Despite concerns of growing rifts between NATO members, Alejandro Alvargonzalez, the alliance’s assistant secretary general for political affairs and security policy, is confident the alliance will pull together in the face of the threat of a revaunchist Russia.
Speaking on the “Future of NATO” panel moderated by the well-known BBC journalist Stephen Sackur at the 15th Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv on Sept. 14, Alvargonzalez said NATO remained the only realistic option for keeping its 29 members safe from military threats.
“We are in times of uncertainty – this is something that I believe is quite clear – but, nevertheless, we find in Europe … institutions that are ready to overcome this situation,” he said.
“NATO has been able to stick to its principles for (its 69 years of existence) and those principles are the basis of our strength.”
Sackur raised the issue of disagreements between key European members of the alliance: Germany giving a green light to the construction of Nord Stream 2, a political-economic pipeline project that is heavily lobbied for by Russia; Russia’s ongoing aggression against its western neighbors; Italy’s new government, which is showing more friendliness to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin; and Turkey being “out of sync” with the rest of its NATO allies.
“Just as (Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko) is determined to paint a Ukrainian future in NATO, NATO is facing an existential crisis prompted by (U.S. President) Donald Trump, but actually running much much deeper, a deep concern in your most important member United States that NATO is no longer working in the U.S.’s interests,” Sackur said.
He was referring to Trump’s controversial comments at the alliance’s Brussels Summit in July, when the U.S. president caused a diplomatic furor by demanding other members take immediate steps to increase defense spending.
“This is an organization that looks increasingly fragmented and dysfunctional,” Sackur said.
Alvargonzalez disagreed, pointing out that NATO has had a history of many disagreements, but has still been able to move forward as it is the only overarching and effective “defense and deterrence” alternative for its members.
“Only NATO provides a place where the North American and European Allies are able to debate politics and geostrategy,” Alvargonzalez said.
Russian aggression
However, there hasn’t been much consensus in NATO over Russia’s aggression, Sackur maintained.
“If we accept the premise that NATO ultimately was built upon the Western desire to face down the Soviet Union, and still today .. the danger (from Russia) is the fundamental pillar of what NATO is about, then all we see is division,” he said.
Alvargonzalez agreed that Russia was a major problem, but downplayed divisions between alliance members.
“Russia is a challenging scenario that provokes us on a daily basis,” he said. “But there is also a common thought about Russia, and we have a policy which is sustained by all of the members, which is of deterrence and dialogue. Deterrence has two components: One of them is military capabilities, the other one is political will even to use those capabilities if it proves necessary.”
When Sakur then said it was unlikely Ukraine would gain NATO membership, Alvargonzalez disagreed again. While giving no definite timeline, he said that Ukraine was expected to become a NATO member eventually.
“There will be difficulties in the path towards this, but we do all hope that this will be the reality,” he said. “Russia has indeed committed crimes against the international law over the last few years, especially starting in 2014, but also before that – we can go back to 2008 and think of Georgia.”
“Russia has this idea that it can not only interfere, but it can decide the situation and the future in international relations of any of its neighbors. And this we reject.”
“It’s not NATO that has expanded to the east, but the east that has expanded to NATO, because it is a better guarantee for their security, their prosperity and their democracy.”
