THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT. Europe in a period of transition

THE FUTURE ARCHITECTURE OF EUROPEAN SECURITY 113 status quo, which undoubtedly suits it better than an EU transformed into an autonomous global power. Many in Europe – including some governments – share this point of view. Some, for historical or practical reasons, because they trust their neighbours and partners less than they do the United States when it comes to guaranteeing their defence; others are very comfortable with the current situation of dependence – failing to see the risks that it involves –, that is to say, they would rather continue to be consumers of security without hav- ing to shoulder greater responsibilities, and lastly some identify the current close Atlantic bond with a certain political, ideological and economic orientation that they find attractive or convenient. However, not even the most fervent Atlanticists can ignore the problems NATO is facing to adapt to a very different geopolitical framework to the one that existed when it was founded, and a technological and strategic evolution that renders obsolete a good part of its proce- dures and structure, which is still basically of a territorial nature.The successive Strategic Concepts approved since the dissolution of the USSR have tried to seek new mis- sions outside the area covered by Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty (NAT) 3 – the bedrock of NATO –, but the treaty is what it is and that is why participation in new missions can only be voluntary, which means that NATO is becoming an ad hoc coalition, even if it uses common command resources. Likewise, the attempt to introduce new missions in keeping with the times clashes with the wording of the NAT. At the organisation’s last Summit, on 14 June 2021, it was explored how cyberattacks could be included in the scenario covered by Article 5, which is none other than an “armed attack” on the territory of an ally. A difficult fit. The trend has gone even further, to the point of pro- posing – at the previously mentioned summit – the use of NATO to combat climate change. But what means does NATO have to accomplish that task? It appears that it will be some time yet before we see electric tanks, fighter jets 3  https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm powered by hydrogen and – above all – non-polluting nuclear weapons. This is becoming absurd. It appears to be more a matter of desperately providing NATO with some content to keep it together, that is to say, it is not that there is a threat and we need an organisation to combat it – as occurred after the Second World War –, rather there is an organisation with very powerful po- litical and economic interests and it is necessary to find some threat or mission to ensure it survives. Attempts have also been made to find other common purposes, such as the intention – voiced at the same summit – to “stand up to authoritarian regimes”, referring to China and Russia.This is doubtless very reasonable, but it could also be applied to certain countries, in the Middle East for instance (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on), with which most of the NATO countries, its leader included, maintain excellent relations. NATO suffered a severe blow during Donald Trump’s presidency of the United States, a time when unilateral decisions were taken in Washington that could compro- mise the security of Europeans, such as the breaking off of the nuclear deal with Iran or withdrawal from the treaty on the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range nuclear missiles (INF) that Washington and Moscow had signed in 1987, decided by Trump though he subsequently and easily secured the back- ing of the European countries in NATO, the only ones actually affected by this class of weapons given their range.Trump showed great disdain for the alliance to the extent of publicly questioning the automatic action of his commitment to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – the cornerstone of NATO – even as he constantly demanded that the European countries increase their spending on defence. The compromise reached on this matter at the summit in Wales (2014) was yet another display of obedience by the European countries in a NATO in which they have no real influence while they act individually in the face of US hegemony.The 2% of GDP agreed for the defence budgets of the member countries is an arbitrary figure, without foundation. It is not the result of any in-depth study of