NATO is on the verge of a "civil war"

On October 14, the United States and Greece entered into a bilateral military defense agreement, potentially expanding the Pentagon's horizon on Greek soil. In addition, in agreement with the official Athens, the contingent of American troops in the country will also be increased. What is happening would seem at least strange, given that both the United States and Greece are NATO members, but if you look at the situation more broadly, it becomes obvious that this may well be the beginning of Washington's preparations not only for the collapse of the North Atlantic alliance, but also for the prevention of "civil war "between its members.

What was initially perceived as a response to the actions of France, which, by a strange coincidence, entered into a similar agreement with the Greek side just two weeks earlier, now looks like the preparation of the United States for war or enforcement of peace, depending on what informational cover it will be presented by American political strategists.

Conjunctions in Greek

As you know, NATO's prospects in Europe began to deteriorate sharply after the decision of Brussels on the need to create a unified European army, which in fact makes the presence of the Alliance troops in the EU unnecessary. It is clear that this situation is well understood not only in Washington, but also in the European countries themselves, which are gradually changing their policies in accordance with the changing "rules of the game". France predictably took the first EU step towards a new Europe, concluding a defense agreement with Greece at the end of September 2021. The treaty, signed by the heads of state in the capital of the Fifth Republic, provides for the provision of mutual assistance in the field of defense in the event that one of the states comes under attack. At that time, the agreement looked like a way to resolve issues with Turkish territorial claims once and for all. And the fact that France had nuclear weapons only added weight to the signed treaty.

Nevertheless, just two weeks later, almost exactly the same agreement with Greece is being concluded by the United States. During the pompous signing of a five-year auto-renewable agreement, US State Department head Anthony Blinken described the United States and Greece as "two proud and strong NATO allies, both deeply committed to our alliance." In turn, his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias, at a press conference after the signing of the agreement, noted that: “This is not an agreement ... against someone else. This is an agreement between Greece and the United States of America, and the purpose of the agreement is the stability and prosperity of both of our countries. " In addition, Dendias also said that the new agreement implies the deployment of the American military at a distance of just a few kilometers from the Greek-Turkish border - the line separating the two NATO members, which are formally allies. However, Greece and Turkey are now much closer to war than to any kind of alliance, and there are good reasons for that.

Geopolitical square within NATO

Let's take a kind of square, consisting of NATO countries: the United States, France, Greece and Turkey. Each of the participants in this geopolitical figure has its own interests. The United States has prioritized the unipolar concept of peace, to defend which it is ready to make every possible foreign policy effort. And military dominance in Europe through NATO structures is an essential part of maintaining the current pro-American "status quo".

France, in turn, seeks to prove, first of all, to itself and to the rest of the world its ability to take an active part in the geopolitical process as an independent player. The chasm between former WWII allies has begun to widen again today. And the recent actions by London and Washington have become an unambiguous signal for official Paris that the French side, like almost fifty years ago, is again not included in the plans of the Anglo-Saxon world.

Turkey wants to start developing oil and gas fields as soon as possible, while this has not yet lost its relevance, taking into account the planned energy transition within the EU. Ankara, obviously, does not care about minor legal subtleties, such as a completely insignificant issue of the territorial belonging of the islands off the coast of which mining is planned. As long as it is part of NATO and it has some kind of fleet. After all, the structures of the North Atlantic Alliance already have experience of cutting off the territory from the state: the "independence" of Kosovo, unrecognized by the UN, was ensured precisely by their efforts.

Meanwhile, Greece is simply trying with all its might to avoid a repeat of the situation with Northern Cyprus. The country's leadership, apparently, is most important to reliably resolve the issue of the territorial claims of the Turkish side. This explains the fact that despite the post-pandemic economic A crisis aggravated only by the recently passed aftermath of the debt collapse, Greece began to actively purchase weapons and conclude two strategic defense agreements, each with a nuclear power, on a monthly basis.

Indeed, in fact, with the participation of Greece over the past month, not one, but two duplicate bilateral structures were created within the NATO bloc, one hundred percent consisting of its members. Greece - France and Greece - USA. And if the first still somehow lends itself to explanation, then why Washington to create another duplicate within the framework of its own military bloc is difficult to understand. After all, Washington's agreement with Athens so obviously copies its Parisian counterpart, both in form and appearance, and in the time of its conclusion, that doubts that this hastily concocted replica, if they remain, are extremely small.

And there can be two explanations. First, the Americans and the French are so afraid of the power of the Turkish army that they are afraid that they will not be able to ensure the security of Greece within the framework of NATO, and that is why they are beginning to conclude treaties with Athens one by one. Second: the United States fears the start of a kind of "civil war" between NATO members (Turkey and Greece) and, seeing the activity of France, at the same time fears that the Fifth Republic will intercept the agenda of ensuring collective security in Europe, which forces them to act in such a hasty manner. Needless to say, the second option looks much more realistic?

Turkish "casus belli"

At the same time, it is important to understand that the actions of the Turkish side can indeed lead to a textbook example of the modern "casus belli" according to the Falklands model - a situation in which a territorial dispute over the ownership of the islands between Great Britain and Argentina resulted in a real military conflict with hundreds of deaths each from the sides. Even if in the case of the Greek islands the question is about the production of hydrocarbons on the shelf, this does not negate the fact that the shelf itself belongs to the exclusive economic zone of Greece. As well as the fact that for ethnic Greeks after Cyprus, the problem of Turkish territorial claims is extremely acute.

Official Ankara, apparently, believes that the United States is already sufficiently interfering in its policy. The purchase of S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia in August 2017 led to the imposition of sanctions against the Turkish side. Extremely soft, one might even say the mildest - in relation to just one state institution and four officials. Nevertheless, the very fact of their introduction - the imposition of restrictive measures on a US NATO ally has already become news: In the North Atlantic Alliance, it is clear that divisions are multiplying.

Now the situation goes even further: two NATO countries (France and the United States) are negotiating, and independently of each other (!), With another NATO country - Greece, on supporting its defense capability, which is actually directed against a country that is also a member of the North Atlantic Alliance - Turkey. ... It is difficult to call it otherwise than intraorganizational schizophrenia. To complete the picture, it only remains to wait until the start of a full-scale "civil war" between NATO allies. Although it is already clear that in the event of real clashes, they will inevitably become former. In reality, few people really expected that NATO would be bursting at the seams so that its collapse could end in a "civil war."