Vilnius Summit Fallout: Unforeseen Consequences of NATO

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

From a technical standpoint, the final communiqués released by the G7 at the Hiroshima Summit in May and the recently concluded NATO Vilnius Summit exhibit negligible differentiation. They blatantly disregarded the pressing global issues that demand immediate attention. Consider, for instance, the dire state of poverty, gripping 1.2 billion people across 111 developing nations, subjecting them to acute multidimensional deprivation. Hunger, an alarming crisis affecting 44 countries with distressing severity, has left over 350 million children languishing in extreme poverty, battling hunger on a daily basis.

Inequality continues to soar, with the world’s wealthiest individuals amassing an astounding $852 billion in the first half of 2023, while a staggering 47 percent of the global population struggles to survive on a meager $6.25 per day. Furthermore, their agenda appears devoid of any meaningful consideration for climate change and the catastrophic ramifications of the military-industrial complex. It is evident that their primary focus lies in perpetuating proxy wars, relegating genuine global concerns to a secondary position.

The communiqués emanating from the world’s wealthiest nations, who bear a solemn duty of responsibility and accountability to the global community, singularly identify two rival nations as their primary targets: the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. The Communiqué of the Vilnius Summit explicitly declares the Russian Federation to be the paramount and immediate menace to the security of the Allies and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Simultaneously, it asserts that “The People’s Republic of China’s declared ambitions and coercive policies pose challenges to [their] interests, security, and values.” Interestingly, the communiqué refrains from directly diminishing China’s influential power, opting instead to state, “we remain receptive to engaging constructively with the PRC, including fostering reciprocal transparency, in order to safeguard the security interests of the Alliance.”

While these two nations profoundly strive for societal improvement and the betterment of livelihoods for ordinary citizens, the actions undertaken by NATO have frequently entailed devastating bombings that serve to enrich the military-industrial complex. Noteworthy instances include Bosnia in 1994, Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War in 1999, the bombing campaign in Afghanistan in 2007, and the intervention that led to an inevitable civil war in Libya. Unfortunately, these overt operations represent only a fraction of the countless covert proxy wars that NATO has armed and financed, consistently evading accountability.

Ironically, the NATO communiqué accuses, “while we have called on Russia to engage constructively in credible negotiations with Ukraine, Russia has not shown any genuine openness to a just and lasting peace.” However, in a recent meeting in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin presented a draft of a 2022 peace treaty signed by Russia and Ukraine, accusing Ukraine of discarding it into the ‘garbage of history.’ Unfortunately, this significant development has been overlooked by mainstream media and international organizations dedicated to promoting global peace and stability. This context sets the stage for the NATO summit held this year. The importance of this summit extends beyond the mere exchange of thoughts among heads of member states; it resides in the underlying implications of the summit’s venue, which holds captivating narratives within European civilization.

The political history of Vilnius stands as an enduring testament to societies grappling with extreme tensions, where powerful nations have thrust society into unprecedented crises. This history traces back to the era of Duke Gediminas, whose visionary dream depicted an iron wolf standing atop a hill, basking in triumph after a successful hunt of a zubr in the sacred forest near the Sventaragis Valley, where the Vilnia River merges with the Neris River. Inspired by this dream, the city of Vilnius took shape. As the legacy of these rulers reverberates across the globe, the so-called wealthiest nations persistently widen the gaping divide between the affluent and the impoverished, all while hypocritically espousing concern for self-proclaimed adversaries. They adamantly demand recognition of their own problems as universal concerns.

During the summit convened in Vilnius, initially touted as a NATO aspiration for Ukraine, the narrative took an unexpected turn. The focus abruptly shifted when the Ukrainian President, who once derided the idea of a non-specific timeline for NATO membership as absurd, boldly proclaimed at the conference’s conclusion that the Ukrainian delegation had secured a momentous security victory for the nation and its people. With unwavering conviction, he declared that NATO membership is a matter of time.

UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace emphatically emphasized that the Ukrainian President’s words should not be taken lightly, as the inevitable membership would indisputably come to fruition. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen boasted about the astounding progress Ukraine has made towards NATO membership. However, amidst the ongoing conflict, Ukraine increasingly resembles a war-ravaged land, reminiscent of an Afghanistan within Europe’s borders. Those who lay claim to championing human rights, democracy, and the rule of law exhibit the most grotesque and hypocritical behavior by not even daring to dream of advocating for a ceasefire.

Since the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, where Ukraine’s aspirations for membership were officially acknowledged, the country has been eagerly awaiting admission into the alliance. However, Ukraine finds itself teetering on the brink of anarchy. President Zelensky’s grip on power remains stable due to martial law, which conveniently postpones the scheduled elections for 2023 and 2024. Astonishingly, the West, often preaching about the importance of public opinion, turns a blind eye to this troubling situation. They are preoccupied with their ongoing struggle against a state they have long failed to defeat. The war persists.

Among the crucial questions arising from the recently concluded NATO summit in Vilnius, one figure looms large: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey. His unexpected decision to support Sweden’s NATO bid was a strategic maneuver to bolster his administration in economically strained Turkey and respond to Russian actions in Syria that targeted Turkey’s paramilitary forces. It also served as a symbolic rebuke to Fethullah Gülen, a US-based Turkish preacher whose group, the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETO), is recognized as a terrorist organization and pursued by the Ankara government. FETO allegedly orchestrated the failed coup d’état, resulting in the tragic loss of 251 innocent lives and injuring thousands. Yesterday, July 15, we commemorated the fifth anniversary of this heartbreaking tragedy.

On the one hand, President Zelensky undoubtedly experienced disappointment at this summit of costly warmongers. In his address, he expressed his frustration with the major powers’ relentless desire to escalate tensions for years to come. They are now plotting small-scale and lone-wolf attacks within Russia while pushing pro-Russian regions in Ukraine towards a full-blown civil war, reminiscent of the Afghan situation in the 1980s. Nonetheless, as prominent pro-Kremlin political theorists argue, Russia is prepared to endure the consequences of a prolonged war for another year or two. Ukraine will never be the same again; its society has become deeply divided.

Meanwhile, the luckiest individual at this summit was Jens Stoltenberg, the former Norwegian Prime Minister and current NATO Secretary General. He secured another year’s extension to perpetuate the façade of “world peace.” During his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, Stoltenberg declared, “No other partner is closer to NATO than Japan,” indicating NATO’s focus on a “security” agenda in the Asia Pacific region.

As noted by an anti-Chinese publication, Stoltenberg and Kishida share similar geopolitical perspectives. The Japanese leader believes that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” while the NATO chief emphasizes that security is not merely regional but global. Their voices hint at an impending conflict with China, with Japan positioning itself as the “victim” in the equation. Future provocations against China, such as manipulations involving Taiwan’s territorial issues, might shift towards Japan, igniting yet another war against a “designated enemy.”

Emmanuel Macron’s uncertain political future in France did not hinder him from single-handedly foiling the plan to establish a NATO liaison office in Tokyo. Among the heads of state, Macron’s government stood alone in grasping the gravity and far-reaching consequences of initiating another war, openly opposing the initiative and successfully eradicating any mention of the office from the summit communiqué. Macron emerges as the undisputed pragmatic and practical figure at the summit.

His relentless endeavors to ease tensions between nations echo the actions of the late President Charles de Gaulle, who boldly withdrew France from NATO in 1966 and demanded the removal of all military headquarters and installations not under French command from French territory by 1967. However, the recent extension of Stoltenberg’s term and the persistence of Kishida raise concerns as anti-Chinese newspapers warned shortly after the Vilnius Summit. This indicates an imminent danger akin to a turbulent sea, with unforeseen consequences lurking ahead in Asia.

[Writer can be reached at ilangamuwa@gmail.com