NATO is an organisation we are all aware of, yet rarely finds itself as a matter of public debate in the UK. Since its inception in 1949 the alliance has become widely accepted with little disagreement to membership – in the midst of global tensions reaching a breaking point after the Brexit success of spearheading sovereignty, this comes as an undiscussed surprise.
The consequences of appeasement remain well-remembered from the unfolding of the build-up to the Second World War almost a century ago; however, in a globalised world loomed by the threat of nuclear holocaust, the UK’s best interests no longer call for our desired world stranding. Whilst we can recognise the British efforts to remain vocal on the international stage, being one of the most influential contributors to Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression and establishing intertwined military partnerships around the globe, the bleak reality is that our perceived enemies are outpacing us economically and militarily, and with the onset of another Trump presidency and Putin’s meaningful retaliation to the use of long-range missiles gifted from abroad, there must emerge a debate on our contribution to the NATO alliance.
Russia’s use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile on the 21st of November marked yet another escalation to Putin’s self-labelled ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, targeting the city of Dnipro, mere days after Putin rectified the country’s nuclear doctrine in an attempt to avert the use of long-range missiles from Western donors. Initial fears suggested that it was an ICBM launched by Russia, however, the manoeuvre postures Putin as a man who is more than content to continue the fight and has proceeded to suggest that Western countries are now directly involved in the nearly three-year-long war.
These escalations may have an end in sight with Trump’s supposed confidence in bringing peace to Eastern Europe, but the reality remains that Trump’s second presidency enters a world far closer to breaking point than it was during his first term. And, ultimately, his incoming once again empowers a figure sceptical over the US commitment to the longstanding global alliance, NATO. Trump’s intentions around NATO and Ukraine remain uncertain, putting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a precarious situation of seeing Eastern Europe destabilize further.
NATO may have proved itself as a successful deterrent during the Cold War, however, the consensus of the current day is that it is an alliance determined to expand its influence against the conflicted interests of hostile states. Ukraine acceding to NATO membership at the start of the invasion in 2022 was widely deemed unrealistic – now it is becoming increasingly pushed for, and President Zelenskyy has also recently proposed the scenario of relinquishing territory upon the acceptance of Ukraine to NATO. Being miles beyond the red line for Russia’s foreign policy interests, NATO’s presence ever-encourages yet another unwanted nuclear standoff, and Britain must seriously question its ability and desire to encourage it.
We are far past the sunset of the British Empire, and a globalised world has unquestionably left the UK in a far weaker position internationally. Whilst one may argue that this justifies our alignment with the alliance, we must also confidently assume that our economic capability is not dependent on an organisation predominantly interested in military cooperation. For the better part of three years, the UK government has willingly engaged in a confrontational approach in Eastern Europe, depleting its own military arsenal in the process whilst economic difficulties continue at home. The promise of £3 billion annually for “as long as it takes” has upset much of the population, leaving Brits concerned about the priorities of the government. In times when the defusal of tensions is much needed, the UK may be wise to seek out other methods to ensure its security.
A lot of my thinking around this boils down to one major component of NATO – Article 5. For those who may not be aware, the invocation of Article 5 states that if a member state were to be attacked, then it is considered an attack on all, and states are obliged to respond to ensure the security of NATO territory. I encourage those reading to think about this for a second, and consider the consequences, for any reason, at any time, at any location, for this to be provoked in response to any nuclear power. If we continue to flaunt the interests of those who oppose NATO, this may just become an ineffective deterrent, and what follows after that may just be the end of life as we know it.
A nuclear apocalypse, of course, is an existentially terrifying prospect that has prevented conflict before as mutually assured destruction would be inevitable, and it would take an individual beyond mental derangement to willingly initiate the end of the world, yet why are we even entertaining the decisions that may even just slightly risk this nightmare becoming reality? Vladimir Putin’s ruthless grasp and continuation of power in the Kremlin have demonstrated the measures he will take to emerge victorious, and the constant budging of such a personality is never going to end well.
We should be grateful that such a leader does not govern in the UK, however, it would certainly be in our best interest to tread carefully. Keir Starmer recently outlined the intention of having a “pragmatic” relationship with Xi Jinping’s China, however, the continued investment into Ukraine that spells out the longing of the conflict feels far from rational. With Britain in a prime position to reconstruct its approach to global affairs in the aftermath of the Brexit and Tory chaos, the questioning of our NATO membership may have more appeal than is perceived.
First off, we still have our own nuclear deterrent if we did leave NATO, and this would ensure that we remain secure from the threat of hostile states, it would just be that we may have to defend ourselves unless we reconfigure our diplomatic strategy to a more regionalized protective group. This does, however, give us the advantage of realizing our geographical security. We are separated from mainland Europe, and the military advantages this gives us can only provide confidence in considering a future away from NATO. The emerging threat of cyber warfare can transcend geographical plains, yet an exit from NATO does not squash the ability to cooperate on this front.
Secondly, and most importantly, we would be an exception from a potential future nuclear conflict between NATO and their hostile states. One of our government’s fundamental duties should ultimately be to protect its citizens from the threat of war, and to be irresponsibly grouped with an alliance that is vigorously determined to neutralize Russia’s international goals could mean that we pay an unjustifiable price that nobody has asked for.
Thirdly, and this is a very hypothetical point that likely does not resemble the reality of geopolitics, is that such a move would actually proceed to strengthen European security rather than weaken it, which only benefits us further. My thinking behind this is simple – The UK and France are the only European NATO members that possess nuclear capability, and France remains absent from NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, making them an unreliable asset to nuclear deterrence within the continent. By removing the UK from the equation, the US and other European countries would therefore have to restructure their approach to nuclear deterrence to ensure that the security can be reinforced.
Naturally, there will be flawed logic within my take, and I look forward to hearing the informed responses of others who take issue with my perspective. Leaving NATO would undeniably diminish the UK’s influence on the international stage, however, I urge people to take the perspective that it could just be more beneficial for us to harness the unique manoeuvrability of becoming factionless. The idea of a ‘Neutral Britain’ has floated around my head for a long time, and our opportunities to fully immerse in post-Brexit sovereignty are more realistic than it would be for other countries to seek to leave the alliance. Signalling to the world that we intend to refrain from any military confrontation may just open up new cooperative fronts worldwide, however, a domestic focus is much needed in the UK in order to solve our growing problems, and to be able to take the steps that divert our military partnerships may be a critical start to remoulding our global position for a more secure, independent future.
This was an opinion article written by Jack Kemp. To submit an article, you can do so here.
