��������Ƶ

NATO, which was described as experiencing “brain death” by French President Emmanuel Macron as recently as 2019, has assumed a new lease of life with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It is a remarkable reversal of fortunes that could continue for years to come if concerns also grow about China.

The crisis in Eastern Europe has underlined the continuing relevance of the Western alliance of countries with a collective population of about 1 billion. For all its remaining weaknesses, NATO, whose members’ defense ministers met in Brussels on Wednesday, remains one of the world’s most successful ever military organizations. It has helped underpin the longest period of sustained peace in the West’s modern history.

This massive, positive shift in sentiment toward the military alliance since February has allowed it to turn the corner on the worst strains in its 70-year history that were seen during Donald Trump’s presidency. Former US officials, including ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton, have confirmed that Trump came close to announcing the US’ withdrawal from the alliance.

This would have been a body blow to its credibility. Indeed, it is chilling to think what a reelected Trump, who described Vladimir Putin’s pre-invasion recognition of parts of Ukraine as independent as “genius,” would have meant for the future of NATO during one of its gravest ever threats.

However, the challenges within NATO during the Trump era were by no means only of his own making. One of his critiques of the alliance — that more than half of its members were not spending the prescribed 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense — is a long-standing sore point that other US presidents have highlighted, dating back to at least Bill Clinton. It is important, therefore, to see that more nations in Europe have now committed, in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, to this target. Most symbolically, this includes Germany under new Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Moreover, while Trump supported Brexit, that dimension of the fracturing of the Western alliance owed more to long-standing UK political issues that he exacerbated, rather than created. Ironically, the Ukraine crisis may now help heal some of the schisms, as London and continental European capitals work together closely in their response to Russia’s revanchism.

This positive shift in sentiment has allowed the alliance to turn the corner on the worst strains in its history seen during Donald Trump’s presidency.

Andrew Hammond

Foes such as Russia aside, possibly the biggest medium-term threat to the alliance is now the prospect of a new US president in 2025 or after — possibly even Trump himself — coming into power with a NATO-skeptic agenda that draws on the remaining concerns about whether the alliance is fit for purpose now that is into its eighth decade. It was Macron’s exasperation at the diminished commitment of the US, under the Trump presidency, which drove his astonishing outburst about the alliance’s supposed brain death.

Washington’s waning commitment irked Macron, including the Trump White House’s failure to consult Western allies before pulling US forces out of Syria in 2019. This development reverberated inside the organization, as it cleared the way for a much-criticized move by Turkey — itself a NATO member, which had just decided to buy the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system — to push into Syria and create what it calls a “security zone” along its border. As a result, Kurdish forces, which had been helping Western forces fight Daesh, were expelled from the area.

Macron was even forced to declare that he did not know if the US, under Trump, could still be relied on to defend the alliance under the terms of its founding charter, which states that any attack on one member will trigger a collective response. His comments, while clearly heartfelt, were slapped down at the time by other leading European leaders, including then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Their preferred approach was to keep a diplomatic silence and try to “last out” the Trump era, hoping that it would only be one term, which proved to be the case.

In the longer term, it is plausible that a higher defense spending target will be locked in by NATO amid concerns over broader shifts in the global security environment, including threats and opportunities vis-a-vis China. US officials have claimed that Russia asked China for military assistance in its invasion of Ukraine, although Beijing and Moscow have denied the reports.

Whatever the truth of the matter, China has refused to condemn Russia over Ukraine, and remains one of its key allies. So, what is perceived as Beijing’s growing global assertiveness — including its missile systems — is a rising concern and this will become especially marked if it doubles down on its alliance with Moscow.

• Andrew Hammond is an Associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.