The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) developed in the post-World War era in response to the growing militarization and solidification of the Soviet Union. That group of Central and Northern Asian countries centering around the Moscow power center believed that centralized, totalitarian administrations with heavy state control of economic and cultural life believed their style of feudal-style so-called communist governing systems to be the best. It was decidedly proven to be otherwise.
In this sense, NATO is a relic of a bygone era of a bipolar international order. Today’s planetary governing structure is much more dynamic, drawing its stability from a multipolarism built on the United Nations system. The recent war in Ukraine is evidence of the broken and anachronistic nature of the Atlantic alliance. Not that the EU and US do not share cultural values and strong political ties, but rather a unified vehicle for military relations must be intelligently purposed. Serving as an adversary to Russia is no longer appropriate.
In the latest conflict focused on Kyiv, Donbad, and Crimea, the specter of Russian aggression has been set against an equally aggressive expansionary policy by NATO. In many ways, the conflict was unnaturally constructed by a decade of politicking and subterfuge led by Washington. This sort of deviousness should not be supported by an institutionalized military organization. It is counterproductive to global development, peace, and the stability of our planetary civilization.
At NATO’s annual summit in Vilnius this past summer, Europeans were noted as downright melancholy. Why would they be happy about being forced to attend a conference where terms of power and relationships have largely been determined by people who do not identify as Europeans— namely Brits and Yanks? The United Kingdom has recently made a big stink about leaving the Brussels headquartered EU, while the United States is an ocean away in another hemisphere. While it is in these two nations’ power interests to foment a conflict on the border between Europe and Russia, it may not be in anyone’s interest to continuously kindle deadly conflicts between human nations.
This is where the 20th-century mentality must either evolve or be extinguished. Global peace is possible through a new avenue that was not a factor in previous eras— space exploration. A growing number of countries, including the UAE, Japan, China, India, and even North Korea, have developed space programs. There is a massive amount of untapped economic potential in the Sol star system, which is identifiable as the region between our star and the asteroid belts outside the orbit of Mars. That includes three entire planets and a belt of asteroids— small rocky bodies rich in mineral deposits. This is trillions upon trillions of dollars in resources waiting to be tapped.
NATO’s purpose as a conflict-creating organization should be transformed with this in mind. It should be turned towards planetary protection, away from a biased, Russophobic establishment. The Russophobes must be drawn out and converted or retired. There is already an excellent vehicle for planetary protection in the United Nations Peacekeeping system. This is another avenue for NATO engagement to be realized— its role as peacemakers and peacekeepers through the UN system. Many decry the nature of the UN, but its role as the premier forum for global governance in our present day and age is unquestionable and, to many around the world, highly respected. The UN’s main drawback is its lack of military power, so attaching NATO and then inviting similar military organizations from BRICS, the Group of 77, and ASEAN would help to nurture a sense of balance.
As we progress forward towards 2100, we must move away from purposefully created artificial conflicts and towards stronger planetary stability. NATO as a wing of the UN military structure would be most appropriate.
