Breaking News, Latest News and Trending News

Why Britain insists on ‘global NATO’


An analysis by Polina Duhanova and Aloena Medvedeva

British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss advocates the creation of a “global NATO”. According to her, the expansion of the organization is necessary to ensure control over security in the Indo-Pacific region. She underlined that such an enlargement would not imply the admission of countries in other parts of the world to the alliance. Meanwhile, the head of Russian diplomacy, Sergei Lavrov, drew attention to the fact that the US-led West is trying to impose some order on the rest of the world’s actors, based on rules that no one has seen or approved of.

Experts, on the other hand, believe that “global NATO” should be understood as an attempt by Western actors to return to the principle of unipolarity, which would allow them to impose their vision of the world order on other states. In the run-up to an informal meeting of foreign ministers from NATO member states in Berlin, Liz Truss pointed out the need for a “global NATO”:

“It is important that we focus on a global NATO. Because while we protect Euro-Atlantic security, we must also look after security in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Truss had already made a similar statement on April 27 at an Easter banquet at Mansion House, the residence of the Lord Mayor of London. She called the choice between Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security elusive and stressed that in today’s world both are necessary. The head of British diplomacy explained her vision as follows:

“We need a global NATO. When I say that, I don’t mean extending membership to countries from other regions. Rather, it means NATO must have a global vision and be ready to deal with global threats.”

In this regard, she pointed to the importance of working with allies such as Japan and Australia to ensure the protection of the Pacific Rim.

She also claimed that the current global security architecture has suffered a breakdown:

“Let’s be honest: the architecture that was meant to guarantee peace and prosperity didn’t work in Ukraine. The structures in the areas of economy and security, worked out after World War II and then after the Cold War, are not up to date anymore.”

She described trade and economic policy as one of the levers for shaping a new “just” world order and called on all countries to “play by the rules” in order to have access to global markets.

preparatory work for the future

In view of the NATO Summit in Madrid at the end of June, Liz Truss presented her views on NATO’s future strategy. A new strategic concept for the North Atlantic Alliance is to be adopted there. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, speaking at a press conference following an informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers, said the alliance’s foundation and core concept is defense and deterrence, including against Russia. TASS quoted him as saying:

“I can say with confidence that this will be fully reflected in the (new – editor’s note) strategic concept.”

Blinken dodged a question as to whether the United States was among the countries in the bloc calling for relations with Russia to be based solely on the principle of deterrence. He also left the status of the NATO-Russia Founding Act uncommented, without specifying whether Washington considered it to be lapsed.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock provided more detailed information on this topic. Speaking to journalists, she said that the responsibility for eliminating the channels of dialogue with Europe and NATO lies with Russia, which allegedly unilaterally denounced the treaty.

Recall that the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed on May 27, 1997 by Russian President Boris Yeltsin and then NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. This document regulates relations between Russia and the countries of the alliance. It also prescribes a mutual renunciation of confrontation and aggressive measures. However, since the treaty was signed, NATO has repeatedly violated it, and as of 2014, ties between the parties have all but severed.

“The Neocolonial Division of the World”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also spoke about NATO’s global ambitions at the 30th session of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council on May 14.

According to him, the idea is now being promoted that NATO, as the vanguard of the democratic community, should replace or at least subordinate the UN in world politics. To this end, the concept of a “rule-based order” is being introduced, which nobody has seen, discussed or endorsed, according to the minister. However, even within the common West, these “rules” ensure neither democracy nor pluralism, emphasized the head of Russian diplomacy. Lavrov explained:

“We’re talking about a revival of rigid bloc discipline, an unconditional submission of the ‘allies’ to Washington’s dictates.”

As an example of the increasing loss of sovereignty by world actors in favor of the United States, he cited the European Union, which is gradually merging with NATO on security issues. The Russian Foreign Minister also recalled that the “line of defense” originally ran along the Berlin Wall during the Cold War, but has since been shifted further and further east. And he added:

“Now we’re being told that NATO has a global responsibility for addressing security issues, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. From what I understand, the next line of defense will be in the South China Sea area.”

In this regard, he noted that the question today is what the future world order will be: either just and polycentric, or “a small group of countries will succeed in imposing a neocolonial division of the world on the international community.”

In the interests of the United States

According to Sergei Yermakov, senior expert at the RISS Center for Research Coordination, Liz Truss’ reflections on NATO’s global nature correspond to a “political mandate” from the United States, which seeks all-encompassing leadership. Speaking to RT, the analyst made it clear:

“Accordingly, the idea of ​​a ‘global NATO’ implies that the alliance is expanding its geographic space, its area of ​​responsibility, that is, also dealing with the region in which China has interests. Containment of China will probably be one of the main topics of the upcoming summit in Madrid .”

He also noted that the trend towards devolving global functions to the bloc was evident as early as 2012 at the Chicago summit. At that time, Alliance members focused on promoting partnership principles, expansionism, and bringing into NATO’s orbit new countries far beyond the bloc’s borders. The reality, according to Ermakov, is that NATO is not even able to guarantee the security of Europe itself:

“Rather, the alliance is undermining the security architecture, which harbors the danger of more and more military conflicts in the region. And the reason lies in NATO’s extremely selective approach to such a universal principle as the indivisibility of security, to which it is committed obliged.”

For his part, Pawel Feldman, deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognosis at RUDN University, assesses the situation as such that, according to the British Foreign Secretary, global NATO should finally create the unipolar world Washington aspires to. In an interview with RT, the expert said:

“This ultimately means the stationing of American and British military bases on their own territory and thus the loss of military and political sovereignty of the respective countries.”

However, he stressed, support for such an ambitious proposal by all members of the alliance is unlikely. According to Feldman, an opponent of this idea could be Turkey, which tends to exercise caution in such initiatives, weighing all the risks and costs soberly. Especially since the USA is currently actively trying to involve its allies in a confrontation with China and practically trigger a hybrid war against the Asian superpower, since the People’s Republic together with Russia is standing in the way of Washington’s quest for global hegemony. Meanwhile, Feldman acknowledged:

“But that doesn’t mean Washington won’t find a way to force enlargement if it does take up the idea. And if it does, it could fundamentally change the Alliance’s role, as well as provoke opposition from other world players who unipolar world order is repugnant. Perhaps this will encourage them to look beyond their own differences and also form some sort of alliance.”

More on the subject – Nuclear Finland – NATO entry in breach of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.



This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More