inside, and not because of the history with the Kurds or Turkey’s problem, and due to the fact that its core members tear the Alliance to shreds, trying to use it in their selfish interests incompatible with the interests of all other participants.”The historic summit in London,” which will be held in the beginning of December under the scrutiny of the world media, in fact, can take only one of the two solutions.Or members of the Alliance have quarreled finally and publicly, or is it (and this is the more likely option) will continue to pretend that the Alliance can be saved: the hope that then his death will be to blame someone else.
This is all good news for Russia. Even if another bout of desire to “fight with the Russian threat”, which is again observed in the West, does not lead to the consolidation of NATO, so NATO is unlikely that something will help.Ivan Danilov