NATO'S STRATEGIC CONCEPT OF 1999: DISCUSSIONS REGARDING ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Abstract

The article examines NATO's Strategic Concept 1999 in the context of NATO's current characteristics of challenges, risks and threats caused by changes in the international security environment, and measures to ensure the Alliance's security. The impact of the environment of international relations on the strategy of the Alliance is analyzed. NATO's ways of responding, shaped by NATO's three fundamental tasks, are considered. Conclusions are made regarding the problematic issues related to this Strategic Concept, its pros and cons, which are obvious today, but unforeseen in 1999. Discussions surrounding the 1999 NATO Strategy began immediately after its entry into force and reached a peak in 2009-2010, which was reflected in numerous scientific and political discussions. Doubts were expressed as to whether the Strategic Concept confirms the basic mission and goals of NATO, in particular, the idea of collective defense. In conclusion, the Strategic Concept of 1999 had some positive features. Thus, it brought collective defense to meet many of the requirements associated with operations outside the traditional area of responsibility. The Strategy also took into account NATO's experience gained during military operations in Serbia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. The criteria for membership in NATO remained the same as before. The policy regarding Ukraine and Georgia was that they could become NATO members if the Alliance's criteria were met. At the same time, the document laid the foundations for future failures of NATO policy and left gaps in the field of European security. It was emphasized that NATO will seek to bridge the gap between the United States, which advocates the advantages of NATO's international role, and European countries, which want the organization to retain its traditional defense focus; this could not be achieved even after the start of full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine. Secondly, the Strategy was supposed to improve NATO's relations with Russia, strengthen their cooperation in such important areas for NATO as countering terrorism, cyber-attacks, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and increasing the missile threat. This was an unrealistic task due to opposition from the Russian Federation, and some NATO countries understood this from the beginning, but they were in the minority. Thus, the document emphasized that the main threat to NATO was Iran with its new missile potential. But within a few years, it became clear that NATO's priorities were set incorrectly, that the Russian threat was greatly underestimated, and the gap in the positions of the member states did not allow it to quickly react to the changing international situation. This led to serious consequences for the entire European security, because the Russian Federation was convinced of its impunity under any conditions.