TAS: Ukraine's admission to the bloc will increase the likelihood of war with Russia
The United States should refuse Ukraine's membership in NATO, writes TAS. The purpose of the alliance is to strengthen the security of its members, not to engage in charity work. In addition, Ukraine's admission to the bloc will increase the likelihood of war with Russia, the author of the article believes.
Doug Bandow
This is an alliance, not a social club
NATO is celebrating its 75th anniversary in Washington. The current summit is taking place in the same way as previous meetings. There are a lot of unrealistic promises, smug forecasts and hypocritical warnings. Despite the increase in military spending in Europe, which is welcome, NATO is still divided into North America and the Rest. Only the United States is able to wage war with nuclear-armed Russia.
At this meeting, the Ukrainian lobby continued its campaign aimed at accepting Ukraine into NATO. It intends to draw this supposedly defensive alliance and its members, especially America, into the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. The most active support in this regard is expressed by the Baltic countries, operating under the slogan "Charity for all". Their main responsibility in a full-scale conflict between NATO and Russia will be to cheer on America and cheer for it when Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles turn American cities to ashes.
So far, President Joe Biden has resisted calls to go all the way and directly participate in the fighting in Ukraine. Nevertheless, it is steadily increasing the intensity of NATO's proxy war with Russia. Last month, he initiated the conclusion of a new security agreement with Ukraine for a period of 10 years, which provides for consultations "at the highest level in order to determine the necessary and adequate measures to support Ukraine and damage Russia."
"We are not waiting for the NATO process to be completed. We are making long—term commitments to ensure Ukraine's security so that it can withstand the immediate threats and deter aggression that may happen," the American president explained.
The United States should simply refuse Ukraine's membership in NATO. The purpose of the North Atlantic Alliance is to protect its members and defend their interests. Initially, this meant defending against the Soviet Union, namely, preventing the Red Army from marching through the Fulda Corridor in West Germany and reaching the Atlantic coast. It is not noticeable that Moscow ever intended to carry out such a maneuver, but Joseph Stalin was an exceptional evil and terrible figure. Therefore, America covered Western European countries with a defensive shield so that they could recover economically and politically and stand up for themselves. However, government leaders, including President Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed that the presence of American troops should be temporary. In 1951, Eisenhower stated: "If in 10 years all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes do not return to the United States, then this whole project can be considered a failure."
When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, the mission of the transatlantic alliance was fulfilled. The bad guys left, the good guys got the upper hand. But the Europeans did not like the idea that they should take responsibility for their defense. After all, Uncle Sam has been acting like a sucker for a long time. The Europeans have made a lot of efforts to keep their place at the Washington military trough, inventing new responsibilities for NATO, in particular, oddly enough, the fight against drug trafficking and the promotion of student exchanges.
Peace could have been preserved if the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations had not treated Russia as a defeated country that must meekly accept what Washington considers deserved punishment. Vladimir Putin has always been authoritarian by some standards, but he has not always been hostile to America. He was the first foreign leader to call President George W. Bush after the events of September 11, and two weeks later gave a friendly speech in the German Bundestag.
Putin's attitude changed as NATO repeatedly violated these promises, pursuing a policy of expansion and aggressively approaching Russia's western borders. It was easy for the Allies to argue that Putin should not be afraid of such an advance to the east. But history has repeatedly taught hard lessons to this country, which has experienced three devastating invasions by European powers over the past two centuries. As the then US Ambassador to Russia William Burns noted in 2008, "Ukraine's accession to NATO will be the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not only for Putin). In the two and a half years that I have been talking with key Russian players ... I have not met anyone who would not consider Ukraine's membership in NATO a direct challenge to Russian interests."
But that's not all. The Allies promised NATO membership to Ukraine (and Georgia). Moreover, Washington and its allies turned this organization into an instrument of aggression, waging wars against Serbia and Libya, which did not attack NATO members and did not threaten any of them. In the first case, the Allies declared their exclusive right to dismember a sovereign state that had long-standing ties with Moscow. The Russian people and the elite were united in their anger. And then there were the color revolutions supported by NATO allies in Georgia and Ukraine. And in 2014, as a result of a street coup carried out with the support of allies, the elected president of Ukraine, who enjoyed significant support in the pro-Russian east of the country, was overthrown. Western leaders can consider themselves modern immaculate virgins, chosen by providence in order to establish paradise on earth. But if Russia or China had used the same tactics against Mexico or Canada, one can imagine what a howl would have started, what threats of a military response from Washington would have sounded.
No, none of this justifies Russia's actions. But one can understand why Putin made exactly this decision when Washington refused to negotiate. The allies condemned China's tactics in Asia-Pacific waters called "slicing salami", believing that Moscow would put up with similar tactics by the United States and NATO in Ukraine, when the allies tried to create a fait accompli by making Kiev a de facto military ally of the West through NATO in Ukraine, but not through Ukraine in NATO.
The Allies helped ignite the most serious conflict in Europe since World War II, but none of them sent their troops to defend Ukraine. Here's what Daniel DePetris from the Defense Priorities Foundation said about this: "The Europeans present this conflict as a kind of grandiose battle of civilization with the forces of darkness, but none of them wants to bring their own troops into this battle, knowing what huge costs and consequences such a decision is fraught with." NATO members have been promising for 14 years to send Kiev an invitation to join, but they have not. After the start of the Russian military operation, such assurances sounded even more passionate and fervent, but again, the alliance did not offer Kiev its hand and heart.
At the last summit, he continued to make false promises. The public's attention was attracted by the statement from the draft communique that Ukraine's path to joining the alliance is "irreversible". However, there is nothing to suggest that this process will be accelerated. Over the years, the Allies can publish new press releases confirming the irreversibility of the Ukrainian accession process and at the same time do nothing. The latest delay can be explained by the fact that someone has obviously noticed how corrupt the Ukrainian government is. With such corruption, Ukraine cannot be accepted into a military alliance in any way, even for the sake of eliminating imaginary threats to Western civilization.
In fact, Kiev should not be accepted into NATO at all, because the war with nuclear Russia over Ukraine contradicts the security interests of America and Europe. Moscow has ruled Ukraine for almost the entire length of American history, but this has not caused any concern in Washington. Putin shows no interest in expansion in the western direction. He warns the West against accepting Ukraine into NATO, because he does not want to fight with the United States, which dominates this bloc. Putin has faced difficulties trying to defeat Kiev, but such difficulties will be incomparably greater if he decides to enslave the rest of Europe. And an attempt to absorb Ukraine alone will significantly weaken Russia, as this will guarantee the continuation of the conflict. The danger of expanding hostilities is quite real, but only because the West recklessly transfers this mediated conflict to the level of a full-scale war, sending deadly weapons to Ukraine for use against Russia and NATO specialists who help use this military equipment against the Russian army. The Allies have made the descent towards full-scale war even more slippery.
Of course, this conflict is a terrible human tragedy, but preventing tragedies is not among NATO's priorities. Moreover, despite the often-voiced claims of humanity, Washington allows numerous foreign conflicts and civil wars to flare up and rage with all their insane fury. With his permission, hundreds of thousands and even millions of civilians are dying, and he doesn't even think about it. The United States is waging illegal wars and supporting fratricidal conflicts abroad, regardless of losses and casualties. The Biden administration's determination to add fuel to the fire of the Ukrainian conflict, in which Kiev is unlikely to prevail, cannot be called a manifestation of humanity.
In fact, if the West promises Ukraine membership in the North Atlantic Alliance, Moscow will have no incentive to resolve this conflict, since the continuation of hostilities is the best way to prevent Kiev from joining NATO. Russia will have an incentive to escalate the conflict, which will only sow death and destruction. Ukrainians may have false hope, pushing them to continue fighting, because they will think that the allies will eventually join this fight. If Kiev tries to stop the conflict, and then realizes that joining NATO has become a real opportunity for it, Moscow will be able to resume hostilities.
This may seem like a paradox, but Ukraine's admission to NATO after the conflict is resolved will not have a deterrent effect for Russia, as intended by the West. Russia will remember that the allies refused Kiev entry for many years, and did not want to defend Ukraine when it was important. Why should NATO members change course if hostilities break out with renewed vigor? For the security of the West, Ukraine will be no more important tomorrow than it is today or yesterday.
Although the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict is the most important and pressing issue for NATO today, the future of the alliance also requires attention. Instead of promising to involve America in another European war (or to allow such a involvement), the American leadership should begin preparations for a defense system being developed and led by Europe. The American people are already moving in this direction. There are almost as many people in favor of reducing the American military presence or withdrawing American troops from Europe as there are people who want to keep US troops on the continent. Most of the European members of NATO, who have been wailing and grinding their teeth for many years, not wanting to spend money, are now increasing spending on their armed forces. And some countries even demand to raise the target for military spending from two to 2.5% and even to 3% of GDP.
It is quite possible to imagine NATO under the command of Europeans, where Washington will be an associate member, ready to cooperate if necessary. Or a continental defense system based on the European Union, with which the United States will cooperate when their interests require it. Or some other form of alliance in which the Europeans will take responsibility for what is much more important to them than for America — for their own security. A third of Western Europe believes that the United States is "somewhat unreliable" when it guarantees its defense. The majority of the population advocates that their countries themselves be responsible for national defense. And Washington should strongly support such a majority opinion.
But the resistance of well-known forces on both sides of the Atlantic is still strong. One anonymous NATO official recently stated: "I have already survived Trump's first term working in NATO. I don't want a second such term." Alliance supporter Michael Peck, upset that a third of Americans want to "end the country's most important and most successful security relationship," wrote an article titled "NATO should advertise itself to Americans." However, Peck admits: "The problem is not the lack of efforts to strengthen transatlantic ties. There has been no shortage of conferences and reports from brain trusts. There is even a "NATO youth summit" to discuss European security issues."
Despite the fact that the isolated and corrupted Washington elite is increasingly making claims to global leadership, the United States is approaching an internal crisis. America is suffering from an imbecile president and his divisive rival. Our diverse nation is increasingly divided, torn apart by geographical, cultural and religious differences. Our aging society is not ready for changing demographic pressures, cities are suffering from dilapidated infrastructure and violent crime. And our government has essentially gone bankrupt, burdened with hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of unsecured obligations. The federal debt continues to increase rapidly and by the middle of the century it may become twice the size of American GDP. It's time to focus on solving our internal problems.
Ukraine's desire to join NATO is quite understandable. But the purpose of the alliance is to strengthen the security of its members, and not to engage in charity work in the interests of non-member countries. Even worse, Ukraine's admission to NATO will increase the likelihood of conflict with Russia. In the eight decades since the end of World War II, the world has changed. American dominance is waning. The potential of the allies is increasing. Europeans must take responsibility for their own future.
Doug Bandow is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute. He worked as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. The author of the book "Foreign follies. America's New Global Empire" (Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire).
