NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte assures Poland about the durability of safety guarantees.Source: Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Poland. Author – Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland
Originally, it was meant to be an American umbrella over the cold war aura of Europe. Today, 76 years after the Alliance was formed and 25 years after it was opened to the East, NATO seems to be losing coherence. Tensions and skepticism toward a common defence cast a shadow on the future. How was the past of this alliance going, and can it inactive be a warrant of our safety?
After planet War II many believed in the coming era of peace, but the leaders of the powers realized that an agreement with the russian Union was only a choice of a lesser evil. Already in 1946, Winston Churchill, in a speech at Fulton, warned against russian expansion and appealed to keep the alliance of the US and the United Kingdom. It was then that the iconic words about the Iron Curtain, dividing Europe into 2 parallel systems, came out. In the face of increasing geopolitical tensions, the Washington Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, citing NATO. The signatures were 12 countries which undertook to defend together. To this day, Article 5 remains crucial, which clearly states that the armed assault on 1 associate State will be treated as an attack on the full Alliance and will meet with a common response.
Fear of war
In the first decade of NATO's existence, it had to face serious challenges that shaped its direction. In 1952 Greece and Turkey joined the alliance, which sparked controversy – both countries were unstable and their relation was strained. An even greater emotion was the reception of West Germany in 1955. For many European countries, only a decade after planet War II, this was hard to accept. In response, Moscow established the Warsaw Pact, dividing Europe into 2 hostile camps. The 1960s were 1 of the hottest periods of the Cold War. In 1961, a second Berlin crisis occurred, in which the russian Union, demanding the withdrawal of Western troops from West Berlin, threatened with military action. NATO, under the leadership of U.S. president Kennedy, did not give way. Moscow's answer was to erect the Berlin Wall. A year later, during the Cuban crisis, the planet was on the brink of atomic war. Negotiations have helped avoid conflict. Tensions gradually weakened, but the Alliance had to face further challenges until the end of the Cold War. In 1991, with the dissolution of the USSR, there were voices in the US suggesting that NATO had become unnecessary. It has been argued that the deficiency of threat from the USSR makes the Alliance unnecessary. However, NATO's imagination as a guarantor of governance and safety in Europe, especially during the transformation of the states of the erstwhile east bloc, has prevailed.
Quarter Ages of Poland in NATO
The extremist rhetoric of U.S. president Donald Trump and the reset with Russia raised doubts about America's continued engagement in NATO.Source: Wikimedia Commons. licence – Public Domain. Author – U.S. Department of State
Poland's accession to NATO was the culmination of a long diplomatic and political process, initiated after the fall of communism. Although for the countries of Central and east Europe, the Alliance membership was a symbol of the return to the West and a warrant of security, not all were enthusiasts of enlargement. Initially, even the United States was not delighted with Poland's imagination of NATO, fearing Russia's reaction and returning to tensions between states. The U.S. attitude changed after Bill Clinton took over the presidency, with the beginning ceremony of the Holocaust Museum on April 22, 1993 at a turning point. Lech Wałęsa and Polish diplomacy utilized this chance to influence straight the fresh leader of the Alliance, which brought the desired effect. Equally strong scepticism prevailed in Russia, where president Boris Yeltsin powerfully opposed NATO's expansion to the East, seeing this as a threat to Russian interests. However, the breakthrough in relations occurred during informal meetings between Jelcin and Wales erstwhile he managed to ease his position. According to the diplomats' accounts, the talks were conducted in a looser atmosphere – and shared vodka glasses were to play their symbolic function in building trust. After 1 specified meeting, Jelcin signed a message in which he felt that Poland's accession to NATO did not endanger Russia's interests, but already the next day the Russian authorities began to retreat from this declaration. authoritative negotiations between the Polish government and NATO associate States began in 1997 and on 26 February 1999 Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski signed papers ratifying Polish membership of the Alliance.
Today, more than 25 years after joining NATO, Poland is 1 of the pillars of the east flank of the Alliance. It has the 3rd largest army in the strategy (after the US and Turkey), intensively upgraded and systematically developed. Poland is 1 of the fewer associate States that spend much more on defence than 2% of GDP required, which puts it among the most committed allies.
Meanwhile, NATO faces new, serious challenges today. In the face of Russian aggression against Ukraine, there are increasing doubts about the engagement of the United States. Especially from Donald Trump, who repeatedly questioned the meaning of the obligations under Article 5. This raises questions about the future and consistency of the Alliance. In addition, the worsening relation between the US and any European countries is worrying about the sustainability of transatlantic ties. In this context, the function of countries specified as Poland, which take alliance commitments seriously and consistently invest in security, is peculiarly important. Although NATO is not free from tensions, it inactive remains the foundation of the Euro-Atlantic defence strategy and Poland is 1 of its most crucial and loyal participants today.
BLAZIC OIL
