NATO Summit Exposes Fractures in Alliance Over Support for Ukraine
© AFP 2023 / ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS
Subscribe
Amid the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, the Group of Seven (G7) nations issued a statement pledging long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, including ensuring it has an advanced military and stable economy, and supporting reforms that would help Kiev to join Western blocs such as the European Union or NATO.
The G7 statement came after NATO doubled down on refusing Ukraine’s admission while it remains locked in a military conflict with Russia, and back-and-forth criticisms between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and NATO members.
Gilbert Doctorow, an international relations and Russian affairs analyst, told Sputnik it was “irrelevant” which international institution the West chooses to provide Ukraine with security guarantees.
“The only force that can provide meaningful security guarantees is the United States, and the US will not give Ukraine such guarantees because Congress will not give its consent,” he said. “Period.”
“The NATO summit has been a disaster for Zelensky,” Doctorow said. “He failed on the battlefield, losing 26,000 soldiers and officers in the past month of his counter-offensive as well as losing most of the tanks, personnel carriers and other advanced equipment which NATO countries had supplied in the preceding weeks. The decision by the USA to quietly pull the plug on the Ukrainians is only natural and certainly not ‘absurd.’ The game is up.”
Doctorow noted that UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace criticized Kiev at the NATO summit, saying Zelensky’s government should be more grateful for the aid it’s received, observing that over the last year, the Ukrainians have simply pivoted from pushing for one type of weapon until they receive it, then immediately pressing for another.
“I told them that last year, when I drove 11 hours to be given a list, that I’m not like Amazon,” Wallace said.
Doctorow said Wallace’s remarks “should not be taken too seriously.”
“He was saying in effect that the Ukrainians have failed in their counter-offensive and consequently Western military and financial aid to them will be winding down,” the analyst noted.
Earl Rasmussen, a retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel and international consultant, told Sputnik, “I personally don't think they'll ever be part of NATO - they are intended to be a battering ram and a mechanism to meet and confront Russia.”
“No matter what was said back in 2008 and more recently, unless they break every rule and principle they have, Ukraine does not meet the requirements for NATO. I don't know if they ever will,” he said.
“If you look at it, I think there's seven principles that they have to meet, and Ukraine maybe meets two of them. The rest definitely not - nothing as far as democracy goes, as far as corruption goes, as far as a stable government, sound government practices and stuff it does not meet in that area at all.”
“Also, they're not even self-sufficient now. If it wasn't for the funding coming from the West, the whole economy and the government would completely collapse. So they don't want to put up notices. There's no discussion on the action plan, no timeline provided whatsoever. It's just a continual carrot to keep Ukraine [fighting] basically to the last Ukrainian. So it could drag this conflict on as long as possible. That's their intention. It always was, it was the intent to weaken Russia - although that's not going too well. But they have no reverse gear. They seem to want to double down no matter what.
“The other aspect is, if you embrace Ukraine immediately and you bypass all the typical requirements for entering NATO, then you open the door. It's a can of worms, and you're going to enter into World War Three almost immediately. So that does nothing for security. From a geopolitical perspective, from a security perspective, it makes absolutely no sense to accept Ukraine into the alliance, or even to send out a firm message and a firm timeline and path for them to do it.”
Rasmussen said that Zelensky “knows he’s not going to win,” because the only way Ukraine has a chance of winning is if NATO puts boots on the ground in Ukraine, and even then, to win NATO “would have to escalate to nuclear, and then nobody wins.”
“A lot of soul searching is going on [in NATO] in the background. I don't think you're going to get a NATO majority - definitely Hungary wouldn't support it, I think a lot of other countries would not as well, and it'd just be catastrophic to Europe if they got fully involved in [Ukraine] because NATO will not win. They would have to escalate to nuclear [war], and then nobody wins. But from a conventional perspective, Russia will win any type of confrontation with it. Even if the US got involved, I think Russia would win, at least if you look at the logistical perspective and the planning, the methodical nature, the percentage of artillery firing, the technology of the weapons systems, and the terrain that's being fought [on]. Russia's got escalatory dominance in this nature, not just over Ukraine, but over NATO in general. Bad mistake to push for Ukraine’s entry into NATO and to provoke Russia. It was a very, very bad mistake on the West's behalf.”
Rasmussen said the West was “absolutely not” prepared to deal with the blowback from the G7 giving Ukraine security guarantees.”
“They'll have to negotiate with individual countries, and that becomes dangerous as well. I know the Polish government would like to get involved, but I don't think the public would back it. The Baltic states, obviously they're ultra-Russophobic, but I think Latvia has got some concerns,” he said. “Poland's about the only one that would make a difference here. And I've heard something like 60 or 70% of the population are against any type of confrontation with Russia. So it's going to escalate it more.”
He noted that a peace agreement would be good for the populations of Western countries, but would be “a nightmare for the political leadership” because “almost every political leader has got so much invested from political capital.”
“If Russia wins and we come to a peace agreement of some type, [would] it damage Western countries? Absolutely not. If anything, it probably would help them. Their economy, the financial drain on the economy would be better. You could maybe actually discuss some real security guarantees for both sides. And politically, it would be a nightmare for the political leadership. For the public, it would be better off. Their economies could start to get back together and they can work on things moving forward. But politically, almost every political leader has got so much invested from political capital.”
“And let's face it, this is a big money laundering scheme. You've got the weapons companies that are pumping out whatever they can. They can't match the Russian manufacturing capability, but you've got weapons companies that are pumping money into contributions, into political leaders and campaign contributions and into their think tanks and everything else. And this is a huge money laundering scheme. So it would affect them politically and monetarily if they came to some type of subtle agreement. But ultimately, there'll be no Ukraine left, and the agreement will be that the terms will be determined by Russia, period. Unless this escalates to an area that we really don't want it to escalate to.”
Doctorow similarly noted that “saying that NATO is stronger than ever is just hot air. NATO is disunited. The USA only wants proxy warfare, it will not commit its own troops to a war against Russia. That makes it plain that the US is at odds with Europe, and in particular with the most aggressive and least consequential members, namely Poland and the Baltic States. Nothing can patch over that key division which may spell the end of NATO.”
