NATO Must Use the Threat of Force To Defend Ukraine
Diplomacy alone will not stop Putin from invading Ukraine. It did not deter his invasion of Georgia in 2008, or his occupation of Crimea in 2014. To think the threat of economic sanctions and a few thousand additional U.S. troops in NATO countries will deter him now ignores the lessons of history. Putin has already made his calculations and is following a similar playbook to what he executed in the past.
Sometimes the only way to stop a bully is to punch them in the face. Or at least threaten in a way that makes them rethink their risk calculation.
Obviously we do not want World War III in Europe, but the international community and Ukrainians in particular cannot live in a constant state of fear and uncertainty for their sovereignty. As one Ukrainian put it:
“If you had some giant neighbor who was constantly coming into your apartment and ordering you around, wouldn’t you try to throw him out?”
It is no secret that Putin wants to return Ukraine into Russia’s “sphere of influence.” This past summer he even published an article under his name, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Someone who believes this in their heart and soul will likely stop at nothing to realize their dreams.
NATO must use the threat of force to protect Ukraine from Russian physical aggression. Ukraine may not be a NATO member, but the primary aim of the overall Alliance was not collective defense, but “to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent.”
Moreover, if NATO and the international community only slap sanctions on Russia following a physical invasion of Ukraine, it will set the precedent for future acts of Russian aggression. And let’s be clear — the rest of the world ex-NATO is watching. Especially China.
NATO’s fundamental values and principles
The United States and its NATO allies have hung their hat on Article 5 of their alliance, assuring the world that they will not use force to protect Ukraine from a Russian invasion. U.S. President Joe Biden has explained that the additional U.S. troops in NATO countries are intended to protect those countries, not to deter a Russian attack on Ukraine.
Article 5 of the alliance does limit NATO members to collective defense. They are only obligated to protect fellow NATO members. Which is why they came to the United States’ aid in Afghanistan following the September 11th attacks. That is the only time that clause has ever been triggered.
This narrow reading of the alliance, however, ignores the overall purpose of NATO itself: to counter the risk of Russia extending “its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent.” Only committing to economic sanctions — which Russia has experience with evading — basically gives Russia a green light to extend its control to Ukraine and other parts of the continent. Whatever it deems within its “sphere of influence.”
A more accurate reading of the alliance would demand that NATO threaten the use of force in defense of Ukraine given the overt and unprovoked Russian aggression.
Putin will not stop at Ukraine
Anyone who thinks Putin will take a curtain call and exit stage left should he successfully invade and occupy Ukraine is blissfully naïve. As recent history has shown from his invasions of Georgia and Crimea, Putin’s overall mission is to rewrite the current western world order. He considers the fall of the Soviet Union one of the worst moments in history.
Once he is done with Ukraine, he will likely move on Belarus, currently under the control of autocrat Alexander Lukashenko. There was a push toward a democratic Belarus in 2020, with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya by some accounts winning the majority before Lukashenko rigged the election in his favor. Any additional efforts to democratize or “westernize” Belarus will likely be met with Russian aggression.
The same goes for any other former Soviet Republic. If the world watches Ukraine lose its sovereignty by force and only responds with sanctions, the rest of these countries are at serious risk. Any push for democracy or stronger relations with the west will likely be met with Russian aggression.
China is watching
The country in the front row of this ordeal, eating popcorn and happily watching, is China. How the United States and NATO respond to this crisis on Ukraine’s border foreshadows how they will likely respond should China amp up its aggression towards Taiwan. As I’ve written on previously, should China’s economic troubles worsen, their geopolitical aggression will likely increase. A disorganized and ineffective response in protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty will only further embolden China as well.
China has already publicly supported Russia’s “sphere of influence.” Had it not been for the Winter Olympics, the world may have witnessed China acting on its own “sphere of influence” by pressuring Taiwan. Thankfully they are too preoccupied at the moment with ensuring a successful Olympic campaign, much as Germany was in 1936. Three years later, Germany invaded Poland.
The use of force must be an option
I am not advocating for a preemptive strike. NATO countries and Ukraine must avoid creating the pretext for a Russian invasion at all costs. But the use of force cannot be completely off the table. It gives Russia too much certainty and comfort. It gives them too much security. As Russia’s ambassador to Sweden said:
“Excuse my language, but we don’t give a shit about all their sanctions.”
Sanctions have proven to be largely ineffective in the past, whether against Russia, Iran, or North Korea. Countries facing economic sanctions have increasingly found creative ways to evade them or be more self-sufficient.
NATO should stay true to its overarching mission and purpose of countering Russian aggression and expansion. It should not hide behind the limited language of Article 5. Ukrainian sovereignty is at stake. And with that, so is democracy everywhere.
0 Comments