NATO, Russia, and China: The Rush to the World Stage

Kate Ferenchick, Jan 14, 2025
feature-top

In 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed to combat threats from the Soviet Union. While the USSR has since dissolved, the organization has shifted to protecting its members against Russia. NATO’s mission statement is to “safeguard the freedom and security of all its members” through military and political action, and the organization has proven itself reliable before, invoking the notable article 5 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks [1]. However, what happens to the non-NATO countries invaded by Russia and other aggressors? And how will this affect the greater global community, specifically in terms of security? 

 

In August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, falsely claiming Georgia was committing acts of genocide [2]. NATO condemned the attacks but took little tangible action. The U.S., considered to have responded most firmly, largely limited action to economic sanction and freezing of assets. The Georgian conflict led to many lives lost, a change in land demarcation, and Russia controlling 20 percent of Georgia. Putin tested NATO’s mission to protect countries from Russia—and won [3]. In February 2014, after Putin’s forces invaded Crimea, NATO countries shaped up and imposed sanctions. These sanctions caused a GDP decrease and heavily affected the Russian economy. Nevertheless, the invasion continued, with Crimea falling into Russian hands in just over a month [4]. Sanctions are effective in diplomatic punishment, but at some point, the Western Allies must address the uneasy idea that further action must be taken. 

 

On February 24, 2022, Europe was changed forever. With many scholars calling it the biggest war since World War II, Russia brutally invaded Ukraine. Putin again being cowardly, was untruthful about the reason for the invasion as “denazification”. Putin’s false claim highlights his true desire to conquer the land by saying whatever he needs to succeed. In just over two years since then, around one million people have been killed or injured in the conflict, with civilians’ homes being bombed, children being kidnapped, and women being savagely raped [5]. Through all this, Ukraine has defied the odds and fiercely resisted, launching counter-offensives and repelling Russian forces. However, Russia dominates Ukraine in every field—naval, air forces, manpower—and Ukraine needs more support from the West. 

 

“Peace in our time” was declared by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in September of 1938 as he allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland because he believed that appeasement would be successful and Hitler would stop there. As we approach the possibility of appeasing Russia 85 years later, world leaders have learned their lesson, with many acknowledging that Russian aggression will not stop at Ukraine. Since world leaders understand the threat of a bigger war is plausible and note that “the autocrats of the world are watching”, the question remains of what action to take [6]. The failure to adequately protect Ukraine may lead to the final push needed to shift the global order from the West to nations with different values, such as Russia and their ally China. Ukraine serves as a larger symbol of the global order, and the fight for the future. By undermining the West’s credibility in defending democracy and challenging liberal democracy, Russia would set a precedent for defying Western values. The defeat of Ukraine would well position autocracies to continue this defiance of the current international order.

 

Growing this possibility, the U.S. under the Trump administration—which is returning in January—has slowly been growing an isolationist approach to global affairs. Trump's “America first” stance led to numerous withdrawals from international commitments: the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the World Health Organization [7]. While Joe Biden rejoined these organizations, it can be inferred that Trump may remove the United States from these commitments once again. Another target for Trump’s isolationist approach is NATO. Trump consistently questioned the members of NATO and their allegiance to the organization, citing their defense spending. He claims most nations—excluding the U.S.—are not properly funding NATO’s defense, and it is unfair to his country. At times, he even suggested that the U.S. may leave NATO or refuse to defend NATO countries against Russia if they fail to properly financially contribute [8]. This revealed how far his isolationist perspective could stretch, allowing other countries that view NATO as a threat—China, Russia, Iran—to exploit the weakening in the organization. U.S. withdrawal may be severely consequential as these three nations form their unofficial allyship since they can be expected to compete with and delegitimize NATO and threaten the current world order NATO has set since 1945 [9].

 

The withdrawal of U.S. troops around the world also shows increased isolationism, opening the door for other nations to place their military and form new military alliances.  The withdrawal of troops from Germany and Afghanistan, for instance, shows the shifting of U.S. foreign policy towards domestic issues [10]. Since World War II, the United States has established bases all over the world, hoping to assert its military dominance and form relations with different countries. Doing so deters the idea of war in host countries, considering the U.S. base’s presence and ability to quickly react with proper resources. However, the slow removal, even from allied countries, opens a door for foreign powers, namely Russia and China, to take over this position. Recently, China has been making deals with African and Middle Eastern countries to establish bases and expand their international goals. The deals have aided in the shift from Western, namely U.S., interests and world surveillance, to the East [11]. In the Middle East, Russia has focused on the Gulf states to make deals centered around both weapons and oil control. Likewise, China has surpassed the U.S. economically in its influence on the Gulf regions, mainly due to its purchasing of oil and hidden relations with states such as Iran [12]. The shifting dynamic due to U.S. isolationism has allowed other world powers to slowly climb through increased global interactions. The U.S. leading the world stage previously allowed Western ideals and values to be the dominant force, but the removal of this has paved the way for Russia and China to end this monopoly. In turn, it has weakened Western rule.

 

The U.S. isolationist transformation allows the rise of new international models without the fear of retaliation. China’s economic influence in oil trade, cheap labor, and technology has shifted markets once controlled by the United States and allowed for a subsequent restructuring of economic markets. Russia also created economic changes by using its energy sources of oil to forge relations with other countries, such as Turkey and Iran [13]. These relations weaken the Western global order by straying away from their organizations and approaches, such as the IMF and World Bank, towards a new multipolar global economy. Less dependence on Western establishments allows Eastern countries to rise and produce their competitive alternatives [14]. With the U.S. pulling back from the global stage, there is less fear that the West will retaliate in any significant way. Due to the economic relations among these rising actors, sanctions and tariffs often imposed by the West are relatively less detrimental, and thus less effective in deterring actions. For example, China’s funding of Russia during its war with Ukraine has heavily offset U.S.-induced sanctions, hence the thought of more sanctions would not scare Russia as it has prior [15]. The new-found reliance opens the possibility of continued global influence from Russia and China as they now feel enabled to do so. The partnership calls into consideration what the future holds for NATO and global security.  

 

As the Western stage diminishes due to the isolation of the U.S. and the increasing presence of countries such as Russia and China, NATO now must focus on their ability to adapt to the new challenges created by Russia and China, possibly with limited support from the United States. With multiple new “players” in the global order, the West must maintain its credibility in the community and protect international security. As China and Russia both expand military efforts and threaten independent countries, NATO must prepare by expanding their force, spending, and connections with other non-NATO countries. As China puts military pressure on Taiwan by claiming a one-China policy and hoping to fully take their autonomy away, NATO must be prepared to act. Not only would distant nations such as Taiwan be at risk, but the European continent could also face increasing vulnerability as well. While China would continue to pursue Taiwan, Putin may also pursue fellow NATO countries in Europe such as Estonia or Latvia [16]. Once a leading international organization, NATO must undergo reform to restore its reputation and be viewed as a global force.

 

As Russia storms through Ukraine committing atrocities and threatening the country’s existence, NATO and its members must reevaluate the future implications of their stance. A weak response may encourage other authoritarian regimes to act aggressively and shift the international order towards autocratic countries. The possibility of further U.S. isolationism may increase the global influence China and Russia hold by shifting post-World War II dynamics. The new economic system and alliances formed as a result of shifting global influence allow the West to be excluded from important global conversations, and lead countries to become less dependent on the West. For example, many Middle Eastern countries find China’s economic policies more strategically successful, choosing to make new treaties with the East rather than continuing Western ones. The economic shift in deals will lead to the West being excluded from prior treaties and orders. As these rising nations support the non-Western practice of intimidation and invasion of smaller countries to expand their sphere of influence, global insecurity will deepen. Now is a critical time for NATO member countries, especially the United States, to readdress their actions and reaffirm their place on the world stage.


Sources

[1] NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty. April 4th, 1949. Accessed November 18th, 2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm.

[2] Charles King, Michael Dobbs, and William Pomeranz. The Russia-Georgia Conflict: What Happened and Future Implications for US Foreign Policy. Wilson Center, September 12th, 2008. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-russia-georgia-conflict-what-happened-and-future-implications-for-us-foreign-policy.

[3] King, Dobbs, and Pomeranz, The Russia-Georgia Conflict.

[4] Nix, S. B. "Responding to the Russian Invasion of Crimea: Policy Recommendations for US and European Leaders." European View 13, no. 1 (2014): 143-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-014-0297-3.

[5] Kusa, Iliya. “Russia-Ukraine War: Harbinger of a Global Shift A Perspective from Ukraine.” Policy Perspectives 19, no. 1 (2022): 7–12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48676292.

[6] Biden, Joe, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. "Remarks by President Biden and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine in Joint Press Conference." U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. February 20, 2023. https://ua.usembassy.gov/remarks-by-president-biden-and-president-zelenskyy-of-ukraine-in-joint-press-conference/.

[7] Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "President Trump Announces Withdrawal From Paris Agreement." Columbia Law School, June 1, 2017. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/president-trump-announces-withdrawal-paris-agreement-0.

[8] ABC News. "A Closer Look at Trump's Years of Criticizing NATO and Defense Spending." ABC News, September 4, 2020. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/closer-trumps-years-criticizing-nato-defense-spending/story?id=107201586.

[9] Hubert Zimmermann, “Russia, China and the revisionist assault on the western liberal order”, International Affairs, Volume 100, Issue 3, May 2024, Pages 1304–1306, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae103

[10] Zengerle, Jason. "Congress Moves to Block U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan and Germany." Military.com, December 5, 2020. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/12/05/congress-moves-block-us-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan-and-germany.html.

[11] Ditter, Timothy. "Africa: China’s Testing Ground for Overseas Military Missions." CNA, October 10, 2024. https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2024/10/africa-is-chinas-testing-ground-for-overseas-military-missions.

[12] Browne, Michael. "China and Russia in the Middle East: Seeking Integration Under a 'Common Goal.'" Wilson Center, January 27, 2021. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/china-and-russia-middle-east-seeking-integration-under-common-goal.

[13] Zimmermann, “Russia, China and the revisionist assault."

[14] GIS Reports. "China and Russia: Building an Alternate Financial System." GIS Reports, April 13, 2023. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-russia-finance/.

[15] Zengerle, Jason. "China Helps Russia Evade Sanctions With Tech Used in Ukraine War." NBC News, December 5, 2022. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/china-helps-russia-evade-sanctions-tech-used-ukraine-war-rcna96693.

[16] Krass, Rainer. "The Baltic States as Targets and Levers: The Role of the Region in Russian Strategy." George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, 2024. https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/security-insights/baltic-states-targets-and-levers-role-region-russian-strategy-0.

Photo: Hersh, Seymour M. "Russia and China Unveil a Pact Against America and the West." The New Yorker, March 21, 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/russia-and-china-unveil-a-pact-against-america-and-the-west.