NATO’s Navigational Nightmare: Turkey, Hungary, and the Path to Expansion

Military alliances have been a constant in human history. The majority of military alliances from ancient to modern warfare were never genuinely comprehensive, and this would lead to politicking and, ultimately, a breakdown of the defensive pacts that led to renewed conflicts.

Learning from past mistakes, some of the most prominent military alliances today have incorporated accords, articles, and measures to enact if member states were to be embroiled in open conflict. One such alliance that has held firm since has been the NATO alliance, currently in its 74th year.

Amidst heightened geopolitical tensions today, some military alliances, including NATO, have found themselves intertwined with bureaucracy, which has wasted valuable time and resources when they are most needed.

NATO Attempts to Overcame Struggles with Turkey and Hungary

During the ongoing war in Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden, two neutral countries during the Cold War, reassessed their security apparatus. Realizing Russia would never give up its imperial ambitions, Stockholm and Helsinki applied for the NATO ascension last year.

The premiers of Turkey and Hungary realized they had a chance to blackmail the alliance into giving concessions as both member states have come under increased scrutiny over the past several years. Through their EU disputes, Hungary stalled the ascension of the Scandinavian nations alongside Turkey. Turkey, whose economy is in a recession, wanted upgraded F-16s and new EU negotiations.

Through months of struggles, NATO’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, announced Turkey was ready to approve Sweden’s ascension at the Vilnius Summit, several months after they agreed to Finland. Hungary, which relies on fellow Turkic Council member Turkey, will now support both Scandinavian countries in the alliance.

Though NATO’s bureaucratic practices and politicking have wasted valuable time for potential member states, negotiations for ascension can be approved with member states on the same page. Nevertheless, NATO’s core charter will need to be revisited and perhaps rewrote to meet the age of politicking and blackmail today, with each member state having unlimited veto power.

CSTO Ongoing Turmoil

The Collective Security Treaty Organization, or CSTO, was formed by Russia to counter NATO. The organization has continuously faced internal disputes, with the current member states incorporated as former vassals of Russia and the Soviet Union. The conflicts have been exacerbated for various reasons over the past few years.

Armenia, which faced numerous attacks from Azerbaijan, has been all but abandoned in name by its fellow CSTO members. When Armenia requested CSTO assistance from Azerbaijan’s incursions last September, they did little to stop the violence, and it took US diplomacy to enact a ceasefire.

Kazakhstan, another CSTO member, has slowly drifted to China, seeing Russia as no longer the dominant power to influence Central Asia. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, two other members, currently have territorial disputes that have led to violent clashes, and Russia is seemingly unable to solve any of the issues residing in CSTO.

Examples of Countries Enhancing Members When Needed

Filling in security gaps for struggling members in a security pact is fundamental to maintaining an alliance. The United States, for the past several decades, has backfilled European nations that failed to meet the 2% GDP requirement until they recently started to rebuild their militaries after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

During Sweden’s wait for NATO ascension, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, in coordination with the former, created a Joint Nordic Air Command. By forming a joint air patrol, the Nordic states can simultaneously protect Sweden until their membership is approved while countering the Russian Air Force’s constant incursions into the region.

Forming Alliances in Place of New Threats

The United States currently has decades-long defense pacts with various nations in East Asia, such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan. Still, these multiple nations have needed help to form a coalition amongst themselves. Japan, which went through a prolonged parliamentary gridlock, recently voted for full remilitarization in lieu of new threats from China, North Korea, and Russia.

Tokyo, which has a dark history due to its various gruesome massacres in World War Two, has struggled to mend its past with its Asian neighbors. Nevertheless, a breakthrough between Japan and South Korea occurred in defense of the looming threat of North Korea’s rogue ballistic missile program.

Japan’s remilitarization also allowed Tokyo to reinforce Taiwan as an ally for a potential Chinese amphibious assault on the isle nation that both Asian powers used to rule. Japan, which already had a top ten military before remilitarization, can now actively deploy its forces overseas and help alleviate pressure off US Forces in the Asian Pacific.

Today, military alliances are only as strong as their weakest member, and the world must adjust to rising challenges in defensive partnerships.