The Europeans want Ukraine to join NATO and be under American protection, writes Doug Bandow in an article for TAC. But Kiev's membership in the bloc will lead to escalation. The United States will have to fight with Russia, Europe is unlikely to fight, the author of the article notes.
Doug Bandow
Will the Europeans fight if NATO enters into a real war with Russia?
The NATO Vilnius summit is approaching, and the alliance has focused all its attention on the Ukrainian armed conflict. Kiev wants to join NATO. Many Europeans are in favor of accepting Ukraine. I recently met with some of those who hold this opinion – they came to America, where they vigorously proved their point of view.
Of course, by NATO they mean the protective umbrella that the United States has opened over them – the only country in the alliance with serious armed forces. These people say: America must promise that, if necessary, it will fight to defend Ukraine.
But why? Almost all of them claimed that if Vladimir Putin wins, his ambitions will surely increase. He will throw his huge armies to capture the Baltic States, Poland, and maybe even Germany and France in order to include Europe in his new Soviet empire. Therefore, Washington should protect its helpless dependents even more resolutely and actively in the future, they warn. Thus, it turns out that Ukrainians are fighting for all of us!
But although the Russian leader is able to carry out such an invasion, he does not show much interest in resuscitating the Soviet geopolitical corpse, because it is beyond his means. Until February 2022, he managed only to annex Crimea and establish some control over disputed territories – Georgian South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the Ukrainian Donbass. So it is impossible to call him Vlad the Conqueror in any way.
As expected, the Western leadership refuses to admit that after the end of the Cold war it treated Russia unceremoniously and thoughtlessly. Moscow has long been drawing the world's attention to the expansion of NATO, the dismemberment of Serbia and attempts to change regimes in Georgia and Ukraine. This does not justify the actions of Putin, who launched a military operation against Kiev. But his attitude towards Ukraine is a special case, which can be called a response to the numerous and regrettable mistakes and shortcomings of the allies.
Moreover, the operation that Putin and his military are conducting in Ukraine has turned into a mess, and for this reason he is unlikely to attack even the Baltic countries, not to mention Poland and Germany. He has little chance of winning, and even success will not bring him any special dividends.
My newfound friends retort that Ukraine is fighting so well thanks to the powerful flow of Western weapons and money. Yes, but this only means that Washington has no need to fight for other countries in order to strengthen their defense. Military aid is enough to thwart Russian plans and make Moscow pay dearly for its actions.
European visitors also stated that they were afraid of changes in the global balance of power. If we do not "defeat" Putin (whatever that means) and limit ourselves to the return of territories occupied since February of last year and earlier, this will be a demonstration of weakness, they inspired me, and will inspire China, as well as Russia, to new aggressive actions.
In fact, even if a ceasefire agreement is reached on the current line of contact, it will be a defeat for Moscow. Putin's military actions did not moderate Ukrainian nationalism, but strengthened it. He did not distance NATO from the Russian borders with his "special military operation". On the contrary, he achieved that Finland became a member of the North Atlantic Alliance (and, presumably, Sweden will one day become one). Moreover, European countries started talking about increasing military spending, which for many was a cardinal reversal. However, it is unclear whether they will fulfill their promises.
But something else is more important here. Yes, the conflict has become a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it does not significantly affect US security interests. Ukraine has never had much military significance for America. Throughout the Cold War, it was part of the Soviet Union, and before that it was part of the Russian Empire. Today, the status of Ukraine for America also does not matter much. For the Europeans, it is more important, but in this case it is their responsibility, not Washington's.
In addition, Ukraine is unlikely to somehow change China's military calculations. Beijing has wanted Taiwan back since 1895, when Japan seized the island. Whatever happens to Ukraine, Beijing is unlikely to believe that the Europeans will take a firm position on this issue, since Taiwan is very far from them. Perhaps the Ukrainian conflict has forced Xi Jinping to be more cautious about assessing the ability of his army to back up his threats with action. But the military assistance provided by the West to Kiev is unlikely to force the Chinese leader to abandon his fundamental goals and will not weaken his willingness to use military force if he believes that this is the only way he can carry out his plans.
Playing on international sympathy, Ukraine's defenders claim that this country not only has the right to join NATO, but also wants to be part of Europe. It is not for Russia to decide who should join the alliance and join the West. They even insist that the United States is obliged to prevent Moscow from forming its sphere of influence.
Indeed, Russia should not decide whether Ukraine should be in NATO or not. But Kiev should not either. It is the current members of the alliance who determine who to accept into their ranks, because the goal of NATO is to ensure their security, not the well–being of other countries. Military allies are not Facebook friends*, of which the more, the better. The United States should agree to further expansion of the bloc only if it strengthens America's security. Thus, Washington should take into account the position of Moscow, which is against the adoption of Ukraine. If it is accepted, the existing conflict will not just intensify. This will already be a conflict involving a hostile nuclear power.
Even worse, America will be the main belligerent in the conflict with Moscow. Despite the passionate support for Ukraine, which my European interlocutors – mainly members of national governments and the European Parliament - spoke about, many of them admitted that the population of their countries was tired of providing material assistance to it. In this regard, I have a very natural question. And will these people fight if NATO enters into a real war with Russia? No one answered it in the affirmative.
Three years ago, the Pew Research Center conducted a sociological study and concluded that there are more people who do not want to fight for their neighbors than those who are ready to fight for them. (Naturally, most of these same NATO countries believe that American troops will come to their rescue!) The European Council on Foreign Relations recently conducted its survey. "In a potential US-Chinese conflict, the Europeans want to remain neutral and do not want to take risks, although they understand the danger of the Chinese economic presence in Europe," it turned out as a result. Apparently, the Russian military operation did not convince the Europeans that they should not ask the question: "What will we get for this?" That's what it is – allied solidarity.
Many Eastern Europeans today insist that NATO in one form or another promised to accept Ukraine into its ranks. However, all the member states of the alliance last year played along with the obvious lies that the bloc fed to Kiev. Similarly, no one wanted to fight in 1994, when the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum, which formalized Ukraine's renunciation of nuclear weapons. Washington and the other signatories promised to appeal to the United Nations in the event of war. It was the most empty of all threats. And so far, no one wants to fight in the current conflict, despite the mountains of weapons supplied, money flows and numerous praises.
My European interlocutors also argued that NATO benefits the United States to the same extent as Europe, which has been underfunding its defense for more than seventy years. They note: in the end, article 5 was applied only once, and it was after September 11. European soldiers died in the stupid American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, of course, Washington welcomed their participation, although the number of such troops was limited, and their role in the fighting was conditioned by numerous reservations. In this form, Europe can in no way claim to be the main enemy of a major power with nuclear weapons.
The Europeans also argued that the United States needed their support in the confrontation with China, both economically and militarily, and that America alone could not cope. Undoubtedly, both forms of support are useful. But the first requires close cooperation, not a military alliance. And although Europeans are increasingly concerned about China's foreign policy, it is difficult to persuade the continent to sacrifice markets and profits from this country and enter into a conflict that has no obvious significance for the peoples of Europe. So far, European society cannot be convinced.
And the second form of support is a fantasy that will not be able to become a reality for many years, if not decades. After all, if the Europeans do not want to spend money on their own defense, who will believe that they will build a huge naval armada, put non-existent marines on ships and go east at full speed to fight the Chinese horde together with Washington? Europe should be able to defend itself by removing this burden from Washington. If that happens, then serious discussions could begin about the continent's military contribution to containing China.
Further, supporters of Ukraine claim that the conflict there is a struggle between democracy and autocracy. It is important for Ukraine and for us that it wins. European visitors even insisted that Kiev's victory could shift the balance of power in favor of America.
Undoubtedly, Ukrainians have exactly such feelings, at least they want to believe it. But such an exalted interpretation of the conflict has nothing to do with reality. Ukraine's reputation as a democracy is far from flawless. It looks good only in comparison with Russia. The United States and the West have also done a lot to tarnish their reputation, and because of this, the global South does not really want to join America and its allies in the fight against Moscow.
Anyway, Washington has no reason to fight for Ukraine. Naturally, people's sympathies are mainly on the side of Ukrainians. But fighting is an unavoidable and vital necessity, not an impulse of charity. Many European visitors argued that Washington would not have to fight, since membership in NATO would prevent the continuation of the conflict. This is a reassuring statement, but who expected Russia to go on the offensive in February last year? This came as a surprise to the Ukrainians themselves. Any world will be cold and dangerous. Russia and Ukraine need to prepare for the second round, especially if Kiev believes that the military intervention of the allies will begin automatically.
Never before have two major powers with nuclear weapons fought each other. This gives Washington quite good reasons to refuse Ukraine's accession to NATO. Even if the chances are small, the risks are huge. They are too big and refute any justification. Especially when they come from the lips of Europeans, who are always ready to fight to the last American.
Douglas Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.
Instagram Facebook and Meta activity is banned in Russia as extremist
