EDITORIAL ⟩ The necessity of NATO

«Does it not seem to you that we were a slightly more powerful umbrella 75 years ago? – We will recover again, I’m sure. Let’s just try to listen to Russia’s ramblings about red lines less.» Illustration: Urmas Nemvalts Photo: Urmas Nemvalts

• NATO was created in response to Stalin's aggressive plans.
• Russian revanchism has not disappeared.
• NATO has justified its existence.

NATO, which is turning 75 on April 4, continues to be Estonia's biggest security guarantee, but the uncertainty arising from the war in Ukraine and the US elections is a cause for concern.

NATO, created in 1949, was a response to the Soviet Union's blockade of West Berlin, with which Stalin hoped to make the West Berliners submit to Soviet pressure. Berlin falling under full Soviet occupation would have meant a violation of the agreements signed at the end of World War II already four years later. However, the West did not throw in the towel, instead, it delivered necessities to the people of West Berlin by way of an air bridge. And West Berlin persisted.

More importantly, the blockade of West Berlin and the creation of NATO unified the West. Germany, on the one hand, and the United States and the United Kingdom, on the other, which had been at war with each other only four years earlier, were now together in a common defense alliance. Joseph Stalin made a big miscalculation.

The current leader of the Russian regime, Vladimir Putin, also made a miscalculation when he decided to attack Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. NATO brought pre-deployed troops to its eastern flank and Finland and Sweden also decided to join the alliance. All this has also increased Estonia's security. After all, our experience from 1939 and 1940 is that we must never be left alone, and therefore membership in the world's most powerful military alliance gives us confidence.

However, the alliance's past, present and future are not without blemish either. For example, France was outside NATO's military structure from 1966 to 2009. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the alliance shifted its focus to overseas operations, while collective defense, the original goal of the alliance, was neglected. The war in Georgia and Ukraine brought collective defense back to the center of NATO.

The present, however, means the election of a new secretary general for the alliance. Although Eastern European countries have been in the alliance for 20 or 25 years, no secretary general has come from Eastern Europe yet. While one of the new secretary general candidates at present is Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, his chances of getting this position are very small. The long-time prime minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, has better chances -- Estonia also announced its support for him -- but the opposition of Hungary and Turkey may become a stumbling block for him.

The decision not to disband after the end of the Cold War has also proven to be prescient given Russia's revanchism.

However, the biggest question mark for NATO lies behind the pond, in the US, where a new president will be elected this year. If Donald Trump becomes the new president, the future of NATO will be unpredictable -- Trump has previously expressed doubts about the point of the alliance and criticized the fact that all NATO members do not contribute equally financially to their defense spending. With or without Trump -- it is clear that the war in Ukraine is forcing all members of the alliance to increase their defense spending, including Estonia.

The 75-year history of the alliance has shown that NATO has justified itself. The decision not to disband after the end of the Cold War has also proven to be prescient given Russia's revanchism. However, Russia has not gone anywhere, so NATO will be needed in the future as well.