This is the question that the prestigious and century-old magazine Foreign Affairspublished by the Council on Foreign Relations, the most prestigious think tank The 75th anniversary summit of NATO in Washington was held in Washington in 2017. More than 40 experts responded, most of whom were confident about the future of the alliance, at least in the persistence of its acronyms and structures, although not so much about the commitment of the United States, which has been fundamental in the three-quarters of a century of its history, and with serious doubts if Donald Trump regains the White House on November 5.
This is the central question on the minds of those summoned to the US capital, although other concerns are explicitly expressed in statements and speeches. The main focus is on Ukraine, whose NATO candidacy is the formal reason given by Putin for attacking it. The summit wants to give Zelensky everything in his power to dissuade Russia from continuing to bomb Ukrainian territory and especially hospitals and civilian infrastructure. Ukraine deserves treatment from its allies at least similar to that received by Israel under the Iron Dome, which makes it practically invulnerable to air attacks, as was demonstrated by the massive Iranian missile attack on April 13.
The Alliance will install a permanent representative in kyiv and a military command in Germany, a first step in the direction demanded by Emmanuel Macron of considering the eventual sending of military instructors. It has also provided a huge financial aid package to set up a mechanism designed to Trump proofthat is, one that is irreversible even in a new term of the former president, and a set of bilateral defence agreements with a large number of Atlantic partners. This is about bringing Ukraine closer to the coverage of NATO Article 5 in the event of an external attack, without full integration having taken place or the guarantee of mutual defence being activated. This is the strategic ambiguity that is essential to dissuade the enemy in the face of the uncertainty of the response that their attacks may provoke.
It is not only Ukraine that is waiting for results from Washington. Joe Biden, who is now in question as a Democratic candidate due to his expressive and cognitive difficulties, is also waiting for them. He may emerge from the summit still alive in the electoral race or completely ruled out as a Democratic candidate. According to the poll, Foreign AffairsIt is clear that many have begun to adjust to the idea of Trump as the next leader of the Alliance and that NATO will endure, just as it has endured so many crises throughout its history.
Few of the respondents mentioned the greatest danger looming over NATO. It is not the withdrawal of the United States or the sharing of defence costs, but the erosion of the credibility of Article 5 of the Treaty, a subtle deterrent mechanism based on the military and nuclear power of the Alliance’s main partner. Trump has already shown his ability to render it useless and thereby throw away the value of the Alliance, devalue Ukraine’s membership application and consequently concede victory to Putin. If such a thing were to happen, the future of the Alliance and above all of the mutual defence mechanism would be in the hands of the Europeans, and especially France and the United Kingdom, the two largest military powers in Europe and the only ones in the Alliance that can deploy a nuclear umbrella. NATO will survive, but it will be difficult to recognise it with Trump, the United States politically absent if not absent altogether, and its democracy in the process of eclipse.
