:quality(75)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/elcomercio/G2K5HO5RVZGS5CX3BB3FWG5524.JPG)
Dmitri Peskov, government spokesman Russiansaid this Tuesday the 28th that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) it’s a “bloc created for confrontational purposes” that seeks to place its infrastructure on its borders. It seems not to be wrong: what was said was in response to the possibility that the organism increases “to more than 300,000 its high-availability forces”.
NATO’s decision should be made between this Tuesday and Thursday the 30th, days in which its leaders meet in Madrid.
READ ALSO: The G7 promises support for Ukraine “as long as it takes” and new sanctions on Russia
According to Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATOthis measure supposes “the largest review of our collective deterrence and defense since the Cold War”.
But what are we really talking about?
The Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF)
Inside of NATO There is Response Force (NRF)that “brings together land, air, sea and Special Operations Forces components” of the alliance countries. Inside it is the VJTF.
This was created in 2014 as “response to crises in Middle East and the aggression of Russia against Ukraine”. It currently has 40,000 troops.
According to the EFE agency, its main characteristic is to be “permanently available” and being capable of “deploy in a few days to defend any Alliance country”.
This year, and under the leadership of Francethe response time was reduced from 7 to 5 days.
The idea sounds good, but the world economic crisis would put in trouble the nations that, even in better times, could not meet the promised investments.
READ ALSO: International Legion volunteers in Ukraine hit by reality
Since 2014, explains El Mundo, NATO members have invested US$350 billion in security and defense. To the equation we must add that the cost that this entails has not stopped increasing.
Hence, many allies cannot meet their quotas. It is recalled that, that year, everyone undertook to contribute the 2% of their GDP; nevertheless, today, only 9 of the 30 members comply. By 2024, the figure is expected to rise to 14.
One of those who has failed is Spainwhich is sustained with 1.02% of GDP, “light years from Greece either USAwho head the list with 3.76 and 3.47% respectively”.
A change of address?
El Mundo explains that, during the Madrid Summitthe NATO will debate whether or not to approve a new strategic concepta “roadmap of priorities and how to execute them over the next decade”. Not only that: it could be that the troops “deployed on a provisional and rotating basis”, become permanent.
The media also anticipates that this new direction Should have in consideration of Russia as the main threat from the east.
Jens Stoltenberg has spoken about it.
“Our new concept will guide us in an era of strategic competition. It will be clear that the allies consider Russia as the most significant and direct threat to our security, and will be mentioned China and the challenges it poses beijing to our security, interests and values for the first time”.
“It will also cover our plans for other threats and challenges, such as terrorism, cyber attacks and hybrid attacks.”.
What does the paradigm shift respond to?
For the same reason that this is new news and about which very little is still known, the security specialist and coordinator of the World Political Analysis Laboratory Rubens de S. Duarte proposes to approach the answer from history.
“If we review what has happened in recent years and look at it from various angles, we will see that NATO has proven to be inefficient. In the 2007 it was clear that Russia orchestrated cyberattacks against Estonia, but the alliance watched as one of its members was attacked. In the same way, he did nothing for Georgia in the 2008 nor in the crimean crisis of 2014″.
“And, in the current one, NATO was not able to achieve dialogue, it was not a dissuasive, nor has it been able to support Ukraine. Hence Kyiv keep losing important battles and part of your territory. In short, NATO has not proved its usefulness”.
Internally -which implies dealing with politics-, it has also not been successful in getting its members to cooperate. For Duarte, the military spending should be more coordinated, as well as the production of weapons. “But, so far, the countries continue to have their own industries and production. There are planes and tanks of different models, which shows that it has not been possible to create a common defense policy”.
“That is why I cannot explain to myself how countries like Sweden Y Finland they see NATO as a solution. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that it is the only answer and that they see a bright future in it, despite the fact that in recent years this has not been the case.”.
Hence, Duarte is encouraged to understand this change in strategy as a way in which NATO deals with its own problems.. “Another question will be if they are able to achieve it”.
The specialist concludes:Looking at the present scenario, I would say that it will not succeed. But if they can understand Russia as a strong external enemy, it may be that the member countries are encouraged to reach consensus”.
Source: Elcomercio
I, Ronald Payne, am a journalist and author who dedicated his life to telling the stories that need to be said. I have over 7 years of experience as a reporter and editor, covering everything from politics to business to crime.
:quality(75)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/elcomercio/MYTLUZLMGJEWBLDKIYPDHE5C6Q.jpg)
