Footsteps of the Third World War and the Role of NATO (4)

NATO was not designed by the US President Henry Truman and other politicians as an organization that only serves the democratic life and welfare of Europe at the beginning of its establishment. With the transatlantic link, it is also aimed to connect the security of North America and Europe through NATO. Thus, NATO was established in 1949 with the aim of being an organization that will contribute to the legitimate security policies of North America. It should not be expected that a NATO that does not serve US interests, expectations and hegemonic expansions will continue to exist, or that the US, which has been investing in the development of Alliance capabilities for so many years, will slap in vain on the NATO axis.
In the past, two main factors that led NATO to success stand out: First, it provided full protection against the Soviets, and second, Germany's turn to rearmament without creating a security problem for Europe. Thus, NATO; It has been widely accepted as an organization that has made efforts to establish a lasting peace in Europe since its establishment, having an Alliance structure united around common values ​​such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which addresses the security concerns of its members. We can say that the organization will maintain its similar structure in the 2020s.
Staying in this basic framework, we will examine the confrontation of the Russian Federation with a kind of 'containment' by NATO, as it was in the 1950s.
Pioneering Moves to Contain Russia
Since the mid-1990s, NATO has refrained from defining the Russian Federation as a direct threat, but acted as if there was a Russian threat. It has not been ignored that Russia may attempt a possible attack against Eastern European countries. In this regard, NATO; By displaying a vigilant stance, he tried to strengthen his deterrent and did not hesitate to deploy a military force surrounding Russia.
Strategies prior to the 1999 NATO strategic concept were based on the recognition of the strategic balance of power between the USA and the USSR, which was at the core of the Alliance's philosophy. Today, it is obvious that such a balance is not valid. The Western world, acting under the hat of NATO; It can be said that they are acting with the understanding of not allowing this country to become a dominant power again, by using their current situational superiority against Russia, and to build a European system in line with their own interests and expectations.
Accordingly, in 2002, the idea of ​​establishing missile defense systems on the territory of Georgia and Ukraine came to the fore. This idea naturally aroused great reaction from Russia. Russians; He started to evaluate that the missile defense systems that NATO wanted to create in these two countries and in Eastern European countries were set up against him. NATO Secretary General; The assurance he gave to Putin and Medvedev that these systems were not against the Russians was not enough to dispel the Russians' suspicions. The deployment of military forces in NATO's Eastern European countries, regardless of its purpose, has always been seen as an uncomfortable situation for the Russians.
Because Russia; It has an understanding that claims that the reasons that would legitimize NATO's existence have disappeared after the Cold War. In particular, he finds the enlargement of NATO and the alliance's strategic development of relations with countries close to Russia dangerous for him. On the other hand, according to some Western analysts who advocate the acquisition of Russia, it is emphasized that this country should be included in a structure similar to the "European Harmony", which was established in the 19th century and based on the close cooperation of the dominant actors, and that Russian views should be taken into account.
Russia, which closely follows NATO activities and especially enlargement/military capability development; He "sees" that the old Cold War environment continues, that NATO, which has expanded to the east, has begun to surround itself from the west and south, and has sought to develop its own power strategy accordingly. When analyzed in general, it is seen that the concern arising from NATO activities endangering the future of the Russian Federation is also reflected in all Russian Military Doctrines developed since 1997. However, there was no break in the relations between NATO and the Russian Federation in the 2000s. In fact, after 9/11, Russia was one of the countries that supported the USA in the context of the fight against terrorism.
However, the fact that the waters began to warm against Russia, especially in the Black Sea, aroused the Russians. For the Russian Federation, which almost came to the point of losing its existence and territorial integrity at the beginning of the 1990s and narrowly returned from there, the developments in the regions close to its borders are naturally seen as an imminent threat and in any case it is remarkable.
Russia's Response to NATO Enlargement/Containment: Russian Invasions NS
In this context, as the Russians gained power under the leadership of Putin, instead of confronting NATO directly, they indirectly intensified their activities to rein in Georgia and Ukraine, two countries that have not yet been lost to NATO. The Georgian and Ukrainian administrations, whose names started to appear in the NATO membership processes, and which the USA and Turkey "encouraged" against the Russians, were exposed to Russian intervention in the following period.
Putin's Russia, which intervened in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, and demonstrated the potential to mix and even invade these countries by using its hybrid warfare capabilities, including special forces, when necessary, annexed the lands of Crimea in front of the world on March 18, 2014. This occupation, besides gaining territory, opened a large playing field for Russia in the Black Sea.
Thus, the border dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, which has become permanent; As a 'de facto' situation, it was brought to the agenda of NATO, which said, "I am also in the Black Sea," through its new members Romania and Bulgaria. However, NATO; preferred to remain silent about the permanent and/or temporary "Russian occupation" on a part of the lands of both countries.
This silence has changed all the internal political balances in favor of pro-Russians in Ukraine and Georgia, which act with the desire to be a part of NATO. In fact, this silence caused other states in the Caucasus and Central Asia region, which were in close contact with the Russians, who gained their independence from the Soviet Union, to take their relations with NATO to a "controlled" point. The situation of Ukraine and Georgia, which is just coming into its own, is a lesson for other countries. Putin achieved his goal, undermined trust in NATO, and greatly slowed the pace of the Alliance's expansion. The question marks about the extent to which “NATO-friendly” countries can trust the Alliance, and thus the USA, remain valid today.
Continuing NATO's Policy of Containment of Russia
Behind the importance that the USA, the most important member of the Alliance, attaches to NATO's enlargement and establishing close strategic relations with the surrounding countries, lies the desire to extend its dominance and influence to the whole of the European continent. NATO has always been a useful tool in establishing, expanding and legitimizing US hegemony in Europe. By means of NATO, the existence and continuation of the "security community" in the European continent is possible, as well as the development of close relations between the USA and its allies.
From the western side, the success of the NATO enlargement process, which runs parallel to the construction of the security community, is related to the extent to which the admitted countries can adopt the Alliance's norms, values ​​and rules. After the Cold War, it can be said that the enlargement process, which resulted in 14 countries, excluding East Germany, joining the Alliance, contributed to the integration and stability of the Euro-Atlantic region. However, the point to be noted here is that the countries admitted to NATO and the countries accepted to the EU in this period were the same countries, with the exception of Albania. Therefore, these two processes were carried out in a way that supports each other. Considering that the EU process includes broader social, political, legal and economic integration; It can be said that the EU membership perspective also supports the successful realization of NATO enlargement.
One of the main goals of NATO members is to establish a network-centered security structure, which will be built jointly with global-scale security cooperation, on the basis of the Alliance. First of all, it is aimed to establish the institutional infrastructure to act in coordination with security organizations in different regions and other states in a way that puts NATO at the center. NATO is a multilateral and multilateral security organization that functions under the enhanced capabilities of the US (including under the umbrella of nuclear security) of countries with similar external threat perceptions. Looking at NATO from the perspective of realism, it would probably not be wrong to say that it still sees Russia as a "threat".
Despite Russian reactions, NATO continues its policy of increasing the presence of Allied forces in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea and deploying some of its capabilities there. At this point, the USA and NATO, which see the Russian ballistic missiles as a threat, turned to additional deployments with the thought of putting preventive measures in place.
This preemptive stance of the USA also feeds some disagreements within the Alliance. For example, French President Jacques Chirac in the 1990s; He stated that with the end of the Russian threat, NATO has completed its mission of ensuring European security. Returning to the military wing of the Alliance in 2009, France maintains a similar view and stance during the Macron period and advocates a clear Europe vision from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains. Especially to Russia Germany and some European countries, which have developed energy dependency through gas, do not look forward to a "Russian hostility" that serves the interests of the USA.
However, the situation for Eastern European countries, Ukraine and Georgia seems to be the opposite of this view, and these countries generally see the force policies of the USA against Russia in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region as necessary. The USA, which undertakes the majority of the military expenditures within NATO, tried to pressure its European allies to "share the burden and increase defense expenditures", especially during the Trump era. Europe's refusal to spend as much as the USA for its own security is shown as the argument of the USA against the members who oppose the American-oriented policies of the Alliance.
On the other hand, taking measures to eliminate the "Russian fear" historically carried by the Eastern European countries, which is the most important axis in the expansion of American influence in Europe, has a function that will serve both the European and global policies of the USA. As it is known, Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland, which have recently joined the Alliance, supported the USA rather than Germany and France during the invasion of Iraq.
In this context, in the NATO Strategic Concept approved in November 2010; “As one of the key elements of our common defense, we will develop a capability to protect our people and lands against ballistic missile attacks”, the statement read. It has been made clear that this capability contributes to the indivisibility of the Alliance's security. Skill needed; It is called Active Staged Tactical Ballistic Missile Defense. The essence of the system is the gradual deployment of radars and missiles to Eastern European countries within a plan, envisaged by the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) announced by the USA in 2009. For ballistic missile defense, four Aegis battleships in Rota/Spain, missile detection and tracking radar in Kürecik/Turkey, and a missile defense base (Aegis Ashore) in Deveselu/Romania became operational. Here, we can say that not only NATO but also the security needs of key partners of the USA such as Israel are taken into consideration, and that not only Russia but also other countries with missile capabilities such as Iran are considered as threats.
Joint Defense Force Deployments
After the Russian annexation of Crimea, at the NATO Wales Summit held in September 2014, collective defense was highlighted over other core Alliance tasks. In response to the Russians, the Readiness Action Plan (RAP) was adopted, which paved the way for the Alliance to adapt itself to new security challenges from the east and south. RAP has been seen as an important milestone and driver of NATO's military adaptation to the changing and evolving security environment. This plan is the most important reinforcement plan for NATO's common defense since the end of the Cold War. At the NATO Warsaw Summit held in July 2016, the feasibility of the Preparedness Action Plan was confirmed and a study was initiated to strengthen the deterrence and defense structure of the Alliance on this basis. At the summit, the plan was put into effect within the framework of the Alliance's deterrence and defense needs. In line with the decisions taken;
-- Out of 1166 soldiers stationed in Tapa/Estonia under British leadership,
-- 1 473 soldiers stationed in Adazi/Latvia under the leadership of Canada,
-- from 1287 soldiers stationed in Rukla/Lithuania under the leadership of Germany and
-- Out of 1 031 soldiers stationed in Orzysz/Poland under the leadership of the USA,
The multi-national NATO forces formed in these countries are located in these countries with rotational assignments, as NATO's forward deployed forces, within the scope of deterrence against the Russians.
For Georgia and Ukraine, additional measures were introduced under the leadership of the USA. In this context;
-- Joint Multinational Training Group Command (Joint Mission Task Group – Ukraine) was established in Yavoriv/Ukraine. It was established in 2015 to develop Ukraine's defense capabilities and to support the training of troops at the brigade level and below. Upon the occupation of Crimea by Russia, in order to support the stability and independence of Ukraine, the troops of Canada, Lithuania, Denmark, Poland, Sweden and England are also serving in the union, which was formed under the command of the USA.
-- In Vaziani/Georgia, the Defense Readiness Program – Training (Georgian Defense Readiness Program – Training (GDRP-T)) has been activated and has been established since 2018 to provide combat readiness training to Georgian soldiers at battalion level, under simulated operational conditions.
The NATO Readiness Initiative was launched to increase the number and quality of military elements with high readiness and responsiveness within the Alliance. Accordingly, at the 30-day preparation level, thirty combatants each from the land, sea and air forces It was aimed to create a force pool consisting of the city wall.
The Alliance also operates to assist international efforts to prevent irregular migration and refugee flows in the Aegean Sea. This activity; It has been carried out by NATO Permanent Naval Force Second Group (SNMG-2) elements since February 2016. Operation Sea Guardian has been continuing in the Mediterranean since October 2016.
In addition, approximately 70 000 soldiers of the USA, most of whom are stationed in Germany, continue to serve in Europe in line with the interests of the USA and NATO. Currently, there are 1 670 American soldiers in Turkey, 34 146 in Germany, 4 500 in Poland, 9 333 in England, 12 199 in Italy and 3 270 in Spain.
Conclusion
Russia; It follows a policy that sees Ukrainians and Russians as 'one people'. For this reason, it strongly opposes American and NATO influence over Ukraine. In this sense, Ukraine's possible NATO membership and relations with Western countries are seen as a "threat" for Russia's national security. For this reason, Ukraine is going through a very difficult process while trying to free itself from Russian influence.
Romania, one of the countries in the region, continues on its way as a loyal NATO member after 2004. Bulgaria, on the other hand, has a somewhat closer stance to Moscow than Romania. However, both countries do not hide their need for NATO assurance against the Russian Army. Therefore, integration with the West is considered vital for these two countries. In this context, Bulgaria and Romania always welcome the deployment of a NATO presence on their own soil that will balance the Russian military presence.
On the other hand, it is a known fact that the only country that can balance Russia in the Black Sea is Turkey, which has been a NATO ally for 70 years. NATO and the USA are aware of this fact. The main problem for the US-led NATO on this front is the 'good' Turkish-Russian relations based on close political friendship between Erdogan and Putin. The rapprochement between the two countries, from the perspective of NATO, involves a risk that could disrupt the power policies that the Alliance is trying to put into action against Russia and the policy of encircling this country from the Black Sea. Because the NATO navy in the Black Sea can reach a size that can balance the Russians only if the Montreux Convention is interpreted more liberally.
After Turkey bought the S-400 from the Russians, the USA's removal of Turkey from the F-35 program opened the doors of a fragile period in the Turkish-USA and therefore Turkey-NATO axis. Under these circumstances, Turkey is not expected to 'soften' Montreux. In the meantime, although Turkey's defense of the Russian-captured Crimea as belonging to Ukraine, its sale of unmanned aerial vehicles to Ukraine, its conflicting policies with the Russians in Syria and Libya, ultimately straining Russian-Turkish relations, NATO in the Black Sea For the time being, a positive wind blowing is considered as a distant possibility. As long as the US policy of excluding Turkey continues, the Alliance will have to endure the Russian presence and situational superiority in the Black Sea. This soft snow is generally seen as an obstacle to NATO's stronger stance against the Russians in Eastern Europe.

Resources:
Jafarov S. (2007). Russia-NATO Relations from Past to Present, Ezgi Bookstore, Bursa.
Oguzlu T. (2013). NATO Partnerships and Turkey (Editor: Aydın M.), Istanbul Bilgi University Press, 1st Edition, Istanbul.
Aslan M. (2021). NATO Summit and Turkey-US Relations, SETA Perspective, June, Issue 311. www.setav.org. p.e.t.22.10.2021.
Stent A. (2021). Russia's Battle for the Black Sea, Why Moscow's Moves Could Determine the Future of Navigation, Foreign Affairs, 16 August, <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/turkey/2021-08-16/russias-battle-black- sea>, set29.10.201.
Masters J., Merrow W. (2020). How Is the U.S. Military Pivoting in Europe? Council on Foreign Relations, 23 September, <https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-us-military-pivoting-europe>, p.e.t. 29.10.2021.
Baldwin M. (2021). Task Force Raven Takes Command of Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine, U.S. Army Mil., April 17, <https://www.army.mil/article/245354/task_force_raven_takes_command_of_joint_multinational_training_group_ukraine>, p.e.t.29.10.2021.
Georgia Defense Readiness Program Training, <https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6134980/georgia-defense-readiness-program-training>, s.e.t. 29.10.2021.
Ministry of Georgia News (2021). 22nd infantry battalion completed Georgian Defense Readiness Program, 21 April, <https://mod.gov.ge/en/news/read/8168/22nd-infantry-battalion-completed-georgian-defence-readiness-program>, set29.10 .2021.
NATO Factsheet, March 2021, NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence, <https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/3/pdf/2103-factsheet_efp_en.pdf>, p.e.t.29.10.2021.