Politique étrangère

The changes in the way that NATO operates raise the question of whether the nuclear weapons stationed in Europe would, in a time of crisis, be an instrument of solidarity, or lead instead to divisiveness.

The French decision to re-enter NATO’s integrated military structure is merely the confirmation of a series of shifts that started a long time ago. But it is no less questionable a decision. It is a symbolic decision that affects France’s image internationally. It by no means guarantees that the Alliance will evolve in a way that corresponds to France’s national interests; nor does it shed light on France’s ambiguous future. It does, however, in a very real way, risk diminishing France’s will to defend itself.

The proliferation of theaters (in Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Far East, the Middle East and the Arctic) and cross-cutting issues (proliferation, disarmament, energy, arms sales) demonstrate the overall importance of the NATO/Russia relationship.

A new window of opportunity seems to be opening up for NATO and Russia, to re-think their relationship and how to institutionalize it through binding agreements and a permanent decision-making mechanism.

With 50 years’ seniority over the ESDP, and despite its austere origins, NATO transformed itself during the 20th century into a political-bureaucratic machine in search of a more appropriate international role.

Poland is not just concerned with the usefulness of the Alliance, but also with what can be done to make it more effective, and to maintain its relevance and good health in the decades ahead.