[New York Times] A need for unity amidst growing polarisation — NATO’s tense first debate.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) started debating this morning about the Transatlantic alliance’s war capabilities (or more accurately, the lack thereof), taking into account lessons from the Ukraine-Russia conflict. But early on in the debates, the polarisation of the room appeared crystal clear, with a tense first debate round highlighting the polarisation and tensions among allies.

On one side, the Baltic countries emphasized the growing threat posed by Russia, stressing the need for preparedness, increased financial support and joint training. The delegation of Bulgaria opened the debate by highlighting significant gaps in NATO’s warfighting capabilities, notably in terms of logistical challenges, cyber threats and espionage. Their concerns were echoed by Canada and Germany, who emphasized the unreadiness of NATO in the face of new hybrid tactics of warfare.

While many countries mentioned Russia as a tangible threat, Hungary took a different stance, being one of the only countries not to mention Moscow in their opening speech, and warning against NATO’s dangerous drift towards escalation, arguing it should remain a defensive alliance. “It [NATO] is a shield. Not a sword. We will not trade wisdom for war fever”. Turkey backed this position, asserting that NATO’s primary goal must be the prevention of war, not its provocation.

However, Hungary and Turkey found themselves quite isolated, as other states focused on enhancing NATO’s military capacity. “A unified strategy is NATO’s backbone,” asserted Poland. Multiple propositions were given, such as by the delegation of Lithuania who argued that “hard power alone is not enough”, and highlighted a need to involve citizens in war effort by educating them on steps to take in case of conflict. However, no attempt of shifting the debate towards the practical details needed to implement such ideas has been attempted so far.

Yet, despite repeated calls for unity, the debate revealed deep divisions. The United States’ position particularly stands out as it is not focused towards their own policies, but rather concentrating their speakers’ time towards the criticisms of other countries’ lack of military investment – particularly on Germany. “Your military is in shambles”, strongly asserted the delegation in the first seconds of their opening speech, before demanding that NATO members dedicate 3 to 5% of their GDP to defense by the end of 2030. This came amid the Trump’s administration’s repeated threats to step out of NATO’s Article 5 obligations over ‘insufficient’ European funding, fearing an over-reliance on the United States’ military capacities.

Germany responded by acknowledging the need for improvement and highlighting its ongoing efforts through the ReArm Europe plan. In view of how unstable of an actor the United States has proven itself to be, other countries such as Finland have chosen a smoother approach, thanking the United States for the recent sale of defense weapons in the middle of a moderated caucus. While some may roll their eyes at the painfully obvious diplomatic strategy, Finland’s efforts may reveal themselves useful, considering its border with Russia, as well as the weight of Washington in the Transatlantic alliance.

As the first round of debates concluded, delegates remained divided on nearly every issue – except one: in order to face new challenges, NATO must change. As Denmark called for countries to be “united in action, not just words”, it seems to be neither action nor words for now.