Comment
3 Reasons why Trident Juncture comes to the right time
At this moment NATO finishes the military exercise “Trident Juncture” that is the biggest since the end of the cold war. The maneuver includes 50,000 soldiers from 31 nations. Tons of weapon systems are deployed to Norway for the two weeks long maneuver.
Article 5 readiness is the purpose. For Moscow it is a provocation towards Russia: the U.S. administration stated its intention to leave the year-long INF arms reduction treaty. The U.S. along with other NATO members has increased its sanctions on Russia for several reasons or at least shown intention not to change current sanction regimes. For NATO members, however, Trident Juncture comes right at the moment. Here are three reasons, why this is the case.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its Article 5 statute of collective defense is a relic of the cold war. Although the Soviet Union ceased to exist since twenty-seven years already, the Berlin Wall is now gone longer than she was there, NATO survived and is alive. But in changing roles: Collective defense against the Warsaw Pact was once the best tool to prevent a nuclear war, but since then, there is one thing we learned about NATO. Article 5 has never been called, except once in 2001, after terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. The war against terrorism was not really an Article 5 scenario according to its real purpose, defense of a sovereign country against the military action of likely another sovereign country. Article 5 in 2001 was a political message to NATO members of solidarity and a method transform the intangible terrorist to a tangible enemy. After ten years of an identity crisis, NATO has transformed from a collective defense organization to a collective threat organization. This means in other words, the threat perception of each member state has transferred to a share of all members. This has two positive effects on NATO’s stability. First, the collective threat is not aggressive, although it may sound like it. It is rather defensive as we can expect a member state to be acting less assertive and responsive to a perceived threat it can trust in the collective solidarity. This makes NATO stronger on its periphery. For example, Turkey’s offensive strategy in Syria does not reflect NATO’s defensive nature. The headquarters in Brussels along with the U.S. sent clear signals to Turkey that a common interest in Syria does not exist so that Turkey abstained from actions that could have provoked Russia as the big supporter of the Syrian regime. Another example is NATO’s Eastern border, where member states perceive Russia’s aggression in Ukraine as a threat. The formation of civil defense corps in the Baltic States was widely prevented by NATO’s symbolic but decisive reinforcement at its Eastern border. Second, the NATO maneuver that exercises collective defense under Article 5 in one of NATO’s member states, which is Norway, demonstrates the defensive nature of the Alliance. Although some analysts see the military engagement in NATO’s northernmost country as a provocation to Russia, since it is so close to its borders and connecting arctic waters, where Russia already claims its “sovereign” rights, the area of action surrounded by NATO member states, including the United Kingdom and Denmark. Both countries came frequently into the reach of Russian strategic bombers over the past four years. Also the non-NATO members Sweden and Finland might feel relieved rather than provoked by NATO’s demonstration of unity in their backyard.
The second reason why Trident Juncture comes to the right time is the adequate response to the organization’s declining reputation over the last months, if not years. An internal disruption within NATO caused by the political situation of some of its member states may have questioned NATO’s stability and ability as a mutual defense organization. The renunciation from established structures of all levels of international cooperation, including economic liberalization, political approximation, but also security cooperation, was visible throughout almost all governments or influential opposition forces of NATO member states. The president of NATO’s largest member, the United States, as a presidential candidate declared NATO as an obsolete model. Other NATO members at its periphery turned away from human rights and basic democratic principles. NATO members of Western Europe experience increasing the influence of a far-right political opposition which is critical to all existing international institutions especially the EU and NATO. In addition, Russian efforts to undermine NATO’s acceptance within member states have led to a crisis of NATO’s internal coherence. The successful conduct of NATO’s largest exercise since the cold war is thus not at all a sign that the cold war is back. It is rather a signal to those, who long for the end of the achievements of a peaceful development between nations since the end of the cold war. Trident Juncture does not stand for the return of the cold war as it rather represents the unity of those states that have shown signs of divergence.
Trident Juncture is not only an exercise to verify the alliance’ victory over its internal political separation, but it is also a demonstration that existing structures can still cope with NATO’s challenges ahead. That is far and foremost the ability of the military forces of its member states to fulfill its tasks individually as well as within the alliance. Underfunding and neglecting of the military forces has been one of the United State’s biggest concern over years, if not decades now, within NATO. Not at least, for this reason, is the U.S. President’s insistence to comply with the two-percent military budget agreement justified. NATO’s military deterrence is reliant on the U.S. This fact alone is causing a deep division within the alliance. For once in the U.S. requirement portrayed by one political fraction as an imperial extortion of the current U.S. government, for another political fraction, it is desirable to return to alternative defense organizations. Both ideas are neither completely false nor are they completely true. As an example, Germany, as a relative heavyweight within NATO, fails to reach its budget commitments by far. Its military contribution for politically charged missions, such as Libya or Syria, is limited, last but not least the condition of its personnel and material has raised the question about the ability to defend itself against foreign threats. However, the German military’s contribution to Trident Juncture does not reflect this deficiency. First, despite underfunded, the armed forces have shown the ability to deploy and apply the troops and material to fulfill its part of the mission. This is important, as the political acceptance of increased military funding can only be achieved through the demonstration of a successful implementation in military capabilities. A higher defense budget should not be considered as relenting to President Trump’s insistence towards its allies. Second, the proportion of the German participation reflects the country’s weight in the alliance when it comes to the European share. Germany is still trying to find a new role in its foreign political aspects with the goal to take over more responsibility also in defense politics. The establishment of an alternative to NATO defense cooperation within the EU came on the agenda in this respect, followed by a perceived weakening of NATO after the U.S. skepticism or the British exit from the EU. Germany’s contribution to Trident Juncture signals a higher relevance of NATO from the German perspective. Berlin’s new attitude has been welcomed by other NATO members; the economic strength, the highest European population and the dependence on foreign markets require a respective military strength, how demonstrated in this exercise. NATO experiences emancipation without putting its existence into question and serves all its members interests.
Trident Juncture is a demonstration of strength against those who saw NATO internal order weakened or even obsolete. NATO defines its new role against external threats by showing unity despite reservations of its member states. The new role is defined by the growing responsibility of its European part while reversing to proven good practices.