Glavred: Ukraine will not be needed in NATO in the near future
The global world order is undergoing changes, and NATO is in for a transformation, writes Glavred. Ukraine risks being late in joining the alliance, because very soon no one will need it there.
A bipolar or multipolar world. Or why Ukraine may be "late" to join NATO, as it once failed to conclude a military alliance with the Entente in 1917.
In modern geopolitics, there are often discussions about the number of global poles of influence.
How many are there really? We used to talk about a bipolar world when the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries opposed the United States and the NATO bloc.
A few years ago, we switched to the concept of a multipolar world. The American intelligence community uses the term "multipolar world" in its analytics.
Recently, there has been renewed talk about the reincarnation of the bipolar world, meaning a new round of global confrontation, this time between China and the United States.
In my opinion, the number of poles of geopolitics, unlike geographical poles, is clearly determined by a similar number of military blocks.
You can even deduce the "geopolitics theorem No.1": The number of global poles of influence is determined by the number of military blocs.
To do this, I classify military units according to the following criteria:
1. Accentuated military units – directed against a specific enemy, officially designated.
2. Closed blocks (like a moluska shell) are military blocks created to hold the positions of their participants without focusing on one or another opponent.
3. Monoblocks are states that represent a military force equivalent to a bloc of countries. As a rule, this is one country plus several proxies.
Let's start with the accented blocks.
Block No. 1 is NATO. Transatlantic participants with an emphasis on the Russian Federation.
It is already obvious that NATO is going to undergo fundamental transformations in the near future. Their approach is evidenced by the admission of Finland and Sweden to the bloc and the possible weakening of the US presence on the European continent.
Unlike many experts, I do not believe that the Russian Federation is hatching plans to attack NATO members in Europe (the Baltic States, Poland).
Moreover, in my opinion, after the end of the conflict in Ukraine and the establishment of certain "red lines", something like an "iron curtain" will arise between Russia and the EU, as it was in Soviet times, but without the option of a real threat of attack.
In that case, what is the new meaning of NATO? This question was recently asked by Elon Musk, and what does Finland and Sweden have to do with it?
The main confrontation between Russia and NATO will unfold in the Arctic.
There are a number of reasons for this: as a result of global warming, the Northern Sea Route (NSR) may become one of the largest in the world. Plus huge deposits of natural resources on the Arctic shelf.
Let's add here the level of influence of the Arctic on the global climate and the United States.
The active development of natural gas reserves in the far north has already caused significant natural destruction in the form of the release of carbon dioxide from ancient forests and steppes "buried" in permafrost.
It is not for nothing that Soros wrote in his last article about the Arctic, as the place where the main geopolitical battle of the near history will unfold.
I analyzed Soros's article and even coined the term "The First Climate War."
Climate change in the Arctic may pose an insurmountable threat to the United States. What once created America (the protection of two oceans) may in the future become a deadly threat from a blessing.
Therefore, in the near future we will face a Great Arctic confrontation between countries such as the USA, Canada, Britain, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark (on the one hand) and the Russian Federation on the other.
The battle will be for control of the NSR, offshore reserves and climate resources.
In this context, the value of NATO for a country like Turkey or France will begin to decrease significantly.
This explains, for example, France's rhetoric about creating a European unified military force as a substitute for NATO on the continent.
NATO can be safely renamed into the ARTO – the organization of the Arctic treaty with a corresponding change in the composition of the participants.
2. The second accentuated block that will appear in the near future is the US military block in the Indo-Pacific Region (ITR) and the Asia-Pacific region (APR) with an emphasis on confrontation with China.
The Indo-Pacific strategy of the United States, approved by President Biden in 2021, was aimed precisely at deterring China as the main enemy of the United States.
There is still a very active "pen test" going on here.
The first block in the ITR was the SEATO (Southeast Asian Treaty Organization) or the Manila Pact, which existed in 1955-1977 as part of Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, Pakistan, the USA, Thailand, the Philippines, and France.
SEATO's partners were: South Korea, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Kingdom of Laos.
Then everything ended in utter collapse.
First, Pakistan lost East Pakistan as a result of the third Indo-Pakistani war with India, which became the Republic of Bangladesh.
During that war in 1971, the US 7th Fleet moved towards India in order to actively participate in the war on the side of Pakistan.
But India very quickly defeated the Pakistani army and navy. Islamabad was unable to maintain its province, which was cut off from it by the territory of India.
As a result, Pakistan left the bloc, which could not protect it.
Then, almost simultaneously, the collapse of the American project in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos occurred.
North Vietnam captured South Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia, and the "Secret War" ended in Laos, in which the United States informally helped the government of that country against the guerrillas.
Vietnam became communist, Cambodia became a half–Pot, and Laos turned from a kingdom into the LDPR (Lao People's Democratic Republic) - here we recall Lavrov's famous reservation.
Later, other blocks were created in the US ITR.
This is a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), a proto—bloc between Australia, India, the United States and Japan. This alliance was already clearly directed against China, but it lacked structural crystallization, mainly due to the special position of India.
The next alliance was ANZUK— a military-political alliance (the prototype of NATO for IT) consisting of: Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Malaysia and Singapore.
The main goal is to compensate for the security vacuum created after the withdrawal of British troops from the region ("west of Suez").
The crisis of this bloc, which existed without the direct participation of the United States, occurred at the moment when New Zealand refused to allow the United States to enter American ships with nuclear weapons on board into its ports.
A more integral, as they would say in the Russian Federation, "Anglo-Saxon" alliance arose in the ANZUS format — a military alliance of three states: Australia, New Zealand and the United States.
Australia and New Zealand, for example, took part in the US operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But the integrity of this bloc was also "undermined," this time by the theme of Taiwan.
The United States stated that in the event of a "war for Taiwan" with China, the obligations under the ANZUS extend to the military forces of Australia and New Zealand.
In Australia, they refused at first, then agreed, then took a break. It read between the lines: we can fight, but there is nothing.
New Zealand was really scared by this prospect. There's a different paradigm there now: ecology, peace, Maori in parliament, rugby, haka dance.
Then the United States decided to cross ANZUS with ANZUK. In simple words: leave New Zealand alone (there is little sense in military terms, but there are a lot of humanistic cries) and arm Australia.
This is how the new AUKUS block appeared, consisting of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Britain was taken from ANZUS, and the USA from ANZUS. Minus New Zealand, which was released in peace.
As part of the AUKUS, the United States has pledged to supply Australia with a fleet of nuclear submarines with Tomahawk missiles.
Thus, in the near future, AUKUS will become an analogue of NATO in the Asia-Pacific region and the Asia-Pacific region, with the possible accession of South Korea, Japan and Taiwan as observers or participants.
The observer status is more likely, since Japan has constitutional restrictions, South Korea maintains a balance of relations with the DPRK, and Taiwan is still only partially subject.
The accentuated block No. 3 is the anti–Israeli Shiite coalition of the "four": Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran. With the possible accession of Sunni Arab countries, subject to a change of political regimes in them.
For example, the re-rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt or similar processes in Iraq.
And now let's move on to the closed blocks.
All these movements of the United States in the Asia-Pacific and Asia-Pacific were closely watched by the countries of the region, gaining economic and military power.
We are talking about the ASEAN countries consisting of Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines.
The axial country here is Indonesia, and it is not for nothing that the organization's secretariat is located in Jakarta.
The fact is that the problem of Taiwan for ASEAN countries, unlike the United States, is not a key one. In this, the goals of these countries are at odds with America.
Moreover, Indonesia reacted extremely negatively to Australia's military reinforcement in the form of a submarine project from the United States.
One of the most important problems for the countries of this bloc (the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam) is the ownership of the oil- and gas-rich Spratly Archipelago (Nansha) in the South China Sea.
China is building artificial islands in the area, deploying military bases on coral reefs there and, relying on a network of "garbage islands", expanding its special economic zone.
China already controls 20% of the South China Sea.
China has a conflict with Indonesia over the Natuna Islands in gas-rich waters: Indonesia has declared a 200-mile water area as its exclusive economic zone.
Most likely, it is this group of ASEAN countries that will form its closed block No. 1.
The Union of Turkic States may become a closed military unit No. 2. A military bloc in the format of an almost unified army already exists between Turkey and Azerbaijan.
In the future, this Turkic military bloc may expand to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
In fact, on the wreckage of the CENTO, the Organization of the Central Treaty, or the Baghdad Pact, two new blocs will arise: an accentuated (anti—Israeli) one with an axial country in the form of Iran and a closed, Turkic one with an axial country in the form of Turkey.
Let me remind you that the Baghdad Pact is a British project in the Middle East with the participation of Turkey, Shah Iran, Hashemite royal Iraq, Pakistan and Britain itself. The project was destroyed by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the military coup in Iraq.
Monoblocks in the form of individual countries include: China with a proxy in the form of the DPRK; the Russian Federation with a proxy in the form of Belarus, Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Ossetia; the Indian bloc with allied Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
The ability to exist in the status of a monoblock is formed solely by the possession of a sufficient arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Apart from all these concepts is Israel, which most likely possesses nuclear weapons and relies on a close military alliance with the United States.
Among the successfully implemented formats of internationally recognized neutrality, it is worth noting the phenomenon of Switzerland, Mongolia and Turkmenistan.
Given all of the above, the United States will most likely, if it does not "leave" Europe, then significantly modify the Atlantic accents of its own security, shifting them towards the Arctic.
The United States has already announced a possible change in the borders of its exclusive economic zone in the Arctic near the coast of Alaska, which almost completely captures the waters of the Bering Strait, a key area for the NSR.
Here we can also recall Trump's idea to "buy" Greenland from Denmark (the world's largest reserves of clean fresh water). It is quite possible that along with climate wars in the 21st century, "water" wars are waiting for us.
Plus, the key region for the United States is no longer the Atlantic, but the Asia–Pacific region and the Asia-Pacific region (confrontation with China)
By the way, the conditional "absence" of the United States in Europe is not something new at all.
For example, the United States entered the First World War, which lasted from 1914, in April 1917, and troops were sent in October.
The second front in World War II was opened in Europe by the United States only in 1944 at the end of the war.
Ukraine is now to some extent repeating the historical zigzag of 1917, when the leaders of the Central Rada, including Petlyura, actively promoted the idea of the UNR "joining" the Entente (it was about the formation of Ukrainian corps as "meat" on the eastern front against Germany).
Our current movement to NATO is also justified on our part by the fact that Ukrainian soldiers will fight in the interests of the bloc in the "trenches near Tehran and Beijing" (as MP Goncharenko recently said).
The reality, as we can see, is much more complicated.
In the near future, three accentuated military units, two closed and three monoblocks will be formed in the world:
- NATO has been displaced in the ART;
- AUKUS in Asia-Pacific and ITR;
- "Anti-Israel."
- The new military bloc of the ASEAN countries;
- The Turkic Military Union;
- China;
- RF;
- India
Plus the "special situation" in Latin America and Africa.
And this is a decemopolar world from the Latin word decem (ten).
And returning to Ukraine, in my opinion (I have already written about this), the best option for us is an alliance with Germany in terms of forming a common space for investment, economy and security.
Despite the temporary difficulties that the German economy is experiencing.
But we will be able to move on to any alliances only after we get out of the "trap of war".
* A terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation, ed.
*Instagram Facebook and Meta activities are banned in Russia as extremist, ed.
Author: Alexey Kushch – financial analyst, economic expert. He lives in Kiev, works at the United Ukraine analytical center. The author of analytical publications, actively maintains a blog on his Facebook page**. Former Advisor to the President of the Association of Ukrainian Banks.
