Is there viable alternative to NATO? Ukraine’s strategic dilemma

The summit of NATO member states' leaders revealed even more contradictions within the bloc. Despite the fact that once again a joint "historic" decision was made to increase the military budget of all member states. But the final decision was even more vague, and the general tone of the Hague summit was permeated with almost flattery towards the American president. If only he would not abandon them in their hour of need.

The largest and most formidable defense alliance is drowning in internal discord, and no one is sure that it can protect anyone. Not even the members of this bloc.

And does Ukraine really want to join such a defense alliance, hoping to hide under its umbrella from the racist hordes of its northern neighbor? Ukraine's efforts to support the fight against the bloody monster are understandable. But by and large, NATO is now a false goal. Its umbrella is leaky. Time, the geopolitical atmosphere, and internal rodents have practically eaten it up.

This umbrella was super effective for the geopolitical circumstances after World War II. Its participants were united by the terrible memory of colossal losses and the danger of the emergence of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, which most often become the initiators of small and large wars leading to terrible catastrophes.

And although the geopolitical atmosphere has changed, the threat has not yet passed. Several major powers have appeared in the world, which in one way or another have received super-profits, and this has made their political leaders dizzy. Observing the internal imbalance of NATO, they decided that it was time to redistribute the world and establish their own rules of the game.

It would seem that there is hope again for NATO, which unites the "Golden Billion", three dozen of the richest and most high-tech countries with a powerful military-industrial complex. But it suddenly turned out that the old and once powerful Union is now almost unable to resist new aggressive monsters. At least, it is slipping in the face of strong, determined and cruel authoritarian regimes. And it is afraid to admit this to itself.

Although no one denies the need for a defense union of civilized countries united by common values. Moreover, all members of the bloc (except for the undisputed leader - the USA) are truly afraid of being left without this old, leaky, but common umbrella, which for many years provided them with peace and tranquility. That is, they seek to protect themselves with what is simply dangerous to protect themselves with now.

Paradoxically, one of the reasons for NATO's problems is the existence of a clearly expressed military, financial and technological leader, who all these years voluntarily took on the paternal functions of protecting the entire "family". Moreover, the majority of this "family" after the Second World War was in a state of economic and technological formation. And it was convenient for everyone. Until the "little ones" grew up and began to strive for equality in decision-making. But at the same time they preferred, as before, not to pay. Or to pay very little, receiving a full-fledged protection package.

The situation is also complicated by the fact that the USA is located on another continent and is separated from the entire team by thousands of kilometers and a large ocean. And a bunch of its own problems. Including those that arose due to large financial expenditures on a common military potential, which at the same time was a guarantor of security for the entire bloc.

Okay, at the last summit, the issue of financing defense spending was resolved under the rude, but ultimately fair pressure of the current American president. Donald Trump set the condition for further US support for the allies as the need for each country to spend 5% of its own budget annually. In a few years, this will enormously change the power of the Alliance countries and seriously increase their subjectivity.

However, a radical increase in defense spending can only bring an effect in 5-10 years. And here are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, which have long accumulated military potential and are ready to dictate their terms right now. So, the medium and long-term perspective is good, but it does not solve urgent problems.

So, replenishing the military budget will mitigate, but will not solve the problem of NATO's effectiveness, which even now, having considerable resources, cannot quickly and effectively make decisions and adequately respond to emerging challenges. The fact is that the structure of the Bloc is based on the fundamental principle of decision-making by consensus.

Yes, this principle is extremely democratic and is especially tolerated by the smallest and weakest participants in the process, since it equates them with the largest and gives them the opportunity to be heard and helps to take into account their point of view. Of course, the search for consensus (a solution that satisfies everyone) makes life much more difficult. That is, joint decisions can be made in this way. But will these decisions be the best and most effective? Especially when consensus is used in international affairs, where the factor of national egoism is constantly present. The example of Hungary and Slovakia clearly demonstrates this.

Yes, until recently, both NATO and the EU (built on the same principle) had no problems with decision-making. Not least due to the authority and "active" policy of the United States. But only on the continent did the specters of serious conflicts appear and the trumpets of the aggressor sound, who sought to revise post-war agreements and treaties, sweetening it with sweet gingerbread from under the floor, as soon as the differences of views of the Alliance member states became apparent. And the general structure of the hitherto monolithic bloc began to crack. The question arises: is it worth resuscitating it when contradictions have arisen sharply between some states? And here we are already talking about values ​​that unite some and divide others.

So, Ukraine, being in a state of war, will not hide behind the NATO umbrella for many reasons. And this has been known for a long time. But it is quite capable of using its refusal to join NATO as a fundamental concession that Russia can give to its horde as a victory over Ukraine. In return, it should demand from the enemy the abandonment of part of its territorial claims (the occupied parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions).

Yes, this is not a solution to the problem. But this problem, tightly tied in a knot, cannot be cut in one fell swoop. It will have to be done slowly. If we fail to join NATO as a structure, we are united with the states of the Bloc by common values, and these states are ready individually, or with the help of the EU, to help Ukraine confront the enemy. And then?

Surrounded by rather unpredictable neighbors who at different times owned some piece of Ukraine and are quite capable of making claims to "their historical lands" on occasion, we will have to maintain the combat readiness of our army for many years to come. The bitter experience of Russian aggression and the great war encourages this. Would the orcs attack us if Ukraine were a member of NATO? Not now. But if the current disorganization processes in the structure of the Alliance continue, then anything is possible.

Then let's ask the question differently. Would Russia dare to attack Ukraine if Ukraine had a combat-ready and well-armed army, a modern military-industrial complex, and well-trained commanders? And effective fortifications were built on the borders, including mining of possible passages for regular troops?

That's why I say that only a fool would enter this country.

And if this country, with its colossal experience of modern warfare, had organized around itself a dozen more states, united by a common danger from neighboring aggressors with an agreement on immediate and unconditional support, then we could sleep peacefully for a while. Until the world begins to radically change again under the influence of new circumstances.

And for now, we will have to compromise (at best) and "exchange" NATO membership for the return of all Ukrainian regions as of February 24, 2022. Provided that our partners maintain sanctions until the complete liberation of Ukrainian lands. This stratagem has already yielded results with the fall of the communist empire. Without a doubt, the results will not be long in coming.

As they say: somewhere like this. Or not?

Source

About the author. Viktor Moroz, Ukrainian publicist, columnist

The editorial staff does not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.