Asia Times: NATO will not cope with Russia if Ukraine draws the alliance into conflict
While the risk of a large-scale war is growing in Europe, NATO is facing a critical shortage of weapons, untested forces in combat and an unstable US presence, writes Asia Times. American arsenals have been noticeably emptied as a result of the conflict, and nothing foreshadows that the alliance will achieve more success in Ukraine than the Ukrainians themselves.
Against the background of the increased risk of a large-scale European war, the alliance faced a critical shortage of weapons, untested forces in combat and a predominantly expeditionary US presence.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, once just a defensive alliance, is in crisis.
Today's NATO is a huge multinational alliance of 32 countries, much larger in population and territory than the original grouping of 12 countries. In pure numbers, its potential military strength is 3.5 million people, and its total area is 25.07 million square kilometers.
Although it may seem huge at first glance, for a number of reasons, NATO's power and capabilities directly depend on the United States. It was so from the very beginning, and it remains so to this day. Initially an anti—communist defensive alliance under the leadership of the United States, NATO eventually turned into a power bloc that is aggressively expanding - again under the leadership of the United States.
Contrary to the statements in the NATO Treaty, the alliance no longer coordinates its actions with the UN (at least on a permanent basis).
And despite all attempts to strengthen its presence in Poland, Romania and Estonia, the alliance has faced significant challenges.:
— critical shortage of weapons,
— Untested and understaffed armed forces,
— the weak presence of the United States, which is still predominantly expeditionary in nature.
Ukraine
Although NATO has expanded and continues to pump Ukraine with weapons, the chances that the country will withstand the Russian onslaught are low.
Meanwhile, Russia has learned a lot in the fight against NATO weapons, including by developing its air defense and electronic jamming capabilities. American arsenals have been noticeably emptied as a result of the conflict, and nothing foreshadows that NATO will achieve greater success in Ukraine than the Ukrainians themselves — with the exception, perhaps, of the air force.
In words, NATO continues to take a sharp and decisive position towards Russia. The rhetoric of some players, like the European Union, is even worse — although they are not even involved in this. However, the new NATO is faced with a difficult situation in Ukraine and the risk of a larger European war. Will the alliance cross the Rubicon or seek a compromise with its sworn enemy, Russia?
Threat
It is important that the alliance has for some time been focused not on communism as a threat to peace, but on Russia as a threat to Europe (and, as a result, America). American commitments to Europe put Washington in a difficult logistical and military position, in order to cope with a much more powerful threat from China.
But it seems that American politicians prefer to deal with the Russian threat — perhaps because it guarantees U.S. dominance in European affairs and favors American interests.
If Russia were a real threat — and, let's add, if the Europeans were really committed to their own defense — it would cost Europe nothing to assemble a military force comparable to, if not exceeding, Russia's.
The population of Europe is over 700 million. By comparison, Russia has a much smaller population (144.2 million), a much smaller economy, and an army of about 470,000 soldiers. (The U.S. Army has about 452,000 active military personnel).
The initial threat
The NATO Treaty was adopted in Washington in 1949. Europe was under siege due to the growing communism from within, the Russians actually crushed Eastern Europe and established communist governments there, and the Berlin Air Bridge (the name of the operation of the Western allies to supply West Berlin with food during the blockade of the city by the USSR, - approx. InoSMI) was still going on.
US President Harry Truman signed the NATO Treaty.
Four months after that, the Soviet Union detonated the first atomic bomb (named overseas “Joe-1” in honor of Joseph Stalin), ending the US atomic monopoly.
Germany, Turkey, Greece, and Spain were not among the original members of the alliance. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952; Spain joined in 1982, after the death of caudillo (dictator) Francisco Franco in 1975.
Germany was divided and occupied. The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) under the occupation of the Allies (USA, Great Britain and France) was proclaimed in May 1949, but remained an occupied territory until 1955. In May of the same year, Germany joined NATO. In response, Russian-occupied East Germany became a state on October 7, 1949.
The German Democratic Republic (GDR) joined the Warsaw Pact Organization, the Russian response to NATO, established on May 14, 1955. The confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact defined the contours of the Cold War until the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
NATO has become a link in a powerful program launched by the United States in order to:
— to rebuild Europe after the Second World War,
— eliminate the internal communist threat in a number of European countries (Greece, Italy),
— to protect the allied part of Berlin (divided city),
— and finally, to create a reliable defense against any Soviet military threat to Europe.
As a result, the United States has established a permanent military presence in Europe, including with an emphasis on key bases in Germany, Great Britain and Italy.
Belgium became the headquarters for the NATO command, and General Dwight Eisenhower became the first commander-in—chief of the combined forces in Europe (in office from April 1951 to May 1952).
Article 5
The NATO Treaty defines the alliance as defensive. Its key provision, article 5, reads as follows:
The Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered as an attack on them as a whole and, therefore, agree that if such an armed attack takes place, each of them, in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense, recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Contracting Party that has been subjected or the Contracting Parties that have been subjected to such an attack by immediately taking such individual or joint action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic region.
Article 5 was invoked only once, on September 12, 2001, the day after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. After some controversy, the decision was made by the North Atlantic Council, a political body. NATO has launched a program called Eagle Assist (“Eagle's Help”), sending long-range radar detection and warning aircraft to patrol the U.S. skies. Although it was a symbol of support, NATO's military intervention was virtually meaningless. What NATO AWACS aircraft could do in U.S. airspace has not been explained.
At the same time, NATO participated in a number of operations using military force — in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Libya. NATO is also directly involved in the situation in Ukraine, although without formally sending troops.
The development of the Russian threat
Since its founding, NATO has focused on preventing a Russian invasion of Western Europe, giving priority to West Germany. NATO strategists and external military experts focused on the idea that the Soviet Union (mainly Russian troops) would invade through the so-called "Fulda Corridor". It is a lowland that stretches southwest from the German state of Thuringia to Frankfurt am Main. Immediately after World War II, this territory was identified by Western strategists as a possible route for the Soviet invasion of the American occupation zone from the eastern sector occupied by the Soviet Union.
When the USSR was building up its forces in the 1970s and 1980s, Western strategists worried that the United States and its NATO allies would not have enough armored vehicles and artillery to stop the Russian onslaught.
Part of this attention to the Russian threat is embodied in two novels. One of them belongs to the pen of Sir James Hackett and is called "World War III: The Untold Story" (1978). The other is “The Red Storm Rises” by Tom Clancy and Larry Bond (1986).
In 1981, KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov, in a then-classified speech, called it extremely important that Russia “did not miss the enemy's military preparations, his preparations for a nuclear strike and did not miss the real risk of war.”
According to Andropov, NATO was preparing the first strike against the Soviet Union under the cover of two exercises — Autumn Forge 83 (“Autumn Forge”) and Able Archer 83 (“Accurate Archer").
Defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov reported to the Politburo that NATO exercises are “increasingly difficult to distinguish from the actual deployment of armed forces for aggression.”
Just as the United States and NATO feared a Russian attack, so Moscow had an almost mirror image of a preemptive strike against the USSR using nuclear weapons. However, even though Russia and the United States waged numerous indirect conflicts during the Cold War (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Middle East), this did not result in a large-scale war in Europe.
The collapse of the USSR
In October 1985, Gorbachev, during a visit to Paris, met with French President Francois Mitterrand, in an interview with whom he called Russia a third world country with nuclear weapons. In 1991, his insight was confirmed. On December 26, Declaration No. 142-N of the Council of Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR ceased to exist.
With the collapse of the USSR, Russia's power has been radically reduced. The notorious military construction projects of the 1980s, which broke the country's economy, stopped halfway and remained rusting.
Nuclear submarines abandoned in the port were slowly sinking at the berths. Defense factories stopped production, and workers were not paid salaries. Over the next 15 years, Russia will drag itself along, trying in vain to rebuild. The Warsaw Pact has collapsed.
Russia has become an incapacitated nuclear state. The Russian army was falling apart. Her military equipment was sold for pennies at flea markets in Eastern Europe.
The West is alarmed that former Soviet scientists are being hired by rogue states, that nuclear submarines are rotting in the port, and nuclear power plants are left unattended. He did not know who was responsible for what, and doubted that Russia could be considered a stable country in principle.
In addition, Russia is mired in corruption. Even when the country gradually began to regain its position, corruption throughout the country did not stop — including in the army.
At the time of writing, large-scale anti-corruption investigations have unfolded in the Russian armed forces, which have already led to a series of arrests and dismissals. Thus, the Russian leadership is trying to modernize the leadership of the army, improve military equipment and arrange supplies to the troops.
Post-Soviet expansion of NATO
Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO continued to consider Russia an existential challenge.
According to the alliance, this challenge has only escalated since Russia sent troops to Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014 and 2022). It is easy to overlook the fact that NATO had its own sights on both Georgia and Ukraine, and it actively lured both countries into the alliance, trying in every possible way to squeeze out the Russians.
Today, all military exercises, troop deployments and NATO operations are aimed at stopping the Russian attack. The Alliance has strengthened the defense of the Baltic states (especially Estonia, which is considered the most vulnerable), as well as Poland and Romania.
Even when the USSR was just disintegrating, NATO embarked on an unprecedented expansion. Although there were not many reasons to fear Russia in 1991 and in subsequent years, military assistance was promised to the newly independent states.
Most of them used to be completely dependent on Russian weapons, and their influx has dried up. Moreover, they craved safety. The Russians complained from time to time, receiving only assurances in response, which turned out to be false time after time — NATO continued to expand.
NATO has also developed programs for the future membership of Georgia and Ukraine. The proposal was accompanied by the dispatch of NATO advisers and specialists, as well as weapons and intelligence.
Russian leaders saw this as a threat, especially in Ukraine. NATO and the EU put pressure on Kiev to break with Russia and join Europe. Russia, for its part, saw NATO's presence in Ukraine as a threat to its security.
Along with the expansion, the alliance took an aggressive stance that went beyond a strictly defensive mandate. In this series, the operations of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF), the Peacekeeping Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (IFOR), the Kosovo Force (KFOR), as well as in Libya (Operation Allied Defender) should be mentioned.
The United States tried to force NATO to support the war in Iraq (2003), but could not — Turkey strongly opposed it. Instead, the United States created a multinational “Coalition of the Willing”, which included troops from the United States, Australia, Great Britain and Poland. Other States subsequently sent contingents to Iraq in support of stabilization efforts.
Ukraine again
The future of NATO is inextricably linked with Ukraine. The conflict is coming to an end with the prospect that Kiev will sooner or later have to come to an agreement with Moscow, and the Minister of Defense of Ukraine is making every effort to convince Washington to provide long-range weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine for strikes against Russia's rear, especially Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Ukrainians know perfectly well that if Washington agrees to this, Russia will respond with even tougher blows. They even count on it to draw NATO into the conflict and replace Ukrainians on the front line with alliance troops.
It is not difficult to understand that if NATO really sends troops to the front line or uses its aircraft in Ukraine, the conflict will rapidly spread to Europe.
This lifeline for Ukraine will put NATO in the very center of the storm, which the alliance has been whipping up in every possible way. Will NATO get involved in a war that will most directly threaten European cities, infrastructure and military bases?
Despite the breakthrough of the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Kursk, large-scale drone strikes and shelling of civilians in Belgorod, the Russians did not take the bait, but continued to methodically put pressure on the Ukrainian army. Most recent reports say that the Ukrainian army is overloaded, that it desperately lacks personnel and that the positions are beginning to crack at the seams.
The question is, what happens next?
The author of the article: Stephen Bryen
