For anyone who still takes the security of the West seriously – and I fear I am in a distinct minority – the manner in which Russian President Vladimir Putin has effortlessly achieved his audacious land grab in the Crimea should serve as a dramatic wake-up call for Nato.
And yet, to judge by the mood music coming from the meeting of Western leaders in The Hague this week, the likelihood of Nato doing anything to dissuade Moscow's macho man from undertaking any further acts of military adventurism in central Europe or the Baltic states does not seem at all encouraging.
Booting Putin out of G8 is, admittedly, a step in the right direction. But it is hardly likely to deter a megalomaniac who believes it is his destiny to rebuild the Russian Empire, even if it means doing so at the expense of Moscow's weaker neighbours.
But if we are to prevent the Russian leader from undertaking further incursions, then we need to have an effective deterrent in place to dissuade him from doing so.
That is the role Nato is supposed to play. Its very existence, after all, is predicated on its ability to protect its member states from outside attack.
But at a time when President Obama shows little interest in maintaining the transatlantic alliance that has kept the peace since the Second World War, and with European governments – our own included – more interested in cutting defence spending that adopting a realistic strategic approach, the omens are not looking good.
When faced with a crisis, the default position of Nato member states, as we have seen recently over Libya and Syria, is to bicker amongst themselves over how to respond, rather than coming up with an effective programme that safeguards its interests.
But if Nato leaders fail to come up with an adequate response to Putin's new mood of military aggression, they might as well dissolve the alliance and start negotiating peace terms with Moscow.
No comments:
Post a Comment