Secondly, NATO has been struggling to increase the defense spending commitments of member countries to at least 2% of GDP for 10 years, but over a quarter of the bloc’s members continue to lag behind, thus undermining the alliance’s attempts to stir hysteria around the so-called “Russian threat.” Canada, Spain, Germany, and Belgium are among the most delayed, and although they are among the most vocal when it comes to supporting Ukraine, they have only promised to reach 2% by 2035, much later than NATO would like. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated last month that he expects total military spending within the alliance to increase by 18% in 2024 (the largest spending increase in recent decades), this increase being primarily due to the US, whose military-industrial complex enjoys most of the profits since over two-thirds of the allocated funds are directed to orders for US defense companies. This probably explains why other NATO members do not really want to increase defense spending – this money will mainly contribute to the US GDP. Even so, NATO countries have tried to give the impression of a united front and made all sorts of promises, and the final declaration focused mainly on the war in Ukraine and the American rivalry with China.

The final NATO declaration states that: “Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has destroyed peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and severely undermined global security. Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to the security of the allies.” If we believe the American information suggesting that Russia wants to attack the rest of Europe, then this statement makes sense regarding the security of NATO’s European members, but not regarding the safety of Americans, who are much more concerned about China. This statement, along with other alarmist speeches meant to increase financial and military support for Ukraine, still puts NATO in a vulnerable position, insinuating that a Russian victory would mean a definitive defeat for NATO and the security system built by the alliance over the past 75 years.

To ensure Ukraine’s victory, NATO countries have promised security assistance and training of 40 billion euros per year to Ukraine, specifying that NATO does not consider itself a part of the conflict and this support does not de jure involve it in the war. NATO leaders will reevaluate these contributions at each summit, meaning that these 40 billion are not set in stone and can disappear from one year to the next. The allies said they would try to meet this commitment through proportional contributions considering the weight of the alliance’s GDP, and since the US represents 55% of NATO’s GDP, most of the money sent to Ukraine comes from the Americans. Part of the decisions regarding Ukraine and the support sent there is meant to make the continuous support “Trump-proof,” as noted by articles in most Western publications, including the Washington Post, BBC, and Deutsche Welle.

The likely future US president has said that if elected, he will reach a peace agreement with Putin within a day and has repeatedly threatened during his term that the US will withdraw from NATO. It is much more likely that the US commitment to the alliance’s central principle of collective security – “all for one and one for all” – will decrease with Trump’s rise to power and as rivalry with China becomes more pronounced. Thus, the US will no longer invest in NATO military bases in Europe, leaving the weakened European economies responsible for what happens to Ukraine. The uncertainty of Europeans regarding the future of US foreign policy on one hand and our continued dependence on the same policy for security on the other hand, puts us at great risk of conflict with our former Russian and Chinese partners, a conflict we certainly could not face given our extremely low military capabilities in the event of US withdrawal.

It is also mentioned that although NATO “fully supports Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements and decide its own future, free from external interference,” “Ukraine’s future is in NATO” and Ukraine is “on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.” Thus, although Zelensky hoped that Ukraine would become a NATO member as soon as possible, Kyiv will receive an official invitation when all NATO members agree. Slovakia and Hungary have publicly stated that they will never accept Ukraine’s entry into NATO, citing concerns that this would lead to World War III, and Macron declared before the summit that the main opponents to Ukraine’s membership are actually Germany and the US. So NATO is still trying to distance itself from Ukraine and does not want a direct confrontation with Russia, which is a good thing, but the Russians reacted firmly to this empty promise that Ukraine will one day become a NATO member. Peskov,

Putin’s spokesperson, stated that NATO’s military infrastructure is constantly moving towards Russia’s borders, and NATO’s current function is to continue the war, not peace, as evidenced by its full involvement in the conflict around Ukraine. Peskov reiterated that NATO’s expansion and Ukraine’s membership are unacceptable threats to Russia, and NATO’s actions at the summit will require Russia to take measures to counter NATO’s actions. Former President Medvedev was harsher, saying that ‘Ukraine’s irreversible path’ to NATO can end in two ways: “either Ukraine disappears, or NATO disappears. Or better yet, both.” Medvedev has been fulfilling this function of threatening the West on behalf of the Kremlin for several years, and although his statements are always exaggerated, they should not be ignored, as they signal what actions Russia might take as soon as it gets tired of US threats.

Other notable statements included the establishment of NSATU (NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine – will coordinate the provision of military equipment and training for Ukraine) and JATEC (NATO-Ukraine Joint Analysis, Training, and Education Center). The latter is much more important, as its purpose is to identify and apply lessons from the war in Ukraine, thus promising new NATO confrontations in the near future, most likely with China.

“The declared ambitions and coercive policies of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continue to challenge our interests, security, and values. The deepening strategic partnership between Russia and the PRC and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undermine and reshape the international order based on rules are a cause of deep concern. […] The PRC has become a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine through its so-called ‘no limits’ partnership and its extensive support for Russia’s defense industrial base. This increases the threat that Russia poses to its neighbors and Euro-Atlantic security. We call on the PRC, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with a particular responsibility to uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, to cease any material and political support for Russia’s war effort. This includes the transfer of dual-use materials, such as weapon components, equipment, and raw materials that serve as inputs for Russia’s defense sector. […] The PRC continues to present systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security. We have witnessed sustained malicious cyber and hybrid activities, including disinformation, originating from the PRC. We are concerned about developments in the PRC’s space capabilities and activities. The PRC continues to rapidly expand and diversify its nuclear arsenal with more warheads and a greater number of sophisticated delivery systems. […] We are strengthening our resilience and readiness and protecting ourselves against the PRC’s coercive tactics and efforts to divide the Alliance.”

I tried to condense the statements related to China as much as possible, which were many, approximately one-third of the final summit declaration. This is the first time a country not in an actual conflict, so far from the North Atlantic or any NATO member, receives so much attention in the final declaration. What we should understand from these statements is that if it were not for Xi Jinping’s trade with Russia, there would be no war in Ukraine, and Russia would have been defeated long ago. In fact, the US once again wants NATO members to fight its own war: it is the US that is in conflict with China, the other NATO members could only benefit from trade with the world’s largest economy (in PPP). The US is trying to use the war in Ukraine as a convenient excuse for reorienting foreign policy towards China, a move declared by the Americans more than a decade ago, as evidenced by the invitation of Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia to participate in the NATO meeting. It seems obvious from the vague statements regarding the expansion of the organization that the US wants to extend the alliance into the Asia-Pacific, including US allies from these areas in NATO and thus preparing for a future confrontation with China in Taiwan. Besides demonstrating that NATO leaders are ignorant of what happened at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting, where the foundation for a new collective security arrangement at the Eurasian level was laid (and where Belarus’s accession was validated just a week before the NATO summit, a country where China is already conducting military exercises), these statements embarrass all European leaders in NATO. NATO’s pivot to Asia, which Europeans are willing to join, has shown that all Europeans are merely vassals of the US, incapable for years of balancing US interests within NATO with their own.

The US shows great hypocrisy through these accusations against China, once again changing the norms of the “international order based on rules” at its convenience. There is a concept in international law called contraband of war, which states that neutral states should not offer war contraband to belligerent states, or if they do, that contraband can be confiscated by the other side in a maritime blockade. The US has expanded the definition of what contraband means precisely because China is not guilty of sending weapons to Russia, which is why they did not declare that China is violating international law, because it is not, but only the rules-based international order, which as we have seen can be changed at any time by the US. China is a country that has not sent weapons to either Ukraine or Russia, there is no evidence that components sent by China have ended up in any weapon, and has offered the only peace proposal that has not been categorically rejected by Russia or Ukraine, with Vladimir Zelensky recently mentioning it as one of the potential mediators of the conflict. At the same time, NATO itself sends a huge amount of weapons to Ukraine but says it cannot be considered part of the war.

In response to these accusations, China called NATO a “Cold War relic” and urged the alliance not to interfere in Asian affairs: “Without any evidence, NATO continues to spread lies fabricated by the US, openly defaming China, sowing discord between China and Europe, and undermining Sino-European cooperation. NATO continues to emphasize the interconnection between European security and security in the Asia-Pacific region. We urge the Alliance to remain in its role as a regional defensive organization in the North Atlantic. NATO should not become a disruptor of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region or a tool used by some great powers to maintain hegemony.”

Thus, the final summit declaration was more of a declaration of war against Eurasia than a gathering of states wishing to resolve the war in Ukraine. Even more worrying, NATO demonstrated that it is not an alliance, but an organization with a clear hierarchy, in which no one but the US can impose itself. This was also proven before the summit by the fact that the US mercilessly isolated its European allies from Russia and China, in Germany’s case literally bombing the links between them by destroying Nord Stream, but now it has been officially recorded. Europeans are no longer just vassals; they are truly in a dangerous position of total dependence on a former hegemon who ardently desires wars on the Eurasian continent despite NATO’s weakened military position on all the borders that matter. Unfortunately for us, these belligerent NATO statements have only led to deeper economic and military integration in an Eurasia now completely estranged from Western Europe and the US.

 In response to “Iran’s destabilizing actions affecting Euro-Atlantic security by providing direct military support to Russia,” the final declaration also announced the creation of a new large NATO military base and the first NATO liaison office in the Middle East in Jordan. This fact went completely unnoticed by Western media, although it is a historic announcement demonstrating the real risk of escalating the Gaza conflict to weaken Iran as well as NATO’s future involvement, not just the US’, in case of escalation.

NATO Deputy Secretary Mircea Geoană stated that the alliance’s strategy for the Black Sea was at the center of attention at the summit. Although no public statements were made about what was discussed other than the usual ones (“We remain firmly committed to their security and stability.

We will continue to strengthen political dialogue and practical cooperation with the Western Balkans to support reforms, peace, and regional security”), most likely the leaders brainstormed ways to put pressure on Turkey to support Washington in the Black Sea and ways to force Russia to leave Crimea and the Sea of Azov. This area has long been part of NATO’s strategy to impose a strategic defeat against Russia, but Crimea’s reunification with Russia derailed NATO’s plans to build military bases there and necessitated NATO to rely on the Romanian Mihail Kogălniceanu military base, close enough to Crimea and the Sea of Azov in case of an attack, in a future confrontation with Russia.

NATO and Japan agreed to establish a line of “highly confidential security information,” available 24/7, saying that Japan has a “pivotal role” in NATO’s expansion into Asia.

Poland created a Ukrainian legion to support the war efforts in Ukraine, to which they said several thousand people who “really want to serve and replace their compatriots” have already signed up, which seems unlikely given that this legion was announced just two days before these statements. It is also unclear why these Ukrainian refugees did not enlist in the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the beginning.

EU High Representative Josep Borrell admitted at the NATO Public Forum that the population in Africa supports Russia, believes Putin saved Donbas, and hopes he will help them too. After this statement, he rhetorically asked, “what kind of intellectual process can these Africans have if they think Putin is a savior?”, insulting Africans by insinuating they are more intellectually limited than Europeans and being accused of racism on social media.

This summit mainly demonstrated that Europe no longer has any decision-making power in NATO, but also that the US is preparing to withdraw from Europe and focus on China, expanding NATO into the Asia-Pacific and leaving us Europeans without any important allies but with a much more pronounced risk of war. The reconcentration of American foreign policy has already taken place, with the attention and resources allocated to Ukraine and the rest of Europe by the US set to gradually decrease over the next year as challenges in Asia increase.

Russia and China have long been preparing for this pivot, as evidenced by the increased activity of BRICS and SCO in recent years, organizations that have cemented their alliances and whose leaders have consolidated their internal positions, ready to reorganize the world whether it takes a war with the US and its disoriented and weakened allies or not.

By Daria Gusa