NATO’s internal divisions: why Ukraine is fighting Russia alone

NATO, Ukraine and the decline of deterrence: Although NATO has the means to protect Ukraine, divisions among its members and misguided assumptions about escalation undermine the goal of deterring Russia.

NATO’s political will is currently insufficient to guarantee a Ukrainian victory in the war against Russia. This could not only lead to the destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign nation, but could easily whet the Russian dictator’s appetite for the territory of its neighbors, including Poland, the Baltic states and other NATO and non-NATO allies .

NATO has the means to protect Ukraine, but divisions among its members and mistaken concepts undermine the goal of deterring Russia.

Article 5 of the treaty obligates NATO members to defend another member if it is attacked. It is logical to assume that Putin would refrain from attacking Poland or any of the Baltic states.

Further according NATO’s mission statementThe organization’s main responsibility is to “guarantee the freedom and security of all its members through political and military means.”

Moreover, NATO “seeks lasting peace in Europe and North America” based on the defense of “common values ​​of individual freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”

Its mission statement also asserts that the organization is looking beyond the North Atlantic region. The statement claims that “a more dangerous and unpredictable world makes things less safe for everyone. As a result, the Alliance also contributes to peace and stability through crisis prevention and management, as well as through partnerships with other organizations and countries around the world… NATO not only helps defend the territory of its members, but also acts, where possible and when necessary, to further project its values, prevent and manage crises, stabilize post-conflict situations and support reconstruction.”

However, under current circumstances, NATO cannot guarantee peace and global security.

National Security Scientist Mara Karlin has done just that pointed out the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs states that the United States and NATO can use various means to deter aggression, such as expanding military bases in remote places such as the Indo-Pacific, building local alliances and granting military aid to allies.

However, there is a more fundamental problem undermining NATO’s effectiveness in the war between Russia and Ukraine: a weakness that affects its deterrence capabilities.

NATO is divided. There is no consensus about the need to arm Ukraine against Russia. Countries like Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia – which is not a member of NATO – are illiberal regimes that have deviated from the constitutional principles that guide modern democracies and most NATO members. These countries find the democratic norms and immigration policies of the European Union tyrannical. These differences, with the exception of Poland, have brought them closer to Russia.

Turkiye, another NATO member, no longer plays the role it did during the Cold War. Turkiye is an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, supports Hamas and has consistently expressed hostility toward Israel, a non-NATO ally.

Turkiye has also applied to join the alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). Many countries, including some U.S. allies, have applied for economic reasons; However, Turkiye also has its political reasons. BRICS is not just an alliance based on commercial interests, but a political entity aimed at creating one alternate order to the West. Russia and China lead the BRICS, which includes several authoritarian states that share antagonism toward Western moral and political ideals, such as Iran. It is not surprising that North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia have too expressed interest to join the BRICS, and will most likely be accepted.

Although Turkiye has supplied Ukraine with some weapons and resisted the Russian invasion, the country has supplied some weapons bought Russian S-400 missiles, leading to the United States’ decision to impose sanctions on Ankara. Russia has also postponed gas supply-related debt payments to Turkiye $4 billion. Russia would have done the same uses Turkish territory to transfer war-related wars and war technological devices to Russia.

Some traditional members of the Western club have also not shown impressive behavior.

During the Israeli war in Gaza and southern Lebanon, France called for a total arms embargo against Israelone of the most critical non-NATO allies. Britain, Canada, Belgium, Italy and Spain have also banned or restricted arms transfers to Israel, saying Israel’s military offensive in Gaza has violated international law.

These European NATO members have chosen to ignore the nature of the war Israel is waging and downplay the importance of the fight against radical Islamic terrorism and Iran, both threats to NATO members.

This division and attitude can only harm Ukraine.

NATO has expanded its collective defense spending by nine percent to help Ukraine. However, those that have spent the highest amount relative to the size of their economies are the countries bordering Russia, such as Poland and the Baltic states. The US is still the largest and most reliable donor to Ukraine. It is no wonder that a senior NATO official pointed out that “Europe still needs to do more.”

Another key element limiting Ukraine’s maneuvers is NATO’s obsessive fear of escalation. The United States, the United Kingdom and Germany have restricted the use of weapons in case Ukraine uses weapons to attack Russian territory. Showing such fear makes it more likely that a warmonger like Putin will continue to adopt an aggressive stance.

It is no wonder that John Healey, the British Secretary of Defense, declared that the British Army is “highly capable and ready to conduct military operations… (But) unless we are ready to fight, we will not be able to deter.”

Healey referred to cuts, but he may well have been referring to the brittle approach described above. Russia’s recruitment of North Korean soldiers to fight in Ukraine may be the result of this public weakness.

Ukraine has no choice but to act independently.

If Peter Dickinson notedUkraine’s daring incursion into Russia in early August managed to break Putin’s red lines and thus refuted Western fears of escalation in Eastern Europe.

Ukraine, like Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, has acted decisively. Despite Western pressure, both countries continued to pursue their interests. Contrary to Western concerns, no regional war broke out and no Western soldier sacrificed his life.

As a scholar Daniel Pipes It is no wonder that small countries such as Ukraine and Israel are operating increasingly independently of major superpowers or major institutions such as NATO.

For example, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky presented his “victory plan,” which proposes including Ukraine in NATO, strengthening Ukrainian defenses and reducing restrictions on the use of long-range missiles to hit targets in Russia. Similarly, Zelensky called for a joint defense operation to shoot down Russian missiles and drones aimed at Ukraine. an idea that NATO rejectedagain to avoid escalation. Zelensky even suggested as much Ukraine could even pursue nuclear weapons. The Ukrainian president feels NATO’s shortcomings.

NATO members, including U.S. leaders, must reconsider their attitudes and policies to uphold their commitment to safeguard Ukraine’s integrity and global stability.

About the author

Luis FleischmanPh.D., is co-founder of the Palm Beach Center for Democracy & Policy Research, professor of social sciences at Palm Beach State College, and author of the book Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Security Threat to the United States. Follow him further LinkedIn and X: @LuisFleischman.

Image credits: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.