NATO Wales Summit: Failure Or Success Story? By Ilgar Gurbanov
O
states and NATO’s competences contain mostly territori-
n 4 and 5 September, the Wales Sum-
al security and defense, energy security is of utmost im-
mit brought together the heads of
portance in terms of foreign policy making. Hence, vul-
NATO’s member states and partner
nerability in terms of energy security may hamper coher-
countries. The main outcome of the summit was that
ence and foreign policy formulation within NATO as
NATO is an alliance for Allied States only with political
well, since many members rely on a third country - most-
and geographical limits. The summit de-facto “declared”
ly on Russia - for their energy supply. This grants Russia a
Russia a main threat, relates to the security of only the
bargaining chip vis-à-vis individual states to lobby its in-
allies themselves.
terests within NATO.
Most operations of NATO served as the raison d’être
We should not forget that partners such as Azerbaijan
for the Alliance’s reputation. However, it was not that
and Georgia are important countries for many European
easy to pool capabilities and resources to send troops to
members of NATO in terms of supply and transportation
crisis points. Not all Allied States agree to contribute to
of energy resources, transit of military cargos from Af-
crisis management and certain states abstain because of
ghanistan, and play a bridge role between Central Asia
their national interests. Therefore, NATO cannot bring
and the Southern Caucasus. However, both countries
all the member states together to address crisis manage-
have territorial conflicts with their respective neighbors
ment with one voice.
Armenia and Russia. These conflicts make them vulnera-
A key reason was that there was always a cozy
ble to potential war, threats and attacks from aggressor
mentality within the Alliance, notably among its Eastern
countries. Therefore, it is important to protect critical
and Central European members based on the idea that
energy infrastructures and react properly.
the U.S. was the main security guarantor. At the Wales
The strategies formulated within NATO often
Summit, the Alliance decided to establish the Rapid Re-
neglect the partner countries by showing that “Article 5”
sponse Force that would be deployed immediately in
constitutes its main raison d’être, excluding security guar-
case of an unexpected eruption of the armed crisis at
antees for partner countries. Loud statements and deep
NATO’s external borders in order to protect its Allies.
concerns do not equal action. People are not impressed
This is also what the EU tried to establish since the early
by statements anymore. For partner states in the neigh-
2000s.
borhood, NATO became a declaratory actor. This means
The potential threat stemming from Russia and its
that NATO will not provide any security guarantees for
“imperialist dreams” should not be underestimated, but
its neighbors. It was obvious in the Russian-Georgian
alternative threats might emanate from radical Islam as
war, the annexation of Crimea, and the recent crisis in
well as territorial conflicts of partner countries, which
the Southeast of Ukraine. The Ukraine crisis proved that
might hamper their relationships with the Alliance.
edges of the security umbrella of NATO literally end at
Though energy is a national competence of the member
the NATO-Ukraine border. The same could apply to
Atlantic Voices, Special Issue
12