The NATO Summit was conducted in the spirit of the strategy they had approved the Ministers of Foreign Affairs at the December meeting and from this perspective, her political stance was predetermined and, for the most part, expected…

Managing Balances However, although it was not an obvious or explicitly stated priority of the Summit, nevertheless was the most critical factor in the equation under the general heading «NATO Strategy 2030,», while the difficulty in managing it extends even to the joint statement, despite the triumphalism and the illusion of self-confidence that it is attempting to transmit.

Adapting the Atlantic Alliance to the new circumstances is no easy task, since, aside from any media fuss, it seems that This process faces serious obstacles not only in a multitude of internal rivalries, but also in the very nature of the dominant contradictions of the modern world.

That is why In the spirit of the joint statement, not even the pretense of compliance is being maintained anymore. The leaders of the 30 countries, by signing this communiqué, confirmed to the the fact that they have trapped themselves in the spirit of a multilateral treaty that turns a blind eye to the acute problems facing the societies they represent, while at the same time are handing over their countries based on a gambler's mentality with incalculable short- and medium-term costs.

The central idea of this new multilateral treaty, consists of a a declaration of intent to rally the 30 behind a controversial U.S. strategic stance which seeks to fully instrumentalize NATO, in a desperate attempt by the Americans to regain lost ground and, ultimately, their long-sought global hegemony.

The means used to achieve this goal…

It is a combination of political, administrative, technical, and military tools, a combination of which requires careful reading because what it reveals, It is NOT the glamour the familiar traditional allied cohesion, but the many contradictions that are seeking new points of convergence and new bridges so that they can function effectively under the new conditions.

Η «Deeper political consultation and coordination among the parties,», it is the first tool whose choice suggests an internal environment that is highly competitive, even confrontational, and this, of course, is something that does not go unnoticed, neither by friends nor by opponents.

Η «Enhanced Deterrence and Defense» it is the second binding instrument which is selected in order to «weave together» essentially take over the defense infrastructure and part of the national defense planning of member countries and integrate them into a supranational plan, which will even include a nuclear arsenal.

Η «Enhanced resilience» it is the third binding instrument which is mobilized to seize control of national strategic infrastructure, thereby ensuring control over it against strategic competitors and adversaries. What is extremely alarming is that, in light of this approach, even “hybrid” countries (e.g., Skopje, Kosovo, etc.) are threatened with complete subjugation.

The creation of a new «»Political-Military Defense Innovation Accelerator" (Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic – DIANA), as well as that of the «Innovation Fund,», These are choices that reflect the Americans’ awe at China’s accelerating rise to supremacy, which, in reality, shows no signs of slowing down.

Η «Support for a rules-based international order» is the fifth binding instrument, which, in practice, amounts to a arbitrary grid of preferential commitments as well as embankments, around which the entire international system of balances and rivalries is intended to be forced to adapt.

Η «Strengthening Training and Capacity Building» of member states, in areas such as counterterrorism, countering hybrid attacks, crisis management, defense reform, as well as «strengthening partners to ensure security and stability,», It is a sixth binding instrument through which the goal is to unify planning in order to better serve the Americans’ key strategic choices in the new competitive environment.

«The 'adjustment of military activities' as well as the operation of military facilities »based on the standards governing efforts to address the consequences of climate change,", It is the seventh binding instrument which is being adopted as «the security implications of climate change are being felt in NATO’s neighborhood—in the Sahel, the Middle East, North Africa, in the Arctic, as well as within NATO’s allied territory.».

The renewal of the «Strategic Perception» («Strategic Concept,» NATO's doctrine) is the convenient excuse on the basis of which the 30 leaders called on the NATO Secretary General «to lead the process of developing NATO’s next Strategic Concept in time for the next Summit,» since «the world has changed radically over the past decade. The security environment is more complex and unpredictable than ever, with a far more assertive Russia, a more brutal form of terrorism, ongoing instability in our neighborhood, growing cyber and hybrid threats, new technologies, pandemics, and climate change. »Essentially, China’s rise is radically shifting the balance of power,” thus defining the overarching objectives around which the North Atlantic Alliance is seeking to align itself as a whole on behalf of the Americans.

Finally, the call for «Investment in NATO,», It is the ninth a binding tool through which essentially heralds a new arms race, and everyone is called upon to commit to «they will ensure that the Alliance has the appropriate resources, both through national defense spending and NATO’s collective funding,» to implement it.

All of the above do not simply constitute the essence of an updated doctrine on the basis of which an attempt is being made to adapt a traditional alliance structure to the new circumstances.

They constitute a coercive structural intervention, choreographed by the Americans and through which the Cold War-era NATO is gradually transforming into a new type of conventional, multi-speed cooperative platform, in an effort to reconcile the management of irreconcilable internal conflicts and rivalries with the U.S. need to field a serious and credible counterweight capable of curbing theadvance of its strategic rivals.

The poor, downtrodden subjects and the peripheral satellites will pay dearly for this adjustment. The first casualty will be national defense plans. The ambition, however, of this monstrosity There is no hiding the fact that it «swallows up» countries with a relatively ambiguous geopolitical profile, while it is clear that the momentum it is attempting to generate, What it will ultimately achieve in the long run is to fuel instability, and even changes to borders, within the ranks of this ambiguous alliance.

It is therefore clear that, within the context of this perspective, everything that took place behind the scenes must also be evaluated of this Session.

Biden withdrew -without even keeping up appearances– anti-Turkish rhetoric from the previous days and he hastened to convey to Erdogan his intention to redefine U.S.-Turkish relations on the basis of the revised U.S. strategy. This is a form of political behavior that exudes a defeatist attitude, which, of course, It does not go unnoticed by either the Russians or the Chinese staff members, while further emboldening Turkey and contributing to the strengthening of its ambitions aimed at broader geopolitical emancipation.

Macron, having gained a clear picture of the true sentiments of his «allies,», is attempting to establish new levels of balance with its ambitious regional competitors as well. The looming reengagement with Turkey, is also in line with Erdogan's goals, is shaping a new and very interesting field for smart and targeted strategic management and may hold surprises and twists that could be impressive.

Erdogan appears to be the big winner behind the scenes. There was no pressure from Biden. A rapprochement with Macron appears to be well on its way. His private talks with the Greek prime minister were likely a straightforward affair, as he exploited Greek illusions with apparent ease and is overall enhancing both Turkey’s alliance footprint and its regional standing, thereby strengthening, among other things, the significance of the fait accomplis he imposed during his previous term.

Greece was clearly the big loser at this summit. Lost in the spotlight, after ensuring, through its own prime minister, that it went above and beyond the requirements of the U.S. agenda… But it's also lost in the background, with its prime minister acting like an indecisive geopolitical «Take It All» in contrast to the gluttonous Erdogan, who made promises of a «A quiet summer», and managed to scrape by, earning just a little foreign exchange from tourism, the necessary Euro-Atlantic tolerance in his piracy, the time needed to further «cement» the facts on the ground of the Turkish-Libyan farce, as well as the legitimization of Operation Attila in Cyprus and, of course, a series of new opportunities to further escalate its revisionist agenda in Thrace, the Aegean, and the southeastern Mediterranean, by exploiting his ability to intervene openly across the entire length of our northern borders, the content of his discussions with the Greek prime minister, and, of course, the diplomatic and political tolerance he shows toward neo-Ottoman absurdity—all of which the country’s political elite has endorsed.

Conclusion…

This Summit reaffirmed in full our prediction that the U.S. despite the grandstanding of their representatives, in reality are caught up in the maelstrom of a peculiar form of strategic post-modernism And once this path of geostrategic decline has been taken, there is NO turning back.

At the same time, this particular summit was a multifaceted diplomatic and political defeat for Greece. Our country, through its prime minister, voted in favor of the U.S. plan for global adventurism and at the same time was met with ridicule Erdogan's, marginalization by its «allies,», the provocatively dismissive treatment of both from Germany and from the U.S. and, of course, by the end of the Summit, its ability to strategically capitalize on the favorable disposition is clearly limited—if not completely nullified— which the French had already demonstrated during the previous season.

Yet another critical historical opportunity has been missed and it's not going to come back… At this particular summit, Greece has surrendered its dignity and its remaining infrastructure strategy to support the Americans' new Euro-Atlantic adventurist vision, endorsed its submission to the neo-Ottoman vision of the Sultan and in the face of all that, he earned nothing but ridicule and a few quiet sun loungers under the summer sun, selling its citizens an unacceptable and provocative fairy tale.

Once we accepted our new national strategy, codenamed ‘Quiet Summer,», It is clear that This place has no future, and we are all responsible for this decline.

By Mr Kyriakopoulos