NATO - Russia and the Ukrainian Question!
The trouble for the United States of America seems unending because one or the other end keeps pushing the state concerns to a new height. While the Kabul crisis was all over the place, the Ukraine crisis was also in operation in the hindsight. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cold war time alliance formed to counter the soviet adversary stood the test of time, and has outlived the USSR, and very healthily indeed. This alliance has been growing ever since with new member states coming to its fold, and in April 2022 it will celebrate its 73rd anniversary. However, this growth doesn’t go well with countries that have considered United States as an international aggressor, and NATO as its military wing that indulges in violent actions. Time and again there have been international concerns that were raise against the operation of NATO. Nevertheless, none of it could stick the Teflon nature of the organization, and it continued to bloom. The latest in its fold has been the Ukraine Crisis.
The crisis goes back to the standoff between separatists forces in Ukraine aided by the Russians, and the Ukrainian military. The separatists occupied the Donbas region. Since the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the Donbas rebellion, successive Ukrainian governments have sworn to reclaim the Donbas, even if it means using force. Despite a truce in 2015 that halted the full-scale war, both sides have continued to engage in probing strikes and retaliations, as seen in March and April of the previous year. Various US administrations have indicated strong support for Ukraine and eventual NATO membership, which has been opposed by Germany and France, however they have refrained from vowing to defend Ukraine militarily.
There have been perpetual speculations that there can be a full-blown war between NATO forces and Russia over Ukraine. However, this could be troublesome for the United States. A full-scale conventional war would have a high risk of escalating into nuclear war, resulting in the annihilation of the majority of humanity. Even a limited conflict would devastate the global economy, necessitate the deployment of massive US military forces to Europe, and eliminate any prospect of serious action against climate change for the foreseeable future. China may certainly embrace the opportunity to capture Taiwan, forcing the US to fight two of the world's most powerful military powers at the same time. Finally, given Russia's vast military superiority over Ukraine's, the small number of US forces in Europe, and European countries' deep unwillingness to confront Russia militarily, Russia is very likely to win a limited war in Ukraine, seizing much more Ukrainian territory and humiliating the United States and the West.
Therefore, it is crucial more than ever to introduce a solution to the crisis in Ukraine. The "Minsk II" agreement, negotiated in February 2015 under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine, is the key to resolving the Donbas conflict. The disarmament of separatists and the departure of Russian "volunteer" forces are the primary military elements of Minsk II, along with a poorly stated request for the temporary removal of Ukrainian armed forces; exclusive of border guards. Demilitarization, a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, including control of the Russian border, and full autonomy for the Donbas in the framework of the decentralization of authority in Ukraine as a whole are the three fundamental and mutually dependent aspects of the key political element. The Minsk II Protocol has received official endorsement from both succeeding US administrations. Despite this, the Minsk II settlement has not materialized. There has been no political agreement on Donbas autonomy, no restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, no disarming of separatist forces, and no withdrawal of Russian "volunteers."
Three intertwined issues have so far stymied implementation: the inability of Kiev, Moscow, and the separatist leadership to reach an agreement on the terms of permanent Donbas autonomy; the timing of local autonomy and the resumption of Ukrainian control of the Russian border; and how to protect the region's long-term autonomy from an attempt by Kiev to impose central control.
Moscow does not appear to be preparing an immediate annexation; nevertheless, if Ukraine attempts to reclaim its lost territory by force, Russia will undoubtedly defend and seize them. As a result, it is critical that the US does not allow this dispute to fester any longer.
NATO, for its part, is bolstering its military cooperation with Ukraine in order to maintain pressure on the Kremlin. As a result, equipment, information, and training are provided to Kiev's military by several of the organization's member states. The US could go even further by giving anti-aircraft defense weaponry after delivering 30 Javelin-type anti-tank defense systems. However, nothing substantial has been obtained as for now, and development in this regard is still slow.
The United States can use the NATO membership as a bargaining chip. If the US abandons its objective of gaining NATO membership for Ukraine, it will be able to use the credible threat of US funding and political backing to compel the Ukrainian government and parliament to agree to a "Minsk III." And if Moscow rejects or sabotages the accord, or allows the Donbas rebels to do so, all existing Western sanctions against Russia relating to the Donbas and Crimean issues should be maintained, if not stepped up.
At present, if not in full swing, NATO has shown significant support for the Ukrainian government. It for the first time took concrete measures to tackle the Russian troops by increasing its operational readiness by 40,000 Response force. Moreover, they have instructed their Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), also known as NATO Response Force, to be able to deploy forces in crisis zone within 5days. The VJTF is a multinational force with about 6,400 personnel. Turkey is presently in charge of the group, but Germany will assume control in 2023. Other NRF elements, including as special forces and logistics, have also been placed on high alert, and their deployment time has been lowered in the case of a crisis. The ostensible reason for such developments have been given the protection of Baltic States, and the eastern member states from the threat that is enforcing in the Russian-Ukrainian border.
Since Russia's unlawful invasion of Crimea in 2014, NATO has strengthened its collective defense the most, especially by forming multinational combat formations in the Alliance's eastern regions. NATO has always maintained that its activities are defensive, relevant, and consistent with its international commitments, and that the alliance remains vigilant and will take all necessary measures to defend and protect its allies from any threat. Therefore, any move in the domain of Ukraine is likely to trigger reactions from NATO.
References
1. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm
Relations with Ukraine, NATO, December 2021.
2. The Ukraine crisis and NATO-Russia relations, NATO REVIEW, July 2014.
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2014/07/01/the-ukraine-crisis-and-nato-russia-relations/index.html
3. NATO chief says allies must prepare for the worst in Ukraine, ABC NEWS, December 2021.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nato-warns-russia-avoid-costly-mistake-ukraine-81463502
4. Russian troops near Ukraine's borders: NATO raising readiness of Response Force – Welt, UKRINFOR, December 2021.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-defense/3373628-russian-troops-near-ukraines-borders-nato-raising-readiness-of-rapid-response-force-welt.html
5. US To Consult Closely With Ukraine, NATO On Diplomatic Efforts To Deter Russian Aggression, REPUBLIC, December 2021.
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/us-to-consult-closely-with-ukraine-nato-on-diplomatic-efforts-to-deter-russian-aggression-articleshow.html
6. Putin Demands NATO Pullback From Eastern Europe, Continues Russian Buildup on Ukraine Border, LEGAL INSURANCE, December 2021.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/12/putin-demands-nato-pullback-from-eastern-europe-continues-russian-buildup-on-ukraine-border/
7. Russia edges closer to war as new arms arrive on Ukraine’s border. The GUARDIAN, December 2021.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/12/russia-closer-to-war-ukraine-border-putin-buk-missiles
8. Russian threat to Ukraine: for NATO, the future will be played out in the East, CALIFORNIA18, January 2022.
https://california18.com/russian-threat-to-ukraine-for-nato-the-future-will-be-played-out-in-the-east/2525992022/
9. Ally, Member or Partner? NATO’s Long Dilemma Over Ukraine, THE NEW YORK TIMES, December 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/world/europe/nato-ukraine-russia-dilemma.html
Pic Courtesy-Eugene at unsplash.com
(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)
