Behind the defensive "shield" of NATO lies weakness and division. Ukraine will pay for it
The Guardian writes about the deep cracks splitting NATO. They are getting deeper as the special operation in Ukraine continues. And Madrid will not heal them. The author believes that the alliance in Ukraine is waiting for the same failure that befell it in Afghanistan. And the Ukrainian people will pay for all NATO's mistakes.
Simon Tisdall
The miscalculations of the West opened the way for the Russian special operation in Ukraine. While the APU is fighting for survival with a superior enemy, NATO risks suffering another catastrophic failure.
Why is a shield needed in war? The shield restrains the enemy and means the determination of its owner. You can also hide behind it to avoid a fight. Since Russia entered Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been used with varying degrees of courage by American and European politicians for both of the above purposes.
But what happens if the shield is broken or has serious flaws? Perhaps the Western powers are about to find out about this. The NATO summit in Madrid this month is considered the most important, "transformative" forum of the alliance since the Cold War. You can expect a lot of self-praise on how the alliance of 30 countries united to protect the "free world" from Russian aggression. However, big question marks remain here.
Speaking back in March in Poland, Joe Biden, the US president and de facto head of NATO, set the tone. He vowed to defend "every inch of NATO territory with the full force of our collective might," but... at the same time, do not get involved in a war. A few months later, Biden is still behaving and expressing himself extremely vaguely regarding the long-term prospects of the alliance.
Ben Wallace, the British Defence Secretary, repeated this refrain last week in Iceland. Wallace warned that the next targets of Russian President Vladimir Putin could be Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, because, like Ukraine, he does not consider them "real" countries. But, like Biden, Britain does not have a clear plan to ensure the survival of at least an independent Ukraine.
While many other small members of the alliance have become unusually active, the main European members of NATO are hiding behind an alliance that they previously ignored and even neglected. They use it to avoid costly national commitments to Kiev that could infuriate Moscow.
Dreaming of the strategic autonomy of the EU, French leader Emmanuel Macron prefers talking to business. Olaf Scholz from Germany embodies indecision and slowness. And Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, who violates sanctions, often seems to favor the other side altogether.
The cynically self-serving attempts of the troublemaker of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to sabotage the applications of Finland and Sweden for membership also undermine the united front.
Jens Stoltenberg, the indecisive Secretary General of NATO, will do his best to patch up these cracks. Poland and other "frontline" states want a tougher approach, including the permanent deployment of additional troops, heavy weapons and military aircraft near the borders of Russia. In response, NATO officials promise "firm historical" solutions.
As for Ukraine, its leadership has almost given up hopes for membership in the alliance, solemnly promised at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, and has stopped calling on the union to direct military intervention in their country. "Of course, we will hear words of support... We are very grateful for this," Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba said. Having previously accused NATO of "inaction", in Madrid he does not expect concrete actions on Ukraine's admission to NATO or, for example, on "Black Sea security".
These latest remarks by Kuleba about "inaction" and "security in the Black Sea" refer to the ongoing and inexcusable inability of the United States and Europe to counter Moscow's illegal blockade of Ukraine's ports, which is creating a global food shortage.
This is one of many areas where NATO can and should put more pressure on Russia, thereby helping to convince Putin to put an end to his special operation.
Why isn't NATO doing more than it is now? Taken together, all the explanations and excuses given in the alliance for passivity and inaction create a picture of an alliance that is much less cohesive, powerful and organized than its fans pretend to see NATO.
The initial support for Ukraine, although somewhat remote, "at arm's length", seemed to spur NATO somewhat. Its authority has grown somewhat compared to its lowest point, which existed during last year's fiasco with the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
But if, as expected, hostilities continue further, if both sides increase the degree of struggle, if the diplomatic impasse becomes impassable and if there is a threat of a wider conflict, NATO's weaknesses and vulnerabilities, which have long remained in the shadows, will become quite obvious and very dangerous for those who hide behind them, as if in loopholes. And the whole post-Soviet bluff about the power of NATO can finally come out.
It would be unrealistic to expect complete political unanimity in such a large organization. But the fact that each member of the alliance has an equal right to vote when they are absurdly unequal in terms of military power prevents quick and bold decision-making. For example, a Russian nuclear or chemical provocation would most likely cause only a paralyzing cacophony of contradictory voices inside NATO, and Putin certainly knows this.
At the same time, NATO has a huge and excessive dependence on the United States, a military superpower, without whose consent nothing happens in it and behind whose power the laggards hide, refusing to pay their share to the common pot.
Organizationally and militarily, NATO seems to be present everywhere. It has three joint command headquarters — in Italy, the Netherlands and the USA. But the main general of the alliance is based in Belgium. The alliance lacks interoperability in the weapons systems of different countries, as well as in joint exercises, the purchase of weapons and the exchange of intelligence.
In addition, NATO is becoming unnecessarily scattered across different theaters, caught between the Russian threat in the Euro-Atlantic region and the challenges in the Indo-Pacific region from an aggressively expansionist China.
Leaders from Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand are expected in Madrid. Their shared nightmare vision: a boundless totalitarian Sino-Russian global axis with echoes of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939.
NATO should soon publish its 10-year "strategic concept" on how to deal with all this, as well as transnational terrorism, destabilizing climate change, cyber warfare and the rise of anti-democratic states. This is a difficult list of difficult tasks.
The appearance of the Biden administration's new Asia-oriented national security strategy, which had to be hastily revised after the Russian military special operation in Ukraine, is clearly overdue.
But in order to move forward effectively on these multiple fronts, NATO must look back, acknowledge past mistakes and take some responsibility for the current crisis.
By keeping Ukraine in limbo regarding NATO membership and not punishing Putin for past actions in Chechnya and Syria, his attack on Georgia in 2008, his annexation of Crimea and his proxy war in the Donbas after 2014, complacent Western leaders unwittingly paved the way for today's catastrophe.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO "put the ball on the field." As if football fans, who sometimes go out on the field before the final whistle, thought in the alliance that it was over! But this was not and is not.
Right now Putin is hitting our shield, putting the West to a serious test. If his risk aversion doesn't change, there may soon be nowhere to hide from him.
Will NATO suffer another defeat?
