NATO’s Future Depends On Who Wins In Ukraine

Hy Rothstein

Source Link

The future of NATO, in almost every dimension imaginable, depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. That outcome is unknown. While there is reason to be optimistic, events, and especially wars, can take unanticipated paths and generate unexpected results. Moreover, underestimating Putin’s willingness to kill as many Ukrainians as possible––and to throw hundreds of thousands of Russian men into the fray against Ukrainian bullets until there are no more Ukrainian bullets left––would be a big mistake. Furthermore, politicians and politics change constantly in NATO’s liberal democracies, but in his own mind, Putin is staying forever. Time and math may be on Russia’s side.

The First Year of the War—Coming Together

Many experts have suggested that the invasion will go down as one of history’s greatest geostrategic blunders. Putin clearly intended to show that Russia’s modernized military would present a formidable capability against a country that had no right to exist. And that the West, as it had done in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea and the seizing of territory in eastern Ukraine, would respond feebly. The outcome was very different. The war revealed Russian military incompetence as well as the defects of a corrupt, authoritarian political system. The Ukrainians fought and kept the Russian invaders from entering Kyiv. Putin’s plan for a quick and easy victory was shattered. Even Henry Kissinger, who for decades cautioned against Ukraine’s membership in NATO, concluded, “Ukraine is a major state in Central Europe for the first time in modern history,” and a peace process should link Ukraine to NATO. Putin generated the opposite of what he intended. More importantly, NATO, having struggled for more than two decades to reach a shared view with Moscow, finally acknowledged Putin’s expansionist agenda in Europe, and as a result came together with a common purpose to arm Ukraine and stop Russia.

NATO’s initial reluctance to assist Kyiv to fight Russia turned into a massive military assistance program. The courageous actions of President Zelensky and Ukrainian fighters, coupled with the barbaric, genocidal, and war crimes of Russian leaders and their troops, certainly helped to solidify NATO’s strong support. During his recent visit to Kyiv, President Biden expressed Western resolve and unveiled an additional $460 million U.S. weapons package to the total of $32 billion in aid since Russia's invasion began. The West’s determination to support Ukraine has been remarkable though gradual and measured. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was accurate when he recently said that the West is engaged in a proxy war with his country. Though NATO has not put boots on the ground, Western leaders’ words and deeds have made the war in Ukraine their war too, and their commitment brings its own risks.

After President Biden’s address, Putin delivered his own message of undying commitment to the fight. He addressed the Russian parliament, stressing the stakes of the war: “This is a time of radical, irreversible change in the entire world, of crucial historical events that will determine the future of our country and our people, a time when every one of us bears a colossal responsibility.” In what sounded like a wartime speech, Putin discarded the initial justification for his limited “special military operation” to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine, and recast the conflict as a war against Western civilization. Putin has now framed the conflict, blaming imperial America and its allies for starting the war despite Russian efforts for peace. Putin was trying to justify the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of Russians and placing Russia on a war-time footing. It also gave him political cover as he prepares for a long fight. The West, according to Putin, has become an existential threat to Russia. Now Russian soldiers will be fighting and dying to defend not just Russians in Ukraine, or even the Russian border, but their entire culture against aggression from the West. The war has become Russia against the West.

The Second Year of the War—Falling Apart?

The second year of the war will likely be more consequential than the first. Moscow seems to have gotten smarter. Strategic decisions are starting to make military sense. The partial mobilization of reservists that Putin ordered in September 2022 strengthened Russian forces at the front. The redeployment of forces to eastern Ukraine and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Kherson in November saved units from destruction and made them available for action elsewhere. Undeniably, to avert immediate disaster, Russia has been sending a mix of the trained and untrained soldiers to fight. But now, thousands of troops are receiving more substantial training in Russia and Belarus. During the first year of the war, Ukraine’s military achieved considerable success when Russia’s forces were at their weakest and its leadership was at its poorest. In 2023, the Ukrainian army should expect to fight a better led and trained opponent. A Darwinian process has produced some competent Russian planners and battlefield commanders.

Russia has also launched a brutal, methodical bombing campaign against Ukraine’s electrical system to turn the winter into a struggle for survival for Ukrainian civilians. This campaign has not proved decisive so far, but like most strategic bombing campaigns, it imposes direct and indirect military costs. For example, modern military air defense, command and control, and intelligence-gathering systems all run on electricity. While generators can fill the gap, making that transition degrades these systems’ performance. Moreover, the heat signatures produced by generators, are easily detected by Russian intelligence, facilitating further targeting. The bombing campaign also impacts the Ukrainian weapons and ammunition industry that depends on electricity, as does much of the rail system that moves war materiel around the country. NATO is helping Ukraine repair the grid, but from the Russian perspective, this is good news as the repairs consume resources that cannot be used to support fighting at the front.

Casualty figures are notoriously inaccurate. The U.S. intelligence estimates put the number of total casualties after one year of fighting at 100,000 for the Russians and 100,000 for the Ukrainians, roughly comparable for both sides. Russia has already mobilized 300,000 additional troops and routinely recruits and trains 250,000 annually. So far, Ukraine has managed to replenish its army relatively effectively. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians, eager to defend their country, have volunteered for combat. However, the manpower arithmetic works to Moscow’s advantage. Russia has 3.5 times Ukraine’s population. Russia can lose twice as many soldiers as Ukraine and still have a manpower advantage. Russia can likely do what Russia has always done––use sheer numbers to win in the end.

The math on ammunition and weapons is also complicated. Ukraine now uses Western 155mm artillery shells. They are firing these shells at twice the rate that they can be manufactured. The same problem exists with other munitions. Although there are indications of Russian ammunition shortages, ammunition plants seem to be producing munitions at a rate to keep pace with their operations. Plus, Russian munitions stockpiles seem to be plentiful, though old. NATO, in part worried about their own war stocks, is finally investing in ammunition production but it may take until next year to narrow the growing gap.

Even more troubling, while the U.S. and Germany are trying to figure out how to get the very limited numbers of tanks committed into Ukrainian hands, Russia is pulling World War II-era T-60 tanks out of storage and sending them to the battlefield because any tank is better than no tank. What is frustrating is that the U.S. and NATO are sitting on large numbers of tanks that are ready to go. Why these assets aren’t already in Ukrainian hands where they would significantly alter the balance of power against Russia is maddening. Issues such as training and logistics can be taken care of by using contractors, which is a standard military practice. Putting contractors in Ukraine would not cross any meaningful threshold of escalation. It is worth remembering that the Soviets had thousands of advisors in Vietnam assisting the North Vietnamese. Many of those advisors routinely flew combat aircraft attacking American forces on the ground. The seemingly standard pattern of denying Ukraine’s requests for certain weapons systems, only to approve the transfer later needs to stop, especially if Russia begins to receive arms from China.

In the second year of the war, there’s an increased focus on how it will end. The NATO position seems to be that Western governments will support Ukraine “as long as it takes” to drive Russian forces out of its territory. For all the bold rhetoric, it’s still uncertain how far NATO can go. There are limits to the amount of material and money Western countries can send to Ukraine. And while President Biden may want to support Ukraine for the long haul, that could quickly change, given that a segment of Republicans is increasingly opposed to doing much more to help Ukraine. Leadership changes in European countries can also upset the current trajectory of support. Fortunately for now, opinion polls show broad, if not overwhelming, U.S. and European support for backing Ukraine.

NATO’s Future is Ukraine’s Future

The first year of the war found NATO coming together to assist Ukraine beat back a poorly trained and led Russian army. The second year of the war may not be cascading in NATO’s and Ukraine’s favor, especially if Russia’s learning curve is faster than NATO’s ability to get vital weapons and munitions into Ukrainian hands. Ukraine can only sustain its fight with help from the West, and that help has generally been too little, late, and may faulter with changes in Western leadership, or significant Russian success on the battlefield. What brought NATO together in 2022 may come undone in 2023. NATO will reflect Ukraine’s fate.

The nature of reality is also on the line. Putin tells lies for power. His control is based on the production of fiction, murdering political opponents, and outlawing language contrary to official state views. Denazification, NATO’s intention to deny Russia its rightful place in the international arena, Ukraine being on the cusp of joining NATO, Ukrainians killing their Russian-speaking citizens, Ukraine not being a legitimate, independent state, the West starting the war, claiming to prevent genocide while committing it, and Putin’s warped interpretation of history are but a few examples of distorted reality. If Russia wins, the truth dies along with the hundreds of thousands of people who perished defending Ukraine.

Finally, the outcome of the war transcends what happens to Ukraine. A Russian victory would strengthen tyrants whose visions of geopolitics render any concept of a liberal democratic order obsolete. Russian actions in Ukraine make the case for what is at stake. In areas under Russian control, male Ukrainians have been murdered or forced to become cannon fodder and die at the front. Women have been raped. Millions of Ukrainians have been forcibly deported to Russia, many of them women with young children, to eliminate their Ukrainian heritage and force them to accept being Russian or face prison and torture. Russia has destroyed Ukrainian archives, libraries, universities, and publishing houses to erase Ukraine. The war is about the future of a democracy, the principle of self-rule, and the rule of law. A Ukrainian victory would confirm this. A Russian victory would destroy hope for countries working towards a democratic future and the rule of law.

This war will change the face of Europe as much as World War II did. And NATO will reflect this change. The Ukrainian people, seeking the right way to live, remind us that democracy sometimes requires accepting human risk to defend liberal principles. A Ukrainian victory would rejuvenate sleeping democracies. NATO must end the practice of trickling support into Ukraine to avoid defeat, but not enable Ukraine to crush the invaders. Time is in Putin’s corner. He still expects Western resolve to eventually crumble, or military stockpiles to become depleted, negating NATO’s capacity to provide material assistance. Russia can do what it has done in the past, use time and sheer numbers to win unless the West finds a way to defeat Russia soon. If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, NATO, democracy, and the rule of law will be diminished and recovering will be difficult and costly.