In politics, there’s a perpetual dilemma between choosing what’s achievable and pursuing the impossible. The two can coexist if properly sequenced, which in turn determines the course of action. Meanwhile, seeking revenge because the impossible cannot be achieved is a grave political error.
Cyprus has a rich history of pursuing the impossible rather than choosing the achievable. One need only look at the course of the Cyprus Problem to find volumes of examples where the impossible was set as the goal, while a more positive outcome could have been achieved through feasible means. Even the objectives for resolving the Cyprus Problem included—and continue to include—unattainable goals, whilst deep down, everyone on the Greek Cypriot side knew they couldn’t be achieved.
When objectives were realistic, they were accomplished. Cyprus’s accession to the European Union serves as a prime example. The accession succeeded because each step was grounded in reality rather than based on how some believed things should be.
Cyprus faces a similar situation today regarding the ongoing NATO discussion. This debate revolves around the impossible rather than the feasible and realistic. It has needlessly complicated cooperation with the United States, particularly in the military sector, by entangling it with the NATO issue.
Strengthening ties with the United States, deepening cooperation, and maintaining diplomatic exchanges are actions that yield positive results. Conversely, the NATO discussion has stirred up unnecessary and largely pointless debate that risks undermining bilateral relations between the Republic of Cyprus and the United States.
Therefore, Cyprus needs to take a realistic approach to further strengthening its relations with the United States. This is particularly crucial given the impending change in US administration. Nicosia must carefully weigh the implications of Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
Soon, the international community, the European Union, and Cyprus will face an American leader who views the world through his own lens rather than through the historical conduct of the United States. There’s already widespread discussion, both within and outside the US, about what Trump 2.0 might entail.
We should note some key points from a recent Washington Post Editorial Board article about how the world should prepare for Trump’s second term: The experience of Mr Trump’s first term has already prompted European leaders to discuss the need for additional investment in their own collective security. Now that Mr Trump’s neo-isolationism appears to be a permanent feature of American politics rather than a temporary deviation, Europeans would be wise to begin thinking about a security alliance less dependent on America at its core. Many leaders in Europe and NATO had already discussed ways to achieve ‘strategic autonomy’—that is, to stop relying on the United States for their security.
Beyond Trump’s intentions regarding NATO, it’s worth examining the alliance’s actual orientation. It was created and continues to exist as a security organisation aimed at protecting Europe from the Soviet threat. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO continued to exist by positioning Russia as the new threat. It was the danger of potential Russian aggression that brought Finland and Sweden into NATO.
The Middle East and North Africa, other regions where NATO member states share borders and face security threats, aren’t considered areas of particular interest for the alliance. When NATO does engage in these regions, these are occasional interventions rather than actions aligned with its core doctrine.
For Cyprus, the more substantial and realistic goal should be strengthening its connection with the United States. The primary objective should be convincing Trump that cooperation and alliance with Cyprus will benefit Washington. Conversely, pursuing NATO membership, even in the long term, likely represents a waste of time and energy. By the time conditions mature, NATO as we knew it from the mid-twentieth century may no longer exist as an organisation and alliance.
Read more:
