NATO in Europe: Between Weak European Allies and Strong Influence of Russian Federation

Open access

Abstract

After the collapse of the bipolar international order, NATO has been focused on its desire to eradicate Cold War divisions and to build good relations with Russia. However, the security environment, especially in Europe, is still dramatically changing. The NATO Warsaw Summit was focused especially on NATO’s deteriorated relations with Russia that affect Europe’s security. At the same time, it looked at bolstering deterrence and defence due to many concerns coming from eastern European allies about Russia’s new attitude in international relations. The Allies agreed that a dialogue with Russia rebuilding mutual trust needs to start. In the times when Europe faces major crisis from its southern and south-eastern neighbourhood - Western Balkan countries, Syria, Libya and Iraq - and other threats, such as terrorism, coming from the so-called Islamic State, causing migration crises, it is necessary to calm down relations with Russia. The article brings out the main purpose of NATO in a transformed world, with the accent on Europe, that is constantly developing new security conditions while tackling new challenges and threats.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Andzans M. 2016. Patching the shield: the Baltic states on the road towards practical NATO guarantees. The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs 25(1): 13-22.

  • BBC 2016. Russia deploys nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad. BBC [online]. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/worldeurope-37597075 (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Bertelsmann Stiftung 2016. Frayed partnership: German public opinion on Russia. Gutersloh & Institute for Public Affairs Warsaw [pdf]. Available at: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/user_upload/EZ_Frayed_Partnership_2016_ENG.pdf (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Biscop S. and Coelmont J. 2011. Pooling and sharing: from slow march to quick march?. Egmont Institute Security Policy Brief No. 23 Egmont Brussels [pdf]. Available at: http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2013/09/SPB23-BiscopCoelmont.pdf?type=pdf (Accessed 2 May 2017).

  • Brattberg E. 2017. Lessons for Europe from one hundred days of Trump. [online]. Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/04/28/lessons-for-europe-from-one-hundred-days-of-Trump (Accessed 2 May 2017).

  • Bröning M. 2016. The rise of populism in Europe: can the center hold?. Foreign Affairs [online]. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2016-06-03/rise-populism-europe (Accessed 2 May 2017).

  • Busra P. and Balcer A. 2016. An unpredictable Russia: the impact on Poland. European Council on Foreign Relations 15 July [online]. Available at: http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_an_unpredictable_russia_the_impact_on_poland (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Champion M. 2016. NATO has bigger problems than Brexit as German ambivalence rears. Bloomberg 8 July [online]. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-08/nato-has-biggerproblems-than-brexit-as-german-ambivalence-rears (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Chance M. 2016. Russia’s military might: Putin’s foreign policy in numbers. CNN [online]. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/11/europe/russia-military-putin-foreign-policy/ (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Cilluffo F. J. and Cardash S. L. 2016. NATO after Brexit: Will security cooperation work?. Foreign Affairs 4 July [online]. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-kingdom/2016-07-04/nato-afterbrexit (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Corvaja A. S. 2016. Beyond deterrence: NATO’s agenda after Warsaw: prospects for German foreign policy. Berlin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

  • Čehulić Vukadinović L. 2010. Euroatlantizam i suvremeni međunarodni odnosi. Zagreb Podgorica: Politička Kultura CID.

  • De Luce D. and McLeary P. 2016. Brexit is good news for Russia but a headache for NATO. Foreign Policy 26 June [online]. Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/26/brexit-is-good-news-forrussia- but-a-headache-for-nato/ (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Edström H. Matlary J. H. and Petersson M. 2011. Utility for NATO: utility of NATO? pp.1-17. In: Edström H. Matlary J. and Petersson M. eds. NATO: The Power of Partnerships. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • European Union 2003. A security Europe in a better world. European Security Strategy. [online]. Available at: https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/european-security-strategy-secure-europebetter-world (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • European Union 2016. A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy: shared vision common action: a stronger Europe. [pdf]. Available at: https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/sites/globalstrategy/files/eugs_review_web.pdf (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Fata D. 2011. Europe in transition: from what to where?. In: Maior G. C. and Konoplyov S. eds. Strategic Knowledge in the Wider Black Sea Area. Bukurest: Editura Rao. pp. 33-39.

  • ‘Frayed Partnership’ German public opinion on Russia 2016. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Institute of Public Affairs in Warsaw [pdf]. Available at: https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/user_upload/EZ_Frayed_Partnership_2016_ENG.pdf (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Gerasimov V. 2013. The value of science is in the foresight: new challenges demand rethinking the forms and methods of carrying combat operations. Military Industrial Courier 27 February [pdf]. Available at: http://vpk-news.ru/sites/default/files/pdf/VPK_08_476.pdf (Accessed 12 June 2015).

  • Goodwin M. 2011. Right response: understanding and countering populist extremism in Europe. Chatham House Report 1 September [online]. Available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/178301 (Accessed 12 June 2016).

  • Hegedus D. 2016. The Kremlin’s influence in Hungary: are Russian vested interests wearing Hungarian national colors? DGAP Kompakt 8(1): 1-11.

  • Hendrickson R. C. 2007. The miscalculation of NATO’s death. Parameters: U.S. Army War College 37(1): 98.

  • Henley J. Bengtsson H. and Barr C. 2016. Across Europe distrust of mainstream political parties is on the rise. The Guardian 25 May [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/25/across-europe-distrust-of-mainstream-political-parties-ison-the-rise (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Hill F. and Gaddy C. G. 2013. Mr. Putin: operative in Kremlin. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

  • Kacprzyk A. 2016. Revisionist Russia. In: Terlikowski M. ed. NATO and the future of peace in Europe: towards a tailored approach. Warsaw: The Polish Institute of International Affairs. pp. 9-12.

  • Körber Stiftung 2016. Russia in Europe: rapprochement or isolation. Forum for Impulse [pdf]. Available at: https://www.koerberstiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/internationale-verstaendigung/fokus_russland-in-europa/pdf/2016/Survey_Russia-in-Europe.pdf (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Körber Stiftung Survey 2016. Russia and Europe: rapprochement or isolation?. [online]. Available at: https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/en/news-archive/news-archive-details/russia-and-europerapprochement-or-isolation-833.html (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Kroenig M. 2017. The case for Trump’s foreign policy. The right people the right positions. Foreign Affairs [online]. Available at: https://www.foreignaffiars.com/artcles/world/2017-04-17/case-trump’s-foreignpolicy (Accessed 2 May 2017).

  • Lorenz W. 2016. NATO at a critical crossroads. The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs 25(1): 9-13.

  • Luciolli F. 2016. NATO in 3D: deterrence defence and dialogue. In: Strengthening peace and security. NATO summit 2016. Brussels: The Atlantic Treaty Association. p. 21.

  • Miller P. D. 2016. How World War II could begin in Latvia. Foreign Policy 16 November [online]. Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-world-war-iii-could-begin-in-latvia/ (Accessed 20 November 2016).

  • NATO 2016a. Defence expenditures of NATO countries. [online]. Available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_127537.htm (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • NATO 2016b. Joint declaration by the President of the European Council the President of the European Commission and the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO Press Release 19 8 July [online]. Available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offical_text_133163.htm (Accessed 21 July 2016).

  • Parfitt T. Philp C. Waterfield B. and Savage M. 2016. Putin moves his missiles in the threat to Europe. The Times 22 November [online]. Available at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-moves-his-missilesin-new-threat-to-europe-fbqpr9m9g (Accessed 27 November 2016).

  • Posener A. 2016. German nationalism can only be contained by united Europe. The Guardian 20 June [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/germannationalism-contained-united-europe-brexit-alternative-furdeutschland (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Public Diplomacy Division 2016. Warsaw summit key decisions. North Atlantic Treaty Organization [pdf]. Available at: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_09/20160906_1609-factsheet-warsaw-summit-key.pdf (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Reuters 2016. Baltics fearing Russia to triple military spending by 2018: report. Reuters [online]. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-baltics-military-idUSKCN12J2S4 (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Rynning S. 2002. Autonomous defence? The role of military forces in EU external affairs. Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI) National Europe Centre Paper No.17.

  • Shukla S. and Smith-Spark L. 2016. Russia unveils ‘Satan 2’ missile could wipe out France or Texas. CNN [online]. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-satan-2/ (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Sloan S. R. 2016. NATO’s Warsaw summit. Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Atlantisch Perspectief 3: 4-23.

  • Snyder G. H. 1984. The security dilemma in alliance politics. World Politics 36(4): 461-495.

  • Snyder G. H. 1990. Alliance theory: a neorealist first cut. Journal of International Affairs 44(1): 103-123.

  • Snyder G. H. 1997. Alliance politics. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Stanek H. 2016. Is Russia’s alliance with Greece a threat to NATO? National Interest [online]. Available at: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-alliance-greece-threat-nato-16998 (Accessed 27 October 2016).

  • Stoltenberg J. 2016. Now is not the time for the US to abandon NATO - nor should its European allies go it alone. The Guardian 12 November [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/12/us-must-not-abandon-nato-europego-alone-jens-stoltenberg (Accessed 27 November 2016).

  • Turner M. R. 2016. Deterring to defend: delivering on NATO’s promise. Brussels: NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

  • Walt S. M. 1985. Alliance formation and the balance of world power. International Security 9(4): 3-43.

  • Walt S. M. 1997. The origin of alliances. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press

  • Walt S. M. 2000. NATO’s future (In Theory). In: Martin P. and Brawley M. R. eds. Alliance politics Kosovo and NATO’s war: allied force or forced allies?. New York: Palgrave. pp. 11-26.

  • Walt S. M. 2004. The imbalance of power: on the prospects for effective American-European relations. Harvard Magazine March-April[online]. Available at: http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/03/the-imbalance-of-power.html (Accessed 1 May 2017).

  • Waltz K. N. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

  • Waltz K. N. 1993. The emerging structure of international politics. International Security 18(2): 44-79.

  • Waltz K. N. 2000. Structural realism after the Cold War. International Security 25(1): 5-41.

  • Wright B. 2016. What is NATO? Donald Trump threatens to leave North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Military alliance as Russia ties questioned. International Business Times 11 October [online]. Available at: http://www.ibtimes.com/what-nato-donald-trumpthreatens-leave-north-atlantic-treaty-organization-military-2444950 (Accessed 27 October 2016).

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.31

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.418

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 697 202 35
PDF Downloads 422 156 19