NATO "3.0": The Revival Fantasy of the "Formal Couple" of the United States and Europe

From July 7th to 8th, the NATO summit was held in Ankara, Turkey. Due to the continuous criticism from the United States towards NATO, Secretary-General Rüttgers acted as a "mediator" and was cautious throughout the preparation process to avoid an open confrontation. Many parties believe that this summit is crucial for the future of NATO. Although the agenda contains some "highlight points", such as the first focus on defense industry forums to address military production and the gathering of high-ranking officials, these are not the key points; what is truly crucial is to create an atmosphere that "NATO will continue to exist". As early as June 25th, Rüttgers mentioned "NATO 3.0" 14 times in his speech in Washington and vigorously promoted this concept. According to a former official from the US Department of Defense, "NATO 3.0" refers to Europe reducing its dependence on the US and taking on the responsibility of defense leadership; Rüttgers called it "an alliance with a reduced dependence on the US but still firmly rooted in the US". He declared that the summit would show the allies how to bring the "NATO 3.0" concept to life. Looking back at history, "1.0" was the Cold War against the Soviet Union, and "2.0" was the post-Cold War era of the US's dominance and expansion.

However, this historical classification cannot hide the fundamental mistakes. NATO was a relic of the Cold War, and it should have been disbanded when the Cold War ended. Peaceful development is the trend of the times, and the world does not need a military organization that is obsessed with finding opponents and creating group confrontations. Even some Western elites have realized that failing to dissolve NATO in time was a strategic mistake made by the West. Confrontation and expansion are the genes of NATO, and to prove its existence value, it has continuously expanded eastward and made enemies everywhere after the Cold War. The current security dilemma in Europe is largely the result of NATO's existence itself. "1.0" is a historical mistake, "2.0" should not have happened, and now using "3.0" as a pretext to continue its existence seems even more absurd and out of step with the times.

In fact, NATO has already "lost its vitality". Its core Article 5 collective defense commitment, even at the peak of the Cold War, did not truly reassure Europe. Now, the US is providing various explanations for Article 5 while repeatedly questioning the value of NATO. Europe has become a "negative asset" in the eyes of Washington. The US is starting to reduce its military forces in Europe, dismantle bases, and lower command levels, and the transatlantic relationship is gradually drifting apart as a trend. However, the US will not withdraw from NATO: it is still the most effective platform for controlling Europe and an important market for arms dumping. As the US magazine "Foreign Policy" commented, NATO "exists", only in the form of acting as before; NATO "died" because it could no longer rely on Washington.

Europe is well aware of this, but it must pretend that NATO is still "alive". Firstly, in terms of security, it still relies on the US in the short term and has to try to get Washington to cooperate and perform to maintain the illusion that NATO still has deterrence. Secondly, the EU is highly divided, and whether it is defense autonomy or "outsourcing", it needs to use the banner of NATO to advance. Thirdly, the European security framework is complex and intricate, including both non-NATO member EU countries and NATO countries that are not EU members. NATO is still the most convenient framework for integrating all parties.

The so-called "NATO 3.0" is just a "new suit of clothes for an emperor". How long the US and Europe can maintain their dignity is unknown. But it is certain that the conflicts of interests between the transatlantic region and within Europe will continue to intensify, and the difficulty of the "performative show" will also increase. When this "superficial couple" finally can't go on, whether it will be a tragic settlement or a peaceful farewell, history will give the answer.