The Ankara Summit and the Question of Moldova’s NATO Membership

Sergiu CEBAN

NATO’s lack of a clear strategic vision for the future has a direct impact on the post-Soviet space, which remains a zone of geopolitical uncertainty and an arena of confrontation with Moscow

While the authorities are struggling with an unexpected government crisis and searching for an even more compliant candidate for the prime minister’s post, now is the perfect time to turn our attention to international politics and developments that, to one degree or another, shape the geopolitical fate of our region. Today, the 36th NATO summit kicked off in Ankara, during which participants plan to discuss strengthening collective defense, increasing military spending, supporting Ukraine, and developing the military-industrial capabilities of member nations. Many have practically come to terms with the fact that, in recent years, every NATO summit has been called “milestone”. But let’s be frank: this framing stems from the depth of the internal problems that have accumulated. The current meeting is taking place against the backdrop of the largest armed conflict in Europe since the Cold War and ongoing escalation in the Middle East, while within the alliance itself, tensions are mounting that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago. The main challenge facing NATO today lies not so much in the military sphere as in a crisis of its own identity. Historically, it was created as an instrument of collective deterrence against the Soviet Union, but after the collapse of its main adversary, the alliance not only survived but also expanded to include new members, gradually transforming into an organization with a broad range of military and political functions. It is noteworthy that the expansion of its geographic presence was not accompanied by an equally profound rethinking of the organization’s strategic mission. Today, one gets the impression that NATO is trying simultaneously to remain the heir to the Cold War era and to adapt to a completely different international reality. This is precisely what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan pointed out recently, stating that the modern world is no longer a continuation of the one in which the alliance was created. One of the most notable manifestations of the internal crisis has been the disagreements between the United States and its European allies. As is well known, disputes over the need to increase defense spending have been ongoing for a long time, but last year and especially this year they have taken on a fundamentally different character. Washington is increasingly insisting that European nations shoulder the bulk of the financial and military burden of collective defense, for which, frankly speaking, they are by no means prepared. This European stance is reinforcing political sentiment among the U.S. elite in favor of reducing the American presence in Europe and reallocating resources toward the Indo-Pacific region, which is, in fact, of strategic importance to the United States. Even if such processes are not yet being accelerated, the very fact of these aspirations indicates a gradual shift in the strategic priorities of the alliance’s key power, whose military, logistical, and financial commitment remains the foundation of Europe’s entire collective security architecture. Equally telling is how difficult it is for member countries to maintain a unified stance. Over the past year, disagreements have arisen among them on a wide range of international issues. This was particularly true in the Middle East, where European allies effectively refused to support the United States in its military campaign against Iran. The White House’s claims to Greenland added to the tension. These incidents, of course, do not signify the collapse of the alliance but they do demonstrate that there are very specific conflicts among its members. Ukraine will once again be the focus of particular attention during the summit. However, according to some reports, reaching agreement on the final communiqué has proven to be much more difficult than originally anticipated. For example, it was not possible to reach a unified formulation regarding the inextricable link between Ukraine’s security and that of Europe: this alone shows just how difficult it is for allies to reach a consensus even on issues that until recently were considered virtually indisputable. Another crucial point is NATO’s commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which enshrines the principle of collective defense. This is the issue that has raised the most questions recently. Recent military incidents on the territory of several member states have shown that, in various crisis situations, they often prefer to avoid decisions that could lead to the deployment of armed forces. Such caution raises doubt about the alliance’s actual readiness for joint action in the face of hybrid threats. This does not yet mean that Article 5 has lost its significance. Rather, the nature of conflicts has changed, to the point where the use of existing military mechanisms is completely irrelevant to the types of security risks and threats we face today. For this reason, modern states are gradually moving away from a system based on relatively stable military-political blocs. Instead, a significantly more complex architecture of international relations is taking shape, in which actors are increasingly guided by ad hoc coalitions and regional balances. Any organization created for entirely different historical purposes inevitably faces the need for fundamental restructuring. But is NATO capable of such a transformation? By all accounts, not even the United States has an answer to this question. Only one thing is clear: Washington seeks to free its hands and expand its room for individual maneuver within the international framework. NATO’s future will most likely be determined not by the number of tanks or aircraft, or the size of defense budgets, but to a much greater extent by its ability to find a new, appropriate strategic goal for itself. For Europe, addressing this challenge will shape the architecture of continental security for decades to come. NATO’s lack of a clear vision for the future has a direct impact on the post-Soviet space, which remains a zone of geopolitical uncertainty and an arena of confrontation with Moscow. Over the past decades, many post-Soviet states, including Moldova, have shaped their foreign policies based on the assumption of a long-term Euro-Atlantic security system, upon which the trade, economic, and socio-political platform of the European Union successfully operates. This is precisely why European integration has, in essence, never been viewed in isolation from its military-political dimension. In recent years, our country’s authorities have significantly accelerated the modernization of the defense sector by increasing military spending, receiving assistance from Western partners, and strengthening cooperation with NATO. At the same time, the country nominally still adheres to its neutral status, as enshrined in the Constitution. This policy is driven by the need to strengthen defense capabilities in an unstable regional environment. However, what is of fundamental importance is not the volume of equipment being procured, but the strategic logic within which this plan is being implemented. Of course, a wide variety of topics will be discussed on the sidelines of the summit in Ankara, including those that will not be reflected in the final documents. But what is important for us is that, against the backdrop of the start of negotiations with the European Union, the question inevitably arises as to how Brussels views Moldova’s future from a security perspective. The experience of other Eastern European states’ accession shows that their path toward European integration has, as a rule, been accompanied by their integration into the NATO framework, since, under the logic of EU enlargement, its external borders cannot remain outside the broader military-political framework of the alliance. This issue appears to be deliberately kept off the official agenda for now, although the answer to it is of the utmost importance. After all, for Moldova, the ability to preserve room for independent decision-making in a context where the international system is becoming increasingly unpredictable may prove vital.