NATO’s Newfound Revival With Beijing And Moscow In Mind – Analysis
The 75th anniversary of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) created new arguments on the relevance and future scope of NATO, in both its geographical coverage and its ideological standing. The world’s oldest military pact remains the biggest, and continues to provide the reach of security assurances and deterrence which have drawn the scrambling of other Asian powers to also be a part of the security net.
Sweden and Finland broke from their conventional neutrality affiliations to join NATO, sending a clear message that when push comes to shove and in the areas of national interests and survival, security trumps all other considerations.
From the summit in Washington this month, the US under the Biden administration tried to reinject new dynamism of strength and hope, where Washington pledged to deploy longer range missiles in Germany in 2026, being the most potent U.S. weapons to be based on the European continent since the Cold War.
Long panned for its increasing internal imbalances of individual funding commitment and being an easy scapegoat for Moscow and Beijing’s narratives as the main instigation of conflicts and wars especially for the Ukraine crisis, NATO members and Washington found a new footing in countering the ingrained perspectives.
This sends a clear warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelensky got what he wanted the most, a united NATO with continuous pledges of military aid and support that will sustain Kiev’s efforts to ward off any potentiality of Putin’s new drive. This assurance is sealed until next year at least, with at least US$43.28 billion in military aid within the next year.
China Dilemma for NATO
China has also been called out as a decisive enabler of Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, singled out as posing systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security.
All NATO members have pledged to expand their industrial bases and to develop plans for defense production at home.
All these summed up one very important message: NATO is alive and roaring, and Beijing and Moscow are earmarked as the next big global threats.
As Biden put it in Washington during the summit, the alliance cannot be allowed to fall behind and every inch of Nato territory will be defended together.
Amidst Trump’s NATO plans which have spooked members in the past, Biden tried to reinject new dynamism but Trump credited himself in getting the members to pay their fair share.
With Biden now out of the race and Trump being a shoe in for the President if the sentiments and polls are anything to go by, Nato members are gradually accepting the inevitable reality of preparing for a post US retreat of funding and support, while trying to up their own agility and combined deterrence against both Moscow and Beijing. A future where the US is no longer Europe’s default and primary security guarantor opens a new floodgate of European insecurity and further emboldens the strategic wins of Beijing and Moscow.
NATO accused China that it was not only fuelling the war in Ukraine but also creating a long-term challenge for European security.
Putin is deemed to be increasingly aligned with other authoritarian powers, especially China, in wishing to see the US fail, Europe fracture and Nato falter, in the words of Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
China has been called out by NATO to cease all material and public support for Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, accusing Beijing of being a huge supporter of Moscow’s defence industrial base, in which Beijing fired back by chastising NATO and the West as filled with cold war mentality and belligerent rhetoric.
The final communique also accused China of being behind sustained, malicious cyber and hybrid activities, including disinformation.
It also called out Beijing’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal with more warheads.
With Beijing expanding more readily with Russia outside of its traditional sphere of influence, with the recent joint exercises with Moscow in South China Sea and the fly by near the border in Alaska, NATO and Washington grew exceedingly wary.
Chinese troops have also been conducting joint military drills in Belarus, where neighbouring Poland has been wary as well.Both Belarus and China are allies of Russia, whereas Poland is a NATO member and also a supporter of Kyiv.
Contrary to the popular Trump bashing of how he has weakened NATO, he did manage to ensure that members did their part, at least in partial wake up calls, where Trump was right in denouncing the members who have been piggy riding Washington in securing defence assurances.
In 2014, NATO leaders pledged to allocate at least 2 percent of their GDP, to defence spending.In 2023, only 11 countries met that threshold.
One strategic move from the summit includes the blocking of Ukraine’s accession into NATO, where a Moscow retaliation and greater leverage will hand Putin his turning point of victory. If Ukraine was to join NATO, Moscow would have reasons in doubting the legitimacy and credibility of the security guarantee of Nato, and using it to test the alliance resulting in a direct NATO-Russia conflict.
Washington has identified Beijing as its No 1 threat, but for Brussels, Russia remains the biggest security challenge.
Even with a Kamala win in the upcoming elections, Europe will have to start to adjust to a new era of self responsibility for its security.
Indo Pacific as the Next Battleground
The Indo Pacific arena remains the next biggest vulnerability and strategic importance for both Europe and the US, and acts as the first line of defence for NATO.
Forty per cent of Europe’s trade passes through the South China Sea.
Indo Pacific players especially Tokyo, Seoul and Canberra have been toying with the idea of cosying up to NATO, and have been a regular presence in NATO summits since 2022.
Tokyo is facing a new three pronged threat of Moscow-Beijing-Pyongyang, while Seoul is wary of increased Moscow overtures to Pyongyang and Moscow’s attempts to coerce South Korea into ceasing support for Ukraine.
While initial narrative was that cooperation with Indo Pacific partners involve only matters related to cyber security in enhancing deterrence and defence, hard power security is a matter of when and not if, in a more institutionalised framework in the near future.
Calls are growing for NATO to expand into the Indo-Pacific.
Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand attended its summit in Madrid, in 2022 for the first time.
Dubbed the “Indo Pacific 4 (IP4)”, their inclusion underscored the case of China in NATO’s strategic calculations of the future away from a traditionally Russia centric assessment.
The idea of NATO opening a liaison office in Tokyo over the years has sparked a strong reaction from within the alliance and without, fearing an overstretched capacity and a backlash from China.
While NATO has no formal remit and structure in the Indo-Pacific, its members have past and existing security and defence arrangements with regional partners.
It remains to be seen the impact of a future NATO entanglement in the region or the formation of an Asian NATO among regional peers and how that will either complement or compete with existing mechanisms such as AUKUS and future expansion of AUKUS, the Quad or the newly formed Squad and a slew other bilateral arrangements including the Reciprocal Access Agreements and the 2+2 Arrangements.
Any formation of a NATO like structure or a future presence of NATO in the region will institutionalise a formalised structure of combined and committed defence and security, providing a new and welcomed shift of assured and agreed defence support, unlike the others.
Existing bilateral security, military and defence alliances or affiliations with Washington from historical regional players especially Tokyo, Seoul, Manila, Canberra or Taipei will face added layers of consolidated security assurances from other powers in NATO should they be keen to be a part of the new NATO ventures in the region.
If this happens, these existing traditional US allies will most likely treat it as another fallback option to the risk of US backtracking on its commitment and security umbrella in scale and depth, a risk that is now watched warily by these powers especially Taipei in anticipating a return to a withdrawn US interests under a potential Trump presidency.
For now, regional powers will be happy to rely on the general overarching common interests of preserving the rules-based order and the freedom of navigation, in which NATO can readily commit itself without the baggage of a full blown power interests or security commitment with new partners.
Despite NATO’s risky and uncertain venture in this part of the world, individual European powers are already well ahead in their Indo Pacific presence, from Germany to France.
The question remains on how European NATO powers can engage with Indo-Pacific allies without the US sphere of influence.
European countries are not as keen to take on China as the US, creating some internal frictions within NATO, where some will want NATO to focus on Europe and Ukraine while others want Nato to extend into the Indo Pacific.
Nuclear sharing in NATO
Nuclear empowerment and deterrence remains the central relevance for NATO. As Stoltenberg has made clear, NATO is a nuclear alliance. He argued that while NATO’s aim is a world free of nuclear weapons, as long as they exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.
NATO’s nuclear deterrence is based on nuclear sharing arrangements, predominantly led by the US nuclear weapons’ deployment in Europe. The US maintains total control on these weapons that are forward deployed in Europe while European allies provide military support for dual-capable aircraft (DCA) with conventional capabilities.
With the wariness by European powers that the US would not use nuclear weapons to defend Europe because of the risk of a nuclear exchange between Russia, the fallback options that depend on existing nuclear powers in Europe are both limited and not ready for the operational tasks.
The pivot to Indo Pacific has to take place in aligning with Washington’s agenda, so as not to lose the nuclear support in Europe too. As Secretary of State Antony Blinken put it, partners in Europe see challenges halfway around the world in Asia as being relevant to them, just as partners in Asia see challenges halfway around the world in Europe as being relevant to them.
He argued that the U.S. has been working to break down barriers between European alliances, Asian coalitions and other partners worldwide.
Europe’s NATO members must be ready to take over the mantle of ensuring their own security and deterrence against Russia, in a future where US forces will increasingly pivot to Asia and the Chinese threats.
However, they are obviously not ready both in military capacity and financial
While the US sees promoting democracy and freedom and checking the ambitious revisionist powers of Russia and China as the main objectives, most Asian powers are wary of both the increasingly unchecked Chinese might and the double edged sword of American assurances which will bring conflicts closer to their home.
It remains a chicken and egg dilemma for these powers.
The NATO summit will allow the United States and its European and Indo-Pacific allies to push back against China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, as argued by pro Nato analysts, where Beijing is worried that Washington’s push for a NATO-like alliance in the Indo-Pacific will only upend its own Asia Pacific strategy. Beijing publicly accused the US in portraying its intent for the Indo Pacific as to integrate all small circles into a big circle as the Asian version of NATO in order to maintain the hegemony as led by the United States, as stated by Chinese Lt. Gen. Jing Jianfeng.
Biden argued during his speech to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day that America’s unique ability to bring countries together is its source of strength and power, but this is increasingly under strain where the anti establishment momentum led by Moscow and Beijing have further encroached into the West’s traditional sphere of influence.
However, the West’s military might remains unrivalled for now, and it remains to be seen how the anti West capacity is building up to challenge both the economic and military dominance of the US led global order.
