By Zhang Jian

Against the backdrop of the US presidential transition  that could lead to major changes in NATO's role and internal structure, discussions in European strategic and public opinion sectors regarding "where European security truly lies" have intensified once again. Reviewing NATO's trajectory since the Cold War, this organization has failed to bring security to Europe and has brought in more problems instead.

First, NATO has weakened Europe's military autonomy. During the Cold War, Europe was not inferior to the US at least in terms of military spending and conventional armaments. Western European countries kept their defense budget between 3% and 10% for many years. Besides, Europe possessed large quantities of heavy equipment like aircraft, tanks, and artillery and had more total military personnel than the US. However, after the Cold War, the US, as a hegemonic country, continued to increase its investment in armaments, while Europe massively disbanded its troops, cut defense spending, reduced the number of heavy weapons, and handed over its security to NATO, or rather, the US. 

Since the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis in 2014, EU countries have begun to increase their defense spending, but the increase is far less than that of the US. The US' investment in new military technology is more than seven times that of all EU member states combined. Defense spending is only one aspect. The deeper logic is that it is difficult for the EU to form a military-industrial complex comparable to that of the US. Most of the defense procurement funds of EU countries flow to the US rather than stay in the local area, which further strengthens the US military-industrial complex. On the contrary, the profit and competitiveness of EU military enterprises are hard to improve.

During the protracted Russia-Ukraine conflict, Europe has found itself increasingly dependent on NATO and the US for security, placing itself in a highly disadvantageous position. With the next US government prone to adopting a more "isolationist" stance, which includes demanding greater "contributions" from other NATO members, Europe has more to worry about.

Second, NATO has worsened the relationship between Europe and Russia. Europe and Russia are close neighbors and highly complementary economically. For example, Europe needs Russia's energy supply, and Russia is willing to import European industrial products. If both sides could form a close economic space as many have envisioned, it would bolster Europe's economic strength and advance the strategic autonomy that major European powers have long pursued. However, the problem is that as NATO's rounds of eastward expansion continue to squeeze Russia's strategic security space, hostility between Europe and Russia has accumulated, while strategic mutual trust has continued to decline. How did Europe get into trouble? Is the Ukraine issue destined to become a crisis and even trigger a military conflict? These are all worthy of Europe's reflection.

Third, NATO has strengthened the US' control over Europe. During the Cold War, the US and Europe shared a common adversary, and NATO served as a joint "tool" for both sides. After the Cold War, the US became increasingly dominant within NATO. To some extent, it is safe to say that "NATO is the US, and the US is NATO," with the organization increasingly becoming a "toolbox" for US interests. Due to its heavy reliance on NATO and the US for security, Europe has no choice but to follow the US' global strategy. As the US has pushed NATO to expand beyond its original "defensive zone" and extend its reach globally, Europe is gradually being coerced and bound in terms of diplomatic and security strategies and is on the track of helping the US maintain its global hegemony. For example, Europe followed the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which still has negative effects on Europe. Currently, the US is using various pretexts to promote the formation of an "Asia-Pacific NATO". The fundamental purpose of this initiative is to serve US hegemonic goals, which has no direct connection to European security interests.

The nearly three-year-long Russia-Ukraine conflict has once again exposed Europe's strategic blind spots and security dilemmas, weakened Europe's strategic autonomy and severely damaged the EU's international image. Today, Europe faces unprecedented economic, social, and geopolitical consequences unseen since the end of World War II. Achieving long-term peace and security remains Europe's top priority. 

However, proposals from some people in the European strategic community, such as creating a "dormant NATO", suggest that lessons from the past have yet to be learnt. They still bet Europe's path forward on keeping the US engaged and binding with NATO, even though this approach has been proven incapable to bring lasting security for Europe. Europe urgently needs to break free from its entrenched mindset and handle relations with other nations, including Russia, with real strategic autonomy and explore new and more stable security architectures to secure its future.

(The author is a researcher and Vice President of China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.)

Editor's note: Originally published on huanqiu.com, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.