Good day, my name is Oleg Zolotorev. Today I was watching a regular NATO meeting on a news channel and realized that I did not fully understand what it was talking about, because I did not know two things. The first is why the NATO countries joined the military alliance in peacetime, even after the collapse of the USSR. And second - what does the letter "T" mean in the abbreviation of the abbreviated name of the North Atlantic military bloc. Do you know the answers to these questions?

If not, then join us and we'll figure it out together:
- What is NATO?
Why is this organization needed?
Who is included and why?

What does the "T" stand for in NATO?

Speaking formally, NATO is a North Atlantic bloc uniting 28 countries with obligations of mutual assistance in military-political issues. The official name of the alliance is "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" or "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" in Russian.

Treaty is a "contract" if translated from English.

The main goal of the North Atlantic Alliance is to do everything possible to guarantee the security and freedom of the member countries within the framework of the current NATO strategy, which includes:

1. Implementation of actions to deter and prevent any military threats against NATO member countries.
2. Providing a platform for consultations and negotiations.
3. Promoting the comprehensive development of partnerships between participating States.
4. Active participation in the negotiation processes to resolve military crises (conflicts).
5. Also, the countries of the NATO bloc, when attacking one of the allies, are obliged to provide him with comprehensive assistance (military, economic, political).

NATO countries list (2016)

At the moment, the North Atlantic bloc includes 28 member states, as well as 5 signatories of the "enhanced partnership" agreement, 3 candidate countries and 2 countries participating in the "Accelerated Dialogue".

NATO countries list as of 01.01.2016.

Member States of the Membership Action Plan as of 01.01.2016.


Member States of the Individual Partnership Plan as of 01.01.2016.

Member States of the Accelerated Dialogue as of 01.01.2016

What pushed 28 states into the North Atlantic military bloc?

If you look at the official historical reports, it will say that the history of NATO started on April 4, 1949. But in fact it all started a little earlier - on March 5, 1946, after Churchill's famous speech delivered in the town of Fulton, where he announced the beginning of "Cold War". The ex-prime minister of Great Britain called for the unification of the "Western world" in order to increase pressure on the USSR in order to change its behavior both in the external geopolitical arena and within the Land of Soviets.

What did the fear of the USSR lead to?

Almost immediately after Churchill's words, five states of Western Europe (France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) began negotiations aimed at creating an alliance capable of resisting the USSR. Which led to the signing of the Brussels Pact between them (March 1948) and the creation of the Western European Union (Western European Union).
In parallel with this, similar processes began in America. So on March 12, 1947, the US presidential administration proclaimed the Truman Doctrine, which, in fact, was a strategy to contain the USSR. According to it, the United States offered economic assistance to European states to restore the post-war economy, on the condition that they remove all communists from government and legislative bodies. And also allow the United States to deploy military bases on their territory. Under the Truman Doctrine, the US financed the reconstruction and reform of Turkey ($100 million) and Greece ($300 million).

In addition, according to the announced plan, the State Department began negotiations with Canada and the Kingdom of Great Britain to create a military alliance. But since the kingdom planned to enter into a similar alliance with Western European countries, these actions were unsuccessful. However, they led to the fact that Britain persuaded the United States and Canada to join the previously signed Western European Treaty.

Subscribe and receive analytics by email!

Subscribe

Founders: countries of the NATO bloc at the time of the creation of the alliance

Which eventually led to the signing of the famous North Atlantic military treaty on 04/04/1949. between the 12 powers that became the founders of NATO. The pact entered into force on August 24, 1949, after the ratification procedure, after it had been ratified by all the founding powers.

Countries that are members of NATO as founders.

6 stages of NATO expansion!

But since the contradictions between the Western world and the Land of Soviets did not disappear after the creation of the North Atlantic Alliance, but, on the contrary, began to increase almost exponentially, the NATO countries made a fundamental decision to expand the military bloc through new member countries.

The following events were the basis for this:
- post-war (communist) civil war in Greece (1946-1949);
- establishment of the Cominform (1947);
- the beginning of the Berlin crisis (1948);
- creation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance for the countries of the "Soviet bloc" (1949);
- The Korean War, which led to the division of the country into North and South Korea (1950-53).

First expansion: NATO countries by the end of 1952

As mentioned above, the countries that are members of NATO have come to a common opinion that it is necessary to expand. As a result of this decision, in 1952 two new member countries joined the bloc: Greece and Turkey.

Greece joined the North Atlantic Treaty because it was afraid of a new intervention by the USSR, which had previously led to the outbreak of a civil war between the pro-monarchist government and communist guerrillas. Turkey joined NATO for similar reasons, and also because its president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, was a supporter of "Westernization." Within the framework of which he pursued a policy of "de-Islamization" of his country and at the same time built a democracy along the lines of the Western world.

Second expansion: West Germany

The next country to join NATO was the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). And this was quite logical, since the influence of the USSR on the GDR (East Germany) was constantly increasing, and as a result, the collective West began to fear that this influence would spread to the western part of Germany. As a result, it was decided to admit the FRG to NATO in order to protect it from the Soviet bloc. Which caused a lot of objections from France, because she remembered the recent war and did not want Germany to have at least some kind of army.
However, the differences were not strong enough to prevent NATO expansion and they were soon resolved. After that, Germany joined the Allies. First to the Western European Union in 1954, and then to the North Atlantic in 1955. After that, Germany received the right to form its own army, but with two restrictions:
1. The German army could not operate outside its state territory.
2. Also, the countries of the NATO bloc have banned the FRG from developing and / or using weapons of mass destruction.

Third expansion: Spain

After the admission of Germany to NATO, plans to expand the alliance were frozen, as it was decided not to provoke the USSR and avoid the emergence of another “Caribbean crisis”. That lasted until the moment the Soviet troops entered Afghanistan. This once again frightened European politicians, and as a result, Spain, under the leadership of Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo, declared that their new priority in foreign policy was to join the NATO bloc.

And on May 30, 1982, Spain achieved its goal by becoming a member of the alliance. True, in the same year, the Socialist Party came to power after the elections, which suspended the process of integration into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and proclaimed the beginning of a “period of reflection”. The result of this was a plebiscite (03/12/1986), at which the Spaniards were asked to decide: “Is it worth renewing NATO membership?”

The results of the referendum confirmed the need for integration into the military and political structures of NATO (52.53%).

Fourth expansion: NATO member countries for 1999

After Spain, the expansion of the alliance was again frozen until the Warsaw Pact collapsed. As a result, many countries freed themselves from the influence of Moscow and began to move towards the West, both economically and militarily-politically. This was facilitated by the 4th stage of the expansion of the alliance, during which 3 more countries joined it.

NATO countries, list for 1999.

The Republic of Poland was brought into the alliance by Krzysztof Jan Skubiszewski, who, back in 1990, visited the headquarters of the alliance and held the first negotiations on the entry of his state into the North Atlantic military bloc. As a result of this meeting, the negotiators created a plan for Poland's entry into NATO, according to which the new candidate needed to reform her army to NATO standards. And also to carry out large-scale economic and political transformations that are required to guarantee the rights and freedoms of the population of NATO member countries.

Poland fulfilled its obligations by 1997, after which it immediately began the final stage of accession negotiations. It ended in 1999, when NATO countries accepted three new republics, including Poland, into their ranks in a one-stage vote.

Almost identical path of entry was Hungary. After the collapse of the USSR, it also announced its intention to join NATO, and, like Poland, received its action plan with the same conditions. Having fulfilled them, Hungary received an invitation (1997), after which a plebiscite was held, at which the Hungarians overwhelmingly supported joining the North Atlantic bloc (85.3%).

Regarding the Czech Republic, this country hesitated a little “at the start”, since it became independent only in 1993. But as soon as this happened, the Czechs also announced that their main task in foreign policy was to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. After that, in 1994, the Czech Republic became a member of the Alliance's integration program - "Partnership for Peace", and in 1997, like Hungary and Poland, received an official invitation. And as a result, in 1999, the countries of the NATO bloc voted for the admission of the Czech Republic to their alliance.

Fifth expansion: NATO countries, 2004 list

The next wave of expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization swept through Europe in 2004, when the list of countries participating in the bloc was replenished with seven more states: Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Latvia.

Lithuania is, perhaps, the case when one can say: "it simply could not be otherwise." Because native Lithuanians, to put it mildly, dislike and fear Russia. Especially after the 1991 conflict. After which they made every effort to protect themselves from it and protect themselves from the next invasion of the Russian army into their territory. In addition, they assisted their neighbors in joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by creating the Vilnius group of 9 states.

Bulgaria, like the other powers of the fifth stage of expansion, began moving towards the alliance by joining the integration program - "Partnership for Peace" (1994). Under which they pledged to reorganize their military forces to the standards of the North Atlantic bloc. Which was done for the Madrid summit (1997), where the NATO countries included Bulgaria in the list of candidates for joining the alliance. After that, Bulgaria tested several more reforms and finally reformatted its troops to the bloc's standards. And in 2004 it was officially accepted into NATO.

As far as Latvia is concerned, its accession to the military bloc is more the result of the lobbying of this issue by the EU and the USA, and not the result of the efforts of the government of this country. This is due to the fact that in Latvia they were afraid of a negative reaction from the Russian-speaking part of the population of the country and Russia itself, and therefore they themselves were in no hurry to get into the alliance. But for the sake of integration into the EU, they took this step.

I won’t talk much about Estonia, because it almost completely repeated the path of Bulgaria. Except that the invitation to NATO was received not in 1997, but in 1999.

For Romania, the path to the North Atlantic bloc was opened by Ion Iliescu (president 1990-1996; 2000-2004), in 1991 he began the process of consultations on joining the alliance. Which, after 3 years, led Romania to sign an integration agreement into the NATO bloc - "Partnership for Peace", and in 1995 to participate in the "Individual Partnership" agreement. Two years later, the authorities of the republic turned to the participants of the Madrid summit with a request to provide them with comprehensive support for their country's accession to the NATO bloc. In 2002 they received an invitation, and in 2004 they became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Next on the list is Slovakia. For this country, the path to the alliance was very thorny and could well lead to a serious conflict and may well be to a military one. And all because the authorities who led this state in 1995 did not want to move west and prevented this in every possible way. Despite the fact that the population wanted it. Therefore, they staged a “pseudo” referendum in which the electorate was asked to vote on three questions:
1. On joining the NATO bloc.
2. On the deployment of foreign military bases on the territory of Slovakia.
3. On the deployment of someone else's nuclear weapons in the country.

All questions were answered in the negative, with a turnout of 9.2%. But this did not matter, since the CEC declared the plebiscite invalid due to the large number of violations and falsifications. Nevertheless, the referendum nevertheless led to changes in the country, as it caused a wave of negativity to the government, which is why opposition forces under the leadership of Mikulashem Dzurinda came to power three years later. After that, a purposeful movement began towards full integration with Western countries and with NATO in particular. As a result, NATO member countries in 2004 offered Slovakia to become part of the bloc.

Regarding Slovenia, her path to the military was probably the easiest. Since the population and the authorities wanted integration with NATO, and the members of the bloc were not against it. The only difficulty was the organization of a referendum held in 2003, in which the Slovenes were asked: "Do they want to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?" The voting result was positive (66.02%) and in 2004 NATO countries accepted Slovenia into their bloc.

Sixth expansion: Albania and Croatia

The latest to be accepted by NATO member countries are two relatively small Balkan powers: Croatia and Albania. In addition to them, at this stage, they also planned to annex Macedonia, but Greece opposed this. Because of disputes concerning the name of this state.

The path of these above-mentioned states to NATO was almost identical, since they acted together and even created a special structure for this - the "Adriatic Charter" (2003).

Frequently Asked Questions about NATO

O b this document

This material is not a reflection of the official position of any state institution of Ukraine. This goal is to systematize answers to frequently asked questions arising in connection with the deepening of cooperation between Ukraine and NATO. The material is not propaganda, although its authors are adherents of the idea of ​​Ukraine's membership in NATO. It is designed for people who are willing to make an effort to investigate this issue unbiased. The choice of Russian as the language of presentation is due to the fact that the most difficult questions about Ukraine's cooperation with NATO are asked in this language.

Suggestions, comments and new questions please send to: .

Alexey Izhak

Tatyana Brezhneva

How did NATO come into being and what are the goals of this organization?

A series of events in 1947-49. exacerbated the international situation. These include threats to the sovereignty of Norway, Greece, Turkey, the coup in 1948 in Czechoslovakia and the blockade of West Berlin. By signing the Brussels Treaty in March 1948, five Western European countries - Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France - created a common defense system. This was followed by negotiations with the United States and Canada on the creation of a single North Atlantic alliance. These negotiations culminated in the signing in April 1949 of the Washington Treaty, which put into effect a system of common defense of twelve countries: Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the USA and France.

In the early fifties, the course of international events prompted NATO member states to create, on the basis of the North Atlantic Treaty, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO. The creation of NATO was formalized by a series of additional agreements that entered into force in 1952.

In 1952, Greece and Turkey joined the North Atlantic Treaty. The Federal Republic of Germany joined the alliance in 1955, and in 1982 Spain also became a member of NATO. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined NATO. 2004 - Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia.In 1967, as a result of an internal crisis over the creation of the NATO Nuclear Directorate, France withdrew from the military organization of the Alliance, while remaining a full member of NATO. Thus, today the Alliance has 26 members.

NATO's main goal is to guarantee the freedom and security of all its members in Europe and North America in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. To achieve this goal, NATO uses its political influence and military capabilities in accordance with the nature of the security challenges faced by its member states.

The current Strategic Concept, published in 1999, defines NATO's primary objectives as follows:

– act as a basis for stability in the Euro-Atlantic region;

– serve as a forum for consultations on security issues;

– exercise deterrence and protection against any threat of aggression against any of the NATO member states;

– promote effective conflict prevention and actively participate in crisis management;

– promote the development of a comprehensive partnership, cooperation and dialogue with other countries of the Euro-Atlantic region.

How is NATO organized?

NATO is an intergovernmental organization with no supranational functions. It can only do what none of its members object to. As an intergovernmental structure, it has at its disposal a very small number of military and civilian personnel - approximately 12,000 people. This is less than the total number of diplomatic workers in national missions to NATO. In terms of the level of administrative workload, that is, the ratio of the number of people working for NATO as an organization to the number of people that determine NATO's activities in national governments and diplomatic missions, NATO is a very efficient organization. For comparison: in the central bodies of the EU, only the number of translators is about 10 thousand people.

NATO's main decisions are prepared and adopted in committees, which are made up of members of national delegations. This is the core of the Alliance as an international club. The work of the inter-national committees is supported by a civilian staff (international officials) who report to the Secretary General and an integrated command structure which is managed by the NATO Military Committee. Rather accurate is the definition of NATO as an international club with military tools. At the same time, the proportion of military forces that, in the event of war, must be transferred under general command, is significantly inferior to the number of forces remaining under national control. In peacetime, the number of military forces subordinate to the central command is negligible - only a few thousand military. The same can be said about the overall budgets - they are meager compared to the total volume of military spending of the member countries.

Like any club, NATO has no politics, only membership rules. What is perceived as NATO policy is nothing more than the resultant policy of the member countries. It makes no practical sense to analyze and predict this conditional policy without analyzing and forecasting the policy of individual members of the Alliance.

Below is information about the main building blocks of NATO.

North Atlantic Council (SAS) has real political power and decision-making rights. It consists of the Permanent Representatives of all Member States, who meet at least once a week. Sessions of the NATO Council are also held at higher levels - foreign ministers, defense ministers or heads of government, but its powers and decision-making rights remain the same, and decisions have the same status and legal force regardless of the level of representation.

Each government is represented on the North Atlantic Council by a permanent representative with the rank of ambassador. All permanent representatives rely in their work on political and military personnel or staff of the mission to NATO, the number of which may vary from country to country.

The meeting of the NATO Council of Permanent Representatives is often referred to as the “Permanent Session of the North Atlantic Council”. Twice a year, and sometimes more frequently, there are meetings of the North Atlantic Council at ministerial level, with each NATO country represented by a Minister for Foreign Affairs.

High-level meetings with the participation of heads of state and government (summits) are held when it is necessary to resolve particularly important issues or at turning points in the development of NATO

Permanent Representatives act according to instructions from their capitals, communicating and explaining to their colleagues in the NATO Council the views and political decisions of their governments. In addition, they report to the leadership of their countries about the points of view and positions of other governments, report on new events, the process of building consensus on certain important issues or differences in the positions of individual countries in some areas.

Decisions on any actions are taken on the basis of unity of opinion and common consent. NATO does not have voting or majority voting procedures. Each country represented at meetings of the NATO Council or on any of its subordinate committees retains full independence and is fully responsible for its decisions.

The Council's work is prepared by subordinate committees responsible for specific policy areas.

Defense Planning Committee (KVP) usually works as a permanent representative, but at least twice a year it meets at the level of defense ministers. It deals with most military issues and tasks related to collective defense planning. All member states of the Alliance are represented on this committee, with the exception of France. The Defense Planning Committee guides the activities of NATO's governing military bodies. Within its area of ​​responsibility, it performs the same functions and has the same rights and powers as the North Atlantic Council. The work of the Defense Planning Committee is prepared by a number of subordinate committees with specific areas of responsibility.

NATO Defense Ministers who participate in the Defense Planning Committee meet regularly as part of the Nuclear planning groups (NSG), where they discuss specific policy issues related to nuclear forces. These meetings cover a wide range of nuclear weapons policy issues, including the safety, security and survivability of nuclear weapons, communications and information systems, deployment of nuclear forces, as well as broader issues of common concern such as nuclear weapons control. and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The work of the Nuclear Planning Group is supported by the NSG headquarters group.

The work of these committees is supported by a variety of subsidiary structures.

Permanent Representatives and National Delegations. Each NATO country is represented on the North Atlantic Council by an ambassador or permanent representative who is supported by a national delegation of advisers and officials who represent their country on various NATO committees. These delegations are a lot like small embassies. The fact that they are located in the same Headquarters building allows them to communicate easily and quickly, formally and informally, with each other, as well as with members of NATO's international secretariats and representatives of partner countries.

NATO Secretary General is a prominent international statesman who has been entrusted by the governments of NATO member states to chair the North Atlantic Council, the Defense Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group, as well as the nominal chairman of other major NATO committees. He is the Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of NATO. In addition, the Secretary General is the Chairman of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Mediterranean Cooperation Group, Co-Chair (together with the representative of Russia and the representative of the NATO country, acting honorary chairman) of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. He also co-chairs, with Ukraine's representative, the NATO-Ukraine Commission.

International Secretariat. The work of the North Atlantic Council and its subordinate committees is carried out with the help of the International Secretariat. It is composed of staff from various member states, recruited directly by NATO or seconded by the respective governments. Members of the International Secretariat report to the Secretary General of NATO and remain loyal to the organization throughout their tenure.

Military Committee is responsible for the planning of collective military operations and holds regular meetings at the level of Chiefs of General Staffs (CHOS). Iceland, which has no armed forces, is represented at such meetings by a civilian official. France has a special representative. The Committee is NATO's highest military body, operating under the overall political direction of the North Atlantic Council, the STOC and the NSG.

The day-to-day work of the Military Committee is conducted by military representatives acting on behalf of their chiefs of general staff. The military representatives have sufficient authority to enable the Military Committee to carry out its collective tasks and make decisions promptly.

The military committee at the level of chiefs of general staffs (CHSH) usually meets three times a year. Two of these Military Committee meetings are held in Brussels and one is held on a rotating basis in other NATO countries.

International military headquarters (IMS) is headed by a general or admiral who is selected by the Military Committee from among candidates nominated by NATO member states for the post of Chief of the International Military Staff (IMS). Under his leadership, the IMS is responsible for planning and evaluating policy on military issues and making appropriate recommendations for consideration by the Military Committee. It also oversees the proper implementation of the policies and decisions of the Military Committee.

command structure. The new command structure includes two strategic-level military commands. The first - the Joint Operational Command - Allied Command Operation (ACO), to which all operational commands are subordinate - is located at the headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe near the city of Mons and is responsible for operational activities. The Joint Operations Command is developing requirements for short-term operations. At the operational level, there are two permanent Joint Force Commands (JFCs) in Italy and the Netherlands, which form the ground headquarters of the Multinational Joint Task Force (JFC). There is also a smaller, but highly effective, permanent Joint Headquarters in Portugal (JHQ), which can serve as the basis for the creation of MEP Naval Headquarters. On a tactical equal of thirteen, six headquarters are retained, designed to manage large mixed formations.

The second is the Allied Command for Transformation - the Combined Joint Task Force (ACT), created instead of the headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander in the Atlantic, is responsible for the functional reorganization of the Alliance. It will focus on long-term force generation. The focus will be on enhancing the interoperability of NATO forces and gradually narrowing the transatlantic gap in capabilities through the exchange of the latest developments and research results in the field of new concepts of warfare. NATO Transformation Commands will develop concepts and doctrines, prepare and conduct experiments, determine the requirements for the armed forces in the future, oversee military education and combat training, and develop and evaluate requirements for the interaction of subsections and their reorganization. Transformation Commands will become a means of synchronizing national programs and development of the armed forces towards the creation of more effective joint combat structures and will promote increased interaction, which ultimately can ensure the reliable and flexible implementation of new tasks in coalition actions to counter new threats.

What are the forms of participation of European countries in NATO activities?

The participation of European countries in NATO activities takes a number of forms: joint defense planning; participation in an integrated military command structure; placing armed forces under NATO command; infrastructure maintenance; co-ownership of defense systems; participation in NATO nuclear planning; military-industrial cooperation.

Joint Defense Planning is the backbone of NATO's activities and is the foundationfor all other forms of defense integration. Joint defense planning is cyclical: plans are made for six, five and two years (the main planning cycle) with annual adjustments. The purpose of joint defense planning is to develop coordinated optimal plans for the development of national forces. The criterion of optimality is the effectiveness of collective defense. The plan drawn up for each country is then carried out by that country itself and does not involve any centralized management.

All NATO countries except France and Iceland take part in joint defense planning. The reason for their non-participation is that France withdrew from the military structure of NATO in 1966, remaining a party to the North Atlantic Treaty, and Iceland has no armed forces.

Joint defense planning is a separate process from operations planning. Planning for operations, such as peacekeeping operations, is carried out on a case-by-case basis and is provided by separate NATO structures. If collective defense planning is carried out mainly under the leadership of the Military Planning Committee, which brings together the ministers of defense and representatives, then the planning of operations is the competence of the Military Committee, which brings together the chiefs of general staffs and their representatives. France, for example, does not participate in collective defense planning (although it coordinates its plans) and its defense minister does not participate in the work of the Defense Planning Committee. However, France participates in the planning of joint operations and, accordingly, is represented in the Military Committee.

On the basis of joint defense planning within NATO, member countries have created a number of integrated structures. The scale of individual countries' involvement in them correlates with the so-called "fair share" of participation. For the armed forces, it is determined by the share of the country's population in the total population of NATO countries.

AT integrated military command structure (multinational and national headquarters subordinate to the unified NATO command) all European members of NATO participate, except France and Iceland. However, the headquarters of the Eurocorps located in France is part of an integrated structure. According to existing rules, the commander-in-chief of NATO forces is a representative of the United States, and his deputy is a European who is responsible for operations carried out with the help of NATO forces and means in the interests of the EU.

The main headquarters under the unified command are located in the following countries: Belgium (1 headquarters, NATO HQ), Great Britain (3 headquarters), Germany (7 headquarters), Greece (1 headquarters), Spain (1 headquarters), Italy (4 headquarters), Luxembourg (1 headquarters), the Netherlands (1 headquarters), Portugal (1 headquarters), Turkey (2 headquarters), France (1 headquarters).

Contribution of forces to NATO command has three main forms. The first form covers a small number of forces that are transferred to NATO command on a permanent basis, both in wartime and in peacetime. These are naval units and air forces (AWACS), which are in constant readiness. Their total number is several thousand people, about 10 ships and up to 20 aircraft. The second form can be considered the main one for NATO. It consists in the fact that the armed forces remain under national administrative control, but undergo combat training according to the plans of the NATO integrated command structure and are transferred to NATO control in case of combat use. NATO encourages the creation of multinational formations by member countries, which are transferred to NATO management as a whole. In this case, administrative management is carried out collectively by several countries according to the procedures agreed between them. NATO's main multinational formations today are the Rapid Deployment Corps, the German-American and German-Danish Corps, as well as the Eurocorps. The third form is the "designation" of national forces without their transfer. Such forces can be used in the interests of NATO if necessary, but they are being trained within the framework of national programs.

All NATO countries except France and Iceland (for the reasons mentioned above) contribute military forces to NATO in one form or another. The degree of participation ranges from a company (for the Baltic countries) to several divisions (for Germany). In general, the number of forces allocated by a certain country to NATO correlates with the number of NATO headquarters located on the territory of this country.

Unified infrastructure command, control, control, computer processing, information and intelligence (C 5 I 2) NATO is funded from the general budget of the organization and includes the following subsystems: ACCIS (Integrated Command System), NADGE (Ground Command and Information Air Defense Infrastructure), RIS (Integrated Infrastructure radars), NIS (Identification System), NICS (Integrated Communications System, including satellite). Financing from NATO budgets implies common ownership and distribution of the financial burden in accordance with the "fair share" of the participation of countries. The creators of these systems are mainly US defense companies (Motorola, Boeing), Great Britain (BAE Systems), Germany (Siemens), Italy (Finmeccanica), the Netherlands (Philips). The participation of French companies and the European concern EADS is limited due to the position of France regarding the integrated structures of NATO. Recently, the situation is changing due to the deployment of a new generation of NATO satellite communications system and the unified theater surveillance system AGS.

The satellite communications system, called Satcom Post 2000, will be the fifth in NATO's history. Its operation began in 2005 and will last until 2019. Unlike previous systems, Satcom Post 2000 will be operated according to a new scheme, which will significantly reduce its cost.

Previously, NATO had two satellites deployed in the early 90's system called NATO IV. Its deployment by order of the Alliance was carried out by the United Kingdom. In fact, the satellites of the NATO IV system are identical to the British SKYNET 4. Since the UK does not have its own launch systems, the launch of these satellites is carried out by American and French launch vehicles. Even earlier, NATO owned a system called NATO III, which was built and deployed by the United States.

Satcom Post 2000 system will cost NATO$ 457 million. Such a small price for a space constellation of modern military communications satellites was achieved thanks to the combination of Satcom Post 2000 deployment plans with the national space programs of Great Britain, France and Italy. It is assumed that Satcom Post 2000 will consist of mutually compatible satellites of different manufacturers - French SYRACUSE, Italian SICRAL and British SKYNET. Moreover, all of them will be simultaneously used within the framework of the national programs of these countries.

In addition to these unified structures, a number of countries allocate part of their national C 5 I 2 systems for joint work with NATO systems. This is, first of all, Germany, Great Britain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Iceland.

An important albeit very limited form of participation in NATO is co-ownership of common weapons systems . Such systems are purchased from NATO budgets and are managed centrally. To date, the only operational example of such a system is the AWACS airborne early warning system, consisting of 18 American-made AWACS E-3 aircraft. For legal reasons(in the modern international system, the main types of weapons, except for small arms, only national governments have the right to own) these aircraft are assigned to the Luxembourg Air Force. 13 countries participate in the general purchase and, accordingly, collective operation: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the USA and Turkey. The UK and France have their own fleet of E-3 aircraft that can be used in a single system.

NATO has now begun the collective deployment of yet another system, the AGS. This theater surveillance system is also known as the Eye in the Sky. According to plans, AGS should be put into operation before 2010. To this end, on behalf of NATO, a contract worth close to 4 billion euros has been signed with a consortium of manufacturers.

Plans for creating a system that would allow NATO to have an integral information and target picture of the theater of operations have been developed since the early 90s. However, the complexity of the system and competition from European and American defense companies prevented implementation. These plans received a new impetus after the Alliance began creating a new rapid reaction force that will have global application. The AGS system, first of all, should ensure the conduct of operations of precisely these forces.

Two transatlantic consortia took part in the tender for the development of the system at the last stage - one led by the European company EADS and the American Northrop Grumman (so-called TIPS), the other - as part of the American Raytheon, German Siemens and British-Italian Alenia Marconi. The winner was the TIPS consortium, which proposed a combination of modernized European A320 aircraft and American Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles. If implemented, AGS will become the second system of its class in the world after the American JSTARS, which is in the exclusive possession of the United States.

Joint nuclear planning has both a purely political aspect and a practical military aspect . Seven European states, under special agreements with the United States, provide infrastructure and forces for planning operations using American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe (B-61 bombs) in the interests of NATO. B-61 aerial bombs are designed for tactical aircraft A-7, F-15E, F-16 and Tornado. According to most sources, they currently number no more than two hundred, although there are reports of five hundred bombs. The hosting infrastructure is available at 13 bases in seven countries of Europe. Four bases are owned by the US Air Force (one each in the UK, Italy, Germany and Turkey), three are in Germany, two are in the UK (one in the national territory and one in Germany), two are in Turkey, one each is in the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Greece. In addition to Great Britain, the remaining six states - Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey - are non-nuclear. These countries, in accordance with special agreements with the United States, provide tactical aviation units from their armed forces, which are trained and certified for possible missions with American nuclear weapons. All French weapons are located on national territory and are not used in extended nuclear deterrence procedures.

The remaining member countries participate in nuclear planning at the political level through the Nuclear Planning Group.

An important aspect of NATO's activities (primarily, joint defense planning and a unified system for protecting classified information) is stimulation of military-industrial integration , although this process itself lies outside the competence of NATO. NATO's budgets are small (about $1.5 billion a year) and they are not intended for joint defense purchases, with the exceptions described earlier. At the same time, NATO promotes joint defense procurement by member countries where this is required by optimal joint defense planning. To do this, within the framework of NATO, special committees are being created that act on behalf of the collective customer. Such consolidation of orders contributes to the consolidation of production, since international consortiums of defense companies representing customer countries have the greatest chances to win tenders. Currently aboutThe main role is played by the following committees: NAMEADSMA (USA, Germany, Italy) to coordinate the creation of an expanded MEADS missile defense system; NETMA (UK, Germany, Spain, Italy) to coordinate the production of Eurofighter combat aircraft (previously this committee dealt with Tornado warplanes) ; NAHEMA (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, France) to coordinate the production of NH-90 helicopters; NHMO (Italy, France) to coordinate the operation of the air defense system HAWK . The Agency is the customer of the new theater surveillance system AGSNC3A representing NATO as an organization.

April 4 marks the 65th anniversary of the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or . The prerequisites for the emergence of the organization appeared shortly before the end of World War II, when it became clear that the allies would have to redistribute the territories of liberated Europe.

The creation of the North Atlantic Alliance was preceded by a conflict between Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito and Joseph Stalin, which showed that even the countries of the socialist bloc can have fundamental differences.

The blockade of West Berlin introduced by the Soviet Union in 1948, which pushed the countries of Western Europe into the arms of the United States of America, contributed to the final rapprochement of the countries participating in the future bloc. A month after it began in Washington, negotiations began in the strictest secrecy between the United States, Canada and five European powers - Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and Great Britain - participants in the Brussels Pact. The negotiations lasted for three months and led to the fact that the participants in the negotiations, as well as some other countries of Western Europe and Scandinavia, were ready to recognize the United States as a guarantor of security against military aggression.

Prisoner April 4, 1949 North Atlantic Treaty was not only a tool for deterring military aggression from the Soviet Union, but also a means of consolidating European countries divided by contradictions.

Initially, the organization included 12 countries - Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the USA, France. The treaty finally entered into force on August 24, 1949, when it was ratified by the governments of the participating countries. In addition, an international organizational structure was created to which military forces in Europe and around the world were subordinate.

As a counterbalance to NATO, the Warsaw Pact Organization was created in May 1955, which included Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia.

Like the North Atlantic Treaty, the agreement signed by the countries of the socialist bloc implied the right of the participating countries to collective security.

Nevertheless, almost six years elapsed between the creation of NATO and the signing of the Warsaw Pact. The emergence of the new bloc was not a response to the emergence of NATO, but to its expansion - in 1952, Greece and Turkey joined NATO, and in 1955, West Germany. Moreover, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from the very beginning positioned itself as a means of preventing the Soviet threat.

By the early 1960s, the problem of nuclear safety came to the fore. In particular, the Caribbean crisis forced the United States to transfer part of its nuclear arsenal to the allies for joint use. Despite the fact that NATO member countries had common goals and objectives, it was not long before differences of a fundamental nature began to appear.

In 1966, then French President Charles de Gaulle decided not to place the French army under NATO control. Moreover, he refused to deploy NATO military bases in France.

In fact, there was a confrontation between Paris and Washington, as a result of which France withdrew from the military planning committee and the NATO nuclear planning group, while retaining the right to test nuclear weapons and have an independent army. At the same time, France remained an element of the organization's political structure.

At the same time, there was no open confrontation. The Korean War, the Vietnam War and a number of other conflicts took place with overt and covert support from the USSR and the USA, as well as their allies. Moreover, through their allies, the parties provided weapons to third countries. For example, an agreement on the supply of Soviet weapons to Egypt was implemented by Czechoslovakia, while the USSR formally remained neutral in the Arab-Israeli confrontation until Suez Crisis 1956.

A period of tension was followed by an era of détente. In 1973, negotiations were held in Vienna on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe, in which Belgium, Great Britain, Canada, Luxembourg, East Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, the USSR, the USA, West Germany and Czechoslovakia took part. Nevertheless, due to the intransigence of the positions of the USSR and the USA, the negotiations turned out to be ineffective. Bilateral contacts continued until 1979, when the Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan.

In response, the forces of the alliance decided to deploy new American systems of nuclear missile weapons on the territory of several Western European countries.

In the 1980s, NATO began to once again expand its spheres of influence, taking advantage of the fact that the Soviet Union was gradually withdrawing its support for once-friendly regimes. At the same time, Spain joined NATO in 1982. Another important milestone was the signing in 1990 of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This treaty, negotiated by NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, established a balance of conventional military forces and prevented the creation of a capability for surprise attack and large-scale offensive operations in Europe.

Nevertheless, 15 years ago, in March 1999, NATO forces launched a military operation against Yugoslavia. The formal reason for the bombing was the humanitarian catastrophe that began in the region. In a short time, about a million Kosovar Albanians left the region and moved to neighboring Albania and Macedonia. The events that took place in Yugoslavia and the subsequent creation of the International Criminal Court were clear evidence that the world had become unipolar.

After the collapse of the USSR, the countries of the post-socialist camp entered the NATO expansion zone, despite the promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev.

In 1999, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO, and in 2004 Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia joined NATO. In addition, Albania and Croatia became NATO members in 2009. This was made possible by the candidacy system: first, candidates had to join the NATO membership action plan, implement them, and finally join the alliance.

Another stumbling block between Russia and the NATO countries was the decision to deploy elements of the US national missile defense system in Europe. Georgia's aggression against Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008 also aggravated relations. Finally, recent events in Ukraine have led NATO to cease practical cooperation with Russia, and Russia, in turn, has.

NATO will always deal with real threats

On the eve of the 65th anniversary of NATO, Gazeta.ru spoke with Director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow, Robert Pschel.

- Turning to history, how would you assess the evolution of NATO, the goals that the organization pursues?

- This is a big topic - 65 years.

If we are talking about the evolution of NATO, then this is, in a sense, a paradox.

Because, on the one hand, the foundation of NATO, and specifically, I mean that NATO was and is a collective defense organization, primarily referring to the fifth article of the Washington Treaty (an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered as an attack on them as a whole and, therefore, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will have the right to individual or collective self-defense - "Gazeta.Ru"), has not changed.

There are also other elements in the sense that NATO is an international, interstate organization in the classical sense (all decisions are made by consensus) and that it is a military-political organization. It hasn't changed.

On the other hand, the world has changed a lot in these 65 years.

NATO, I think, has shown during its existence, if we are talking primarily about the evolution of the organization after the end of the Cold War, that the allies are fully prepared to interact and change the current priorities of the organization. And this is another big change: in the early 1990s, NATO had 16 states, and now it's 28. It's about the security of member countries. This is the main task, the main goal, thanks to which NATO exists.

But in order to fulfill this function, it is necessary to reckon with new threats, such as cyber attacks and modern forms of terrorism, as well as new types of crises that the founders of NATO could not even guess about.

This is a matter of evolution and history.

You know, the 1990s were a serious crisis in the Balkans, and more recently Afghanistan and other challenges. In short, I think that there is such an element here that the basis, I repeat once again, is the most important principle, that this is an organization based on values, on what is most important for the member countries. NATO will always deal with the real threats that confront the international community at the moment.

I think even recent events have shown that NATO is fully prepared to deal with the priorities that it considers important for member countries.

So, very briefly, I would like to characterize the evolution of NATO. Why do I think this is important? Because it is an organization to which democratic countries belong. Each has its own history, its own characteristics, its own points of view. There are large, medium and even small countries. Nevertheless, something unites them, and they lead various discussions. It does not happen that the allies meet at the negotiating table with a 100% consensus: they have different points of view, there are discussions and debates.

It may sound immodest from a NATO official, but usually allies are able to reach a common understanding and develop a common position on those topics that they consider to be the main ones and to which the organization can contribute. If this were not the case, then within 65 years NATO members, society and people who pay taxes, could long ago have come to the conclusion that the organization is not needed. But in spite of everything, people did not come to such a conclusion, and this is the best proof of what we are talking about.

- And how do you assess the relations between the Soviet Union and NATO, as well as its successor - Russia?

- Here you need to be careful when making comparisons with history, and transfer it literally to today's events. I think that thanks to these conditions and the principles that I spoke about - attachment to values ​​and readiness for dialogue and dispute from the point of view of the security of allies and the international community - the balance between collective defense, protection of the security of member countries and partnerships, too built on the basis of shared values ​​is preserved. This includes countries with which we used to have a major confrontation. In that sense, nothing has changed.

I want to emphasize once again that for NATO members, the readiness for partnership, the development of dialogue and cooperation also depends on the readiness of our partners to fully comply with international principles and international law.

So it was in 1949, so it remains now, 65 years later.

The backbone of NATO is the US military

Gazeta.Ru talked about NATO and the alliance's activities with Russian scientist-Americanist, Deputy Director of the Institute for the USA and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Kremenyuk.

— How would you assess the evolution of the North Atlantic Alliance in recent years, against whom was it formed, why was it formed in this particular form?

- First of all, the existence of such an alliance prevented the next European conflicts when they were formed in the late XIX - early XX century: England, Germany, France and so on.

That's all the North Atlantic Alliance took off.

The second is some kind of consolidation of Western Europe in the face of the Soviet threat.

If without propaganda, then, of course, one of the options for Soviet policy in Europe was a strike by a group that we had in Germany. The fact that NATO was created there made it possible to mitigate this threat, but not completely eliminate it.

The third, and more complex, is the expansion of NATO, when they began to accept anyone into NATO and began to make him an enemy of Russia.

This is a more dubious role, because, as a rule, Russia had good relations with NATO, but for some reason the issue of NATO expansion was not discussed with Russia.

Hence the emergence of two problems that Russia had with NATO: the first is the use of force in Europe, the second is the problem of expansion. NATO did not want to solve these two problems with Russia. And so a new split in Europe appeared, so to speak, into “NATO” and “non-NATO” - in fact, Russia. Those were the main features.

- How do you assess the events of recent years, starting with the Eastern Partnership program and up to today's statements in Brussels by NATO representatives regarding the curtailment of cooperation with Russia?

- NATO, of course, here clearly follows instructions from Washington, which does not like that Russia is taking some independent steps without coordinating or discussing them with the West. That is, we exclude the right of NATO and the United States to actions and actions that are not agreed with Russia, and they, in turn, do not recognize Russia's right to actions that are not coordinated with NATO. The situation then

a rather disturbing one arises: both sides cannot agree on any rules of conduct in Europe.

As for other aspects, such as NATO's involvement in the war in Afghanistan, they have little impact. But the main thing is that NATO still believes that it is not necessary to coordinate issues of common European security with Russia. From our point of view, this is unacceptable.

- The role of the United States remained quite strong in decision-making?

- Certainly.

Who pays, he orders the music. The backbone of NATO is not European disparate forces, but the US military and its military capabilities.

Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, they determine the color of the buttonholes, the width of the stripes. But all major political decisions are made in Washington, and nowhere else.

70 years ago, Europe, exhausted by the Second World War, met the spring of the long-awaited Victory over Nazism. For eyewitnesses of these events, who yesterday applauded the Red Army in the streets and squares of the liberated European capitals, everything was crystal clear. The main contribution to the defeat of fascism was made by the Soviet Union, a state with a different social system. A state that has suddenly become a leading player in the international arena.

The ruling elite of the United States and leading European states, seriously frightened by the victorious march of socialism in Eastern Europe, are attentively listening to W. Churchill's speech on March 5, 1946 in Fulton (Missouri, USA) about the declaration of the "cold war". President Truman threatens to use atomic weapons against the USSR. General Eisenhower developed the "Totality" plan - a plan for war with the USSR.

The first act in the Cold War was the creation of the North Atlantic Alliance - NATO (English North Atlantic Treaty Organization). On April 4, 1949, twelve countries: the USA and Canada and 10 European states (Belgium, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Norway) created a joint collective security force.

The first secretary general of the alliance stated that the military-political bloc was created in order to "restrain the penetration of Russians into Western Europe and America." Although there were no grounds for such a statement. Firstly, I. Stalin refused to support the pro-communist rebellions in 1948 in Greece, and secondly, the main ideologist of the permanent revolution, Leon Trotsky, was killed by Mercader back in 1940. However, Harry Truman did not trust Moscow and considered the events in Greece, as well as in Vietnam by the real offensive of communism.

The second shock for the West was the creation of the military-political union of the countries of Eastern Europe - the Warsaw Pact in 1955. The pact was perceived by the United States as proof of the aggressive intentions of the USSR. Over the 66-year history, NATO has expanded 6 times and now has 28 members (in 1952 Greece and Turkey joined it, three years later - Germany (Germany; since 1990 - united Germany), in 1982 - Spain, in 1999 - Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, in 2004 - Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, in 2009 - Albania and Croatia). Please note that the alliance includes states that are far from the Atlantic Ocean, such as Turkey and the former Baltic republics of the USSR. Georgia and Ukraine are still torn under the “umbrella” of NATO

The headquarters of the organization is located in Brussels (Belgium). The supreme body is the NATO Council, in addition, the Defense Planning Committee, which includes the defense ministers of the countries participating in the bloc, meets twice a year. The number of military personnel according to the data of 2010 amounted to 3.8 million people. The maintenance of such an army armada is a very expensive business. Of course, the lion's share of military spending falls on the United States (72% or 4.4% of GDP), the rest of the participants 1.4% of their countries' GDP. Unofficially, members of the military bloc must spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. However, only the United Kingdom, Estonia and Greece fulfill this requirement. But such a distribution of costs enables the US to unconditionally dominate the alliance and dictate its policy.

The aggressive nature of the military-political alliance and its anti-Russian orientation were especially evident during the collapse of the world socialist system, the abolition of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR. Instead of dissolving its "defensive alliance", NATO willingly accepted into its membership most of the former socialist allies near the western borders of the Russian Federation, and broke up the not very accommodating ones (Yugoslavia) into dwarf formations devoid of any sovereignty.

The burden of military spending falls on the shoulders of European states, which are now going through hard times. Europe is increasingly being drawn by Washington into various military adventures in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. And all this against the backdrop of rising unemployment and poverty. Many European politicians oppose serving foreign interests aimed at weakening stability in the world. Meanwhile, NATO, no longer hiding its intentions, is moving towards the Third World War, squeezing the ring of its bases and weapons around the Russian Federation, imposing the need to increase military spending on the Russian economy, which has not yet strengthened after the upheavals of the 90s.

For the last decade, NATO has become an open instrument of US interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria). In August 2008, with the full support of Washington, Georgia attacked Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and the civilian population of Tskhinvali. However, the United States and the NATO leadership underestimated the strength and capabilities of Russia, which quickly defeated the armed Georgian formations.

A.F. Rasmussen, NATO Secretary General in April 2014, announced the inevitability of additional defense spending in connection with the events in Ukraine. In NATO headquarters, frightened by the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol to Russia, plans are being developed to repel Russian aggression, which allegedly seeks to divide Europe into spheres of influence.

The turn of the Western world from the policy of mutual cooperation and collective security to the policy of anti-Russian sanctions and confrontation indicates that we have entered a long-term period of confrontation with Europe and the United States. This confrontation can only be overcome by recognizing Russia's right to defend its national interests on its own, in accordance with international norms, without prompting from outside. Unfortunately, in international relations, too, only force is recognized when other arguments are powerless.

Founding states

On April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty (also known as the Washington Treaty) was signed in Washington, D.C. by the foreign ministers of 12 countries: Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the United States and France.

Within five months of the signing ceremony, the treaty was ratified by the parliaments of the countries concerned, securing their membership.

Twelve Signatories

A number of Foreign Ministers who signed the North Atlantic Treaty were actively involved in the work of NATO in the later stages of their careers:

• Belgium: Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak (NATO Secretary General, 1957-1961);
• Denmark: Mr. Gustav Rasmussen;
• Iceland: Mr. Bjarni Benediktsson;
• Italy: Count Carlo Sforza;
• Canada: Mr. Lester Pearson (participated in treaty negotiations and was one of the "Three Wise Men" who wrote the report on non-military cooperation in NATO, which was published in 1956 after the Suez Crisis);
• Luxembourg: Mr. Joseph Bech;
• Netherlands: Dr. Dirk Stikker (NATO Secretary General, 1961-1964);
• Norway: Mr. Halvard M. Lange (one of the "three wise men" who compiled a report on non-military cooperation in NATO);
• Portugal: Dr. José Caerio da Matta;
• United Kingdom: Mr. Ernest Bevin (the main initiator of the creation of NATO, as Foreign Minister from 1945 to 1951 participated in the first meetings of the North Atlantic Council);
• United States: Mr. Dean Ackson (as Secretary of State from 1949 to 1953, attended the first meetings of the North Atlantic Council).
• France: Mr. Robert Schuman (Architect of European Institutions, who also put forward the idea of ​​a European Defense Community).

Flexible approach to NATO membership

By signing the treaty, countries voluntarily undertake to participate in political consultations and military activities of the organization. While all signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty have obligations under the treaty, they are afforded a degree of flexibility that allows them to choose how they participate. An example of this flexibility is the membership of Iceland and France.

• Iceland

When Iceland signed the treaty in 1949, it didn't have a military, and it doesn't have one now. Iceland does not have any legal obstacles to their creation, but it has decided not to have armed forces. At the same time, Iceland has a coast guard, a national police force, an air defense system and a voluntary expeditionary peacekeeping contingent. Iceland has also had a long-term bilateral defense agreement with the United States since 1951. In 2006, American forces were withdrawn from the country, but the defense agreement is still in effect. Since 2008, NATO countries have periodically conducted patrols of Icelandic airspace.

• France

In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle decided to withdraw France from NATO's unified military structure. This was an expression of a desire for greater military independence, especially with respect to the United States, and an unwillingness to pool France's nuclear deterrent or accept any form of control of its military.

In practical terms, although France continued to participate in the organization's political structures, it did not have representation on a number of committees, such as the Defense Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. This decision also led to the withdrawal of French troops from NATO command, and the withdrawal of foreign troops from French territory. A ban was also introduced on the deployment of foreign weapons on French territory, including nuclear weapons. The political headquarters of NATO (since 1952 located in Paris), as well as the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Armed Forces of NATO in Europe (located since 1951 in Roquencourt) were moved to Belgium.

Despite France's withdrawal from NATO's joint military structure, it has signed two technical agreements with the North Atlantic Alliance, which outline the course of action in the event of Soviet aggression. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, France has regularly sent its troops to participate in NATO military operations, being one of the largest contributing countries. It also ranks fourth in terms of contributions to the NATO military budget.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, France has been gradually moving away from the decision of 1966. For example, since 1994 (meeting of defense ministers in Seville), it has been participating in meetings of defense ministers, and since 2003, French officers have been serving in the structures of the Strategic Command for Operations and the Strategic Command by transformation. At the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl in April 2009, France officially announced the resumption of its full participation in NATO structures¹.

Entry of Greece and Turkey

On February 18, 1952, three years after the signing of the Washington Treaty, Greece and Turkey joined the organization, which allowed NATO to strengthen its "southern flank".

In an era when there was a fear of communist expansion in Europe and elsewhere in the world (Soviet support for the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950), it was strategically important to ensure the security of Southeast Europe. NATO membership not only allowed the containment of communist influence in Greece, recovering from the civil war, but also freed Turkey from Soviet pressure due to access to strategic sea lanes.

German entry

Germany became a member of NATO on May 6, 1955. Its accession was the result of several years of negotiations with the leaders of Western countries and in Germany itself, whose population opposed rearmament in any form.

After the end of World War II, the first priority was to find ways to integrate Germany into Western European defense structures. The Federal Republic of Germany - or West Germany - was created in 1949, and although the new state was firmly connected to the West, its potential was feared. Initially, France proposed the creation of a European Defense Community, a European solution to the German question. However, the French Senate opposed the plan and the proposal fell through, leaving NATO membership as the only viable solution. For this to happen, three conditions had to be met: the victorious countries (the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and France) must end their occupation of the FRG; Italy and West Germany should be admitted to the Defense Organization of the Western Alliance (the military department of the Western Alliance), and then the procedure for joining NATO itself.

When Germany joined the Western Union, it was renamed the Western European Union. The fact of Germany's entry, along with the termination of its status as an occupied country, brought the country closer to NATO membership. The Federal Republic of Germany officially joined the Western European Union on October 23, 1954, and its status as an occupied country ended when the Bonn and Paris Conventions entered into force on May 5, 1955. The next day, Germany became the fifteenth member of NATO.

After the reunification of Germany on October 3, 1990, the lands that had previously been part of the German Democratic Republic joined NATO as part of a united Germany.

Spain's entry

Despite the opposition of a large part of the Spanish public, Spain joined the Alliance on May 30, 1982. The end of Franco's dictatorship in 1975, the military coup in 1981 and the rise to power of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), the leading opposition party that initially opposed NATO membership, set up difficult social and political conditions, both nationally and internationally. international levels.

Spain participated fully in the work of the political structures of the organization, but refrained from participating in the unified military structure. This position was confirmed by a referendum held in 1986. In terms of military aspects, Spain was present as an observer in the Nuclear Planning Group; applied reservations to its position on participation in the Unified Communications System; retained the Spanish armed forces under Spanish command and did not give her consent to send troops outside of Spain for an extended period. However, the Spanish troops will still be able to act jointly with the troops of other NATO countries in emergency situations.

Spain's application of the reservations gradually loosened up. When Dr. Javier Solana became the first Spanish Secretary General of NATO (1995-1999), the Spanish Parliament approved the country's participation in the Joint Military Command Structure (1996).

First round of expansion after the Cold War

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the liquidation of the Warsaw Pact after the end of the Cold War opened the way for further NATO expansion. Some of the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe have actively sought to integrate into Euro-Atlantic institutions.

In 1995, the Alliance implemented and published the results of the NATO Enlargement Study, which looked at the benefits of admitting new members to the organization and how to integrate them. The study concluded that the end of the Cold War presented a unique opportunity to strengthen security throughout the Euro-Atlantic region, and that enlargement would contribute to greater overall stability and security.

At the NATO Summit in Madrid in 1997, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were invited to start accession talks, and on 12 March 1999 they became the first former members of the Warsaw Pact to join the Alliance.

Building on the experience gained during the accession process, NATO launched the Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Washington Summit in April 1999. The MAP was created to help prepare countries aspiring to NATO membership, even if it did not prejudge any decisions.

Second round of expansion after the Cold War

At the 2002 Prague Summit, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia were invited to start accession talks. On March 29, 2004, they officially became members of the Alliance in the largest enlargement round in NATO's history.

Prior to joining NATO, all seven countries participated in the MAP.

Accession of Albania and Croatia

As partners, Albania and Croatia have cooperated with NATO in a number of areas, with a particular focus on defense and security sector reform and support for broader democratic and institutional reforms.

Albania has participated in the MAP since its inception in 1999, while Croatia joined in 2002. In July 2008, the Accession Protocols were signed by Albania and Croatia. On April 1, 2009, they officially became members of the organization.

Montenegro – most recent entry

Shortly after regaining its independence in June 2006, Montenegro joined the Partnership for Peace program in December of that year and three years later the Membership Action Plan. It has actively supported the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan since 2010 and is currently supporting the follow-up mission. The development of the interoperability of its armed forces and the implementation of defense and security sector reforms were an important part of Montenegro's cooperation with the Alliance before it became a member state. Montenegro cooperated with NATO in areas such as building an emergency response capability and destroying surplus munitions (a project in this area is ongoing).

The accession protocol was signed in May 2016, and on June 5, 2017 Montenegro became a member of the North Atlantic Alliance.