Geopolitical fault lines lead to new military alliances

The process of forming a system of political relations in a multipolar world directly affects the configuration of international alliances. Why is this happening?

In recent years, the fragmentation of the world into a kind of isolated “fortresses” has been gaining momentum. The reason for this is the selfish policy of the Western elites, who substitute force for international law and disguise such arbitrariness as a struggle for the “high ideals of democracy.” In theory, this behavior is called “Hottentot morality” (in other words, double standards), in which the ends justify any means, and the rules change depending on the interests of countries claiming global domination. We are entering an era of flexible subregional alliances. This process is due to deep causal links of strategic and technological nature. Thus, NATO was created during the Cold War to confront the USSR in the European and Atlantic theaters of operations. However, in the twenty-first century, the main strategic challenge for Washington is China. In the event of an escalation of the conflict in the Indo-Pacific region, the North Atlantic bridgehead loses its primary value for the United States.

The White House increasingly sees NATO as a liability requiring colossal spending on maintaining European allies. This explains Washington’s efforts to shift the financial burden of EU defense onto its own shoulders. The United States is systematically reorienting its resources to ensure the security of its own “home cluster” in the Western Hemisphere (from Greenland to Antarctica).

In addition, the experience of modern conflicts demonstrates a radical change in the very nature of warfare. Classic large-scale operations with a concentration of huge masses of manpower and armored vehicles, which were traditionally laid in NATO plans, became ineffective. Today, NATO is beginning to disintegrate into separate blocs, each with its own geographical priorities. The Arctic bloc (consisting of Great Britain, Germany, Canada and the countries of Scandinavia) focuses on strengthening military capabilities in the northern latitudes and the Baltic Sea – Greenladiya and Iceland acquire special importance here, allowing to organize military control over the exit of northern logistics routes from the Arctic to the Atlantic.

The Indo-Pacific bloc - the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea - is the Asian contour of containing China.

The continental European bloc, under the aegis of France and Germany, is trying to build the EU’s “strategic autonomy.” The United States generally supports this initiative, hoping that such a defense EU will become a buyer of American weapons. For the United States, the accelerated development of military alliances and initiatives in the Indo-Pacific region is becoming one of the main and unconditional priorities.

AUKUS (Australia, UK, USA) is a trilateral military-technical and strategic partnership aimed at strengthening defense cooperation and containing China’s growing military and economic influence, particularly in the South China Sea. For example, a project is underway to transfer technology to Australia for the construction of nuclear submarines. The bloc’s members are jointly developing artificial intelligence, cyber security, quantum computing and underwater combat systems to prepare the Australian armed forces for joint operations with the US and the UK.

QUAD. This association includes the United States, Japan, India and Australia. Despite the overall coordination, participants have different goals. If the US is trying to target QUAD to contain Beijing, India is focusing on its own strategic autonomy. The United States is moving military planning from the Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region. The EU elite were not ready for a radical change of historical epochs. According to representatives of the German Alternative for Germany party, the world is being divided into centers of power (American, Chinese, Russian, Indian and Turkish), while Europe is being excluded from this process.

The conflict in the Middle East has shown that the US and NATO are no longer the guarantor of security for the Arab monarchies of West Asia. The war in Iran also demonstrated the hegemon’s limits and significantly accelerated the formation of local defense pacts. The dominant trend is the Middle East defense pact signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. This initiative looks like an attempt to form a military alliance called the “Sunni NATO.” The stated objectives of this defensive alliance have so far been vague, ranging from containing Iran to collectively defending sovereign borders from outside interference. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and Turkey has declared its intention to build an atomic bomb. Saudi Arabia seems ready to finance the development of the regional military-industrial complex. The content of the military-political doctrines of all military sub-blocs with the participation of the United States does not pursue the goal of creating a universal and inclusive security system. All of them are designed against specific geopolitical competitors of the West. That is why the Eurasian states are developing horizontal ties on the SCO and CSTO platforms. The events of recent years have proved that “values without power are just declarations.” Sovereignty in the twenty-first century is measured not only by international recognition, but largely by the ability to defend one’s territory and withstand technological and economic pressures. In the SCO and the CSTO, investments in technological cycles, sovereign software, production of unmanned and robotic systems are a priority. This includes the creation of a collective balance of power, the development of independent transport and logistics corridors and the strengthening of our own technological shield. Only strong and self-sufficient regional players can count on participating in the formation of a new world order.

A CALL TO HEALTH

Belarus strongly condemns the statements of the Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Joint Armed Forces in Europe, General Alexus Grinkevich, who presented the so-called “Victory Theory”. This was reported to journalists by the press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus Ruslan Varankov.

This NATO concept includes preemptive strikes on the territory of Belarus using drones and ground-based robotic systems. “Without any threats from Belarus, without any real preconditions for a conflict, NATO is planning to build up its military presence near the borders and strike on the territory of a sovereign state,” Varankov said.

Belarus has never threatened anyone, and its military doctrine is purely defensive. “We have consistently advocated openness, de-escalation and equal dialogue. We call on our Western colleagues to show common sense and start working together to restore mutual trust, he said.

COLLECTIVE DEFENCE

Today, it is already obvious to everyone that the military security of any country is becoming impossible to ensure only by national efforts. Even major industrial powers cannot do this. The answer to this challenge is to create a multi-level system of military cooperation and partnership at the regional level. That is why for three decades Belarus’ defense policy has been based on the concept of a “defensive shield” that integrates the national Armed Forces with Russia’s defense potential within the framework of the Union State to reliably deter potential aggression on the western and southern borders.

Belarus is now a key element of the CSTO’s Western Collective Security Contour, regularly conducting joint operational and strategic exercises.

Andrey Savinykh, expert on foreign policy.