What are NATO prospects after the Vilnius summit?

NATO’s 2022 summit, held in Madrid, closed with a commitment to defense in the face of “the most serious security situation in decades.” A year on, as Lithuania picks up the host mantle for the first time, little seems to have changed in the world order. 

There has been some positive news. Finland completed its accession to NATO in April this year, its location a key strategic asset in the alliance against Russian aggression. And now Sweden’s application has been finally unlocked after facing persistent opposition from Turkey. 

Lifting the veto 

Hopes that Sweden’s veto would be lifted faded with this year’s re-election of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who, according to EsadeGeo senior researcher Juan Moscoso del Prado, continues his accumulation of power and with it a “deterioration of democracy, institutions, and freedoms." 

Moscoso del Prado continues: "Turkey is a key geopolitical actor because of its location and its actions.” And, when it comes to NATO, he observes: "Turkey has not failed to fulfill its obligations, but it does not participate with much determination on the political side.” 

However, Erdoğan finally agreed to grant access to Sweeden on the eve of the summit. Officially, behind this unexpected move lay Sweeden’s promises to strengthen measures against Kurdish movements that Turkey regards as terrorists. Turkish state-run agencies also published that the US will support the provision of F-16 jet fighters to Ankara, and the EU agreed on some concessions on visa-free travel and customs. 

Support, but no special treatment 

“Russian aggression has awakened European executives from a long period of self-absorption and pacifist reverie,” says Jose M. De Areilza Carvajal, professor in Esade’s Department of General Management and Strategy.  

“But almost everything remains to be done and the EU still do not have capabilities in the field of security and defense outside of NATO.”  

What NATO has done, it says, is to create “the largest reinforcement of the Alliance’s collective defense in a generation.” But one country currently missing from its ranks is the one in most in need of defense: Ukraine. 

Current rhetoric is supportive of Ukraine, with no explicit guarantees of a fast-track accession

Together with Turkey, as expected, Ukraine’s prospects for joining NATO were one of the protagonists of the summit. 

The besieged country submitted its formal application to join NATO in September 2022. And although NATO allies agree Ukraine will be granted accession, it won’t be anytime soon: “The current rhetoric is supportive of Ukraine, but there have been no explicit guarantees of a fast-track,” says Ángel Saz-Carranza, director of EsadeGeo. 

A new world order? 

But according to Alejandro Santana Mariscal, an academic collaborator in the Department of Society, Politics and Sustainability at Esade, focusing on defense is not a long-term solution. Instead, he says, we should direct efforts toward coordinating stability. 

“What kind of international order do we want, given the conflicts or wars we are witnessing and the political rivalries of some countries for global economic and political leadership?” he asks.  

“The coordination between the members of NATO, not without differences in the way of proceeding between its members, shows that there is a political will to avoid conflicts like the one between Russia and Ukraine in order to maintain a stable world order. 

“In fact, international organizations, such as the World Health Organization, are evidence of the importance of establishing coordination mechanisms between countries to solve global problems and maintain relative stability in the world.” 

The prospect of a non-ideological Cold War  

NATO grew up in the heat of the Cold War, in which two hegemonic players, the United States and the Soviet Union, were the main protagonists. In contrast to that bipolar world in which everything revolved around two superpowers, today we face a multipolar world in which the centers of power are more dispersed.  

"Despite this difference, there is a great deal of debate about the possible reissue of the Cold War, as the existing tensions between China, Russia and the United States for world hegemony suggest," says Santana.  

"Even so, I believe that the confrontations between these actors are due more to a need for greater influence and power on the international chessboard than a true ideological confrontation. The Cold War was characterized by a clear confrontation of ideas: capitalism versus socialism or communism.

"Instead, the rivalry of the great powers is currently focused on demonstrating which is the best model of government to give continuity to the capitalist system: democracy or authoritarianism."  

Nevertheless, when it comes to economic and security relations between countries, the border between democratic and authoritarian regimes seems to blur easily.