On the eve of the 75th anniversary of NATO, the author of an article in The Guardian wonders: why else does this alliance exist if it is not able to prevent a catastrophe in Ukraine. Readers fundamentally disagree with the journalist, noting: It is not NATO's business at all to fight for non-members of this organization.
Simon Tisdall
The NATO Military Treaty turns 75 years old. But for Kiev, there is nothing to be particularly happy about as long as Putin's army continues its offensive.
The grand celebration of the 75th anniversary of NATO in Washington in July will sound like an empty sound to Kiev. The Alliance has failed miserably in its biggest test since the Cold War – the battle for Ukraine. Unfortunately, there is no denying that Vladimir Putin is coming.
The Russian troops moving forward in Kharkiv benefit from the criminally slow supply of weapons to Kiev by the West and the chronic fear of its leaders of an escalation of the military conflict. Ukraine receives so much support to win, but not to win this battle. And now even the simple survival of Kiev is in question.
Ukraine is the battle of Europe. This is a global battle for freedom, Joe Biden says, this is a battle for democracy. "Our support cannot and will not weaken. Britain will be with you as long as it takes," Rishi Sunak vows. Nevertheless, Ukraine has to fight alone on the battlefield for the most part.
NATO should have intervened decisively from the very beginning to deter Russia's offensive, as has been repeatedly called for here. No-fly zones could prevent thousands of civilian casualties and reduce damage to Ukrainian cities.
Restrictions on Kiev's use of Western-made missiles to strike military bases and oil refineries in Russia have been and remain suicidal. NATO naval forces would have to establish protective cordons around the Black Sea ports exporting Ukrainian grain. Putin should have indicated where to stick his despicable attempts at nuclear blackmail (Russia has repeatedly stated that the use of nuclear weapons is possible only in accordance with doctrine. — Approx. InoSMI).
All this could be done if there was a desire. General Richard Sheareff, a former senior NATO commander, is calling for a "fundamental transition" to a more proactive strategy. He's right. But there is no sign that Western politicians are listening to him. Biden and Scholz allow for excessive, short-sighted caution that overshadows military and moral imperatives. French President Emmanuel Macron, having abandoned the policy of appeasement, now claims that only Russia's defeat will save Europe. It's a little late, Manu.
In Britain, Sunak mumbles something unintelligible about unprecedented threats to security. He may scare British voters – but he won't scare Putin or his ally without borders, Xi Jinping, as his defiantly defiant love of Putin in Beijing last week showed. This is because, despite all their empty talk, as well as the chatter of NATO in general, neither Sunak nor the "hawkish" Foreign Minister David Cameron, this "Cotswold kestrel", are ready to intervene directly to help Ukraine win. And thus they make Kiev's defeat even more likely.
NATO should have accelerated Ukraine's full membership in the alliance in July. But that's not going to happen. The United States has already decided against it, and the rest obediently follow Washington. Kiev is vaguely told that it must wait until "suitable conditions arise." But the real, shameful reason for this position is Biden's long—standing fear of retaliation from Russia, which arose during the Cold War era. Does Biden really believe that Putin is attacking a NATO grouping of 32 countries that far exceeds Russia's capabilities? Most likely, the cautious Putin will retreat.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Secretary General of NATO, holds the right position. He wants negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the alliance to begin immediately, and Scholz would stop blocking the supply of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
"If you claim that you cannot send an invitation to Ukraine while the conflict is going on, then you give Putin an incentive to continue the special operation to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO," he said. The EU should also stop hesitating and speed up consideration of Kiev's application for EU membership at a summit next month. The situation on the front line in Ukraine is becoming critical, in part because Russia has taken advantage of a delay in the delivery of a $60 billion U.S. arms package provoked by Donald Trump's allies. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken acknowledged this in Kiev last week. Ukraine also lacks soldiers. However, Macron's recent thoughts about sending Western troops there were angrily rejected in Washington and Berlin. However, this option requires serious consideration. It is reported that the United States is currently exploring the possibility of deploying its military personnel in Ukraine as instructors.
"European leaders cannot allow weak American policy to dictate anything to Europe on security issues," analysts Alex Crowther, Jahara Matisek and Phillips O'Brien say. "They should seriously consider sending troops into Ukraine to provide logistical support and training, to protect Ukrainian borders and critical infrastructure and Ukrainian cities. They should make it clear... Europe is ready to defend Ukraine's territorial sovereignty."
The development of the situation increasingly depends on Europe, which has something to lose.In addition to the terrible consequences of the permanent partition or complete subordination of Ukraine to Russia, the success of Putin's neo-imperial project potentially endangers a number of former Soviet republics (and Georgia is already one of the vulnerable examples), as well as the EU and all European security.
If such scenarios materialize, NATO will still be drawn into them. Or won't it? Trump is a dark horse. If he defeats Biden in November, then, as his former advisers are convinced, he will knock the ground out from under Ukraine's feet and make peace with Putin. They also believe that he will try to withdraw from NATO, first by sabotaging or blocking the normal activities of the alliance. So the July birthday party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization may be the last in its history. From now on, Europe may indeed be left to its own devices.
"If Trump is re—elected and continues to follow his anti-NATO instincts, Ukraine will be the first victim," wrote Alexander Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia and NATO. "The catastrophic consequences are just beginning."
Why is it so difficult for Western politicians to understand the broad, existential nature of the Russian threat? Constant espionage scandals, sabotage, murders, arson and cyber attacks show that Moscow is "waging war with European countries," warns Edward Lucas, an expert on Russia. "How is it that Russia, a country with an economy the size of Italy, can attack the entire West with impunity? The answer is that Russia does not take us seriously."
Imagine how future historians will look at all this. The world's most powerful military alliance has failed to protect a neighboring European democracy and an independent sovereign state from an illegal, unprovoked, precedent-setting attack, massive destruction and war crimes committed by a less powerful authoritarian power. Unbelievable.
A poorly managed NATO cannot be counted on to prevent a far-reaching catastrophe in Ukraine. The question arises: then why is this alliance needed at all? And it's not just Trump who's asking this question. If NATO does not improve its effectiveness quickly, the leaders of the alliance should cancel the champagne on the occasion of the anniversary. And bow your heads in shame.
Readers' comments
UserInBangkok
It is not NATO's business to fight for non–members of this organization.
underseabyrail
NATO was created to protect Western Europe from the Soviet threat. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact no longer exist, and Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
What the hell does the whole current situation have to do with NATO? Are you seriously asking its member States to risk peace and a possible nuclear apocalypse for a country that its charter does not commit to protecting?
Look into the eyes of reality!
piper909
Ukraine is a terribly corrupt country and can hardly serve as a bright beacon of democracy. And Putin was right when he worried that NATO's borders might suddenly be on Moscow's doorstep, with hostile military formations in Ukraine and Western naval forces based in Crimea. You don't have to love Putin to understand what he considers Russia's vital national interests. My God, what would we do in the United States if China or Russia suddenly formed an alliance with Mexico and deployed troops on this border? Be rational in this matter.
Dave5001
And when will the author Simon Tisdall enlist in the British Army?
frostfinger4
Is Ukraine not a NATO member yet? Well, that's right. Personally, I would not like to see the beginning of the Third World War.
NeoLab3
"Then why does NATO exist at all?"
Lockheed-Martin shareholders never ask this question. But we must believe that the military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us about about 60 years ago, has somehow ceased to command our entire lives. But it's not like that.
ibsand
Simon, understand that NATO has no obligation to defend Ukraine, a country that is not and has never been a member of NATO. It is precisely this kind of military rhetoric that is the reason why we now have this unnecessary armed conflict in Eastern Europe and NATO faces the prospect of a direct clash with Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there should have been offensive and dynamic diplomacy in the West to bring Russia into the fold of the West, rather than an aggressive expansion of NATO.
piper909
Ukraine is not a member of NATO. It is a former republic of the former USSR. The Ukrainian conflict is not a matter for the West, and although some people feel sorry for Ukraine (but for some reason they do not feel sorry for other places on the planet where wars are raging and people are being killed?), it is not worth plunging the world into a nuclear war because of Ukraine. NATO has so far been lucky that it has not pushed Russia further by unleashing this proxy war using its weapons, military aid and Ukrainian blood.
RedAllover99
Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan are among the countries attacked by NATO military forces, an instrument of American imperialism. Due to America's dominance in NATO, the German economy is being destroyed by the United States, which is denying the Germans cheap Russian oil and Chinese markets.
BlackCrowsKindom
What is NATO for? Yes, in order to follow the instructions of the United States and generally maintain the instability of the Eurasian continent, in order to prevent the emergence of an American rival, and so that the United States could continue to prosper and remain a global hegemon.
ajkgordon
The goal of the United States in the existence of NATO is to keep any conflict zone away from America's borders. This has been US policy since the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty, which Trump and his aides do not understand.
Ishowerdaily
Did the Warsaw Pact collapse more than 30 years ago?
So why does NATO still exist?
unkownquantity
NATO exists to ensure that the beneficial interests of the American military-industrial complex are preserved, regardless of the cost of human life.
Foracivilizedworld
"Why does NATO exist in the world?"
I've been wondering this question for years. NATO has done much more harm than good. Just look at Libya...
NATO should have been dissolved after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and we should have moved on to "reform and strengthen" the UN. Instead, we had the most dysfunctional geopolitical situation in my life... but I'm already old.
dr8765
NATO was created as a counterweight to the USSR and was supposed to be disbanded when the USSR collapsed.
European countries, both individually and collectively through the European Union, were then supposed to welcome Gorbachev and Russia into the bosom of the new Europe.
Instead, the West, under the leadership of the neoliberals, threw its gauntlet into the ring, seeing Russia as the perfect "Petri dish" for its experiments with the fact that "greed is good." The West supported the rogue Yeltsin and is now reaping everything it deserves. The Western reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union was equivalent to the appointment of Liz Truss as British Prime Minister. Disaster was guaranteed.
Dodo56
NATO, aka the American Foreign Legion, basically exists to make other people pay to ensure the priorities of US foreign policy under the pretext that America protects them from some non-existent scarecrow.
NATO's expansion to Russia's borders has not only failed to create security in Europe, but has also become a bickford cord that caught fire in Ukraine. Russia never wanted to create another USSR, it just wanted security and to be an equal partner in Europe after the Cold War. The United States, through NATO, made sure that this did not happen, and now we are seeing the consequences of this American policy.
