October 26, 2024
If the war ends with Russia keeping the territory that it has occupied, then aggression will be rewarded. The rules-based international order, international law, and UN Charter will all be casualties.
Ending the War Does Not Remove the Russian Threat to NATO: If the war ends with Russia keeping the territory that it has occupied, then aggression will be rewarded. The rules-based international order, international law, and UN Charter will all be casualties. China and other potential aggressors will be emboldened. America’s credibility in the eyes of its allies will be diminished. After failing to sufficiently aid Ukraine, the U.S. commitment to Taiwan will be dangerously tested by China.
Russia has not achieved military success but has successfully used nuclear bluster to restrain the U.S. from providing Ukraine with what it needs. Preventing nuclear proliferation is a long-standing U.S. priority, but the lesson of this war is that acquiring nuclear weapons is the only reliable deterrent. The result would be a more dangerous world and weakened U.S. influence.
North Korea has been aiding Russia without facing any consequences precisely because it has become a nuclear state. President Zelenskyy recently remarked that without NATO membership Ukraine might need to pursue the nuclear option.
Russia views treaties as temporary expedients. The U.S., UK, and Russia gave Ukraine security assurances in return for giving up its nukes in 1994. Putin himself has signed agreements confirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Annexing Crimea in 2014 grew his appetite and the Minsk Accords simply provided a pause. The Kremlin will not be satisfied with anything less than dominating Ukraine. The West has failed to realize that foreign aggression and the myth of hostile NATO encirclement sustains Putin’s regime. Peace could undermine his iron grip at home.
Putin has signaled his determination to continue to rearm no matter the cost. Though Russian forces have suffered massive losses, they are transforming and adapting the lessons of today’s battlefield. NATO allies, on the other hand, have been tardy regarding basic capabilities like producing enough ammunition for a sustained conflict.
Except for on the Eastern Flank, NATO nations still don’t take the Russian menace seriously and are unwilling to significantly boost defense spending.
Russian leaders have long said that they are at war with the West, but the West has chosen to ignore it. After the war, Russians will be aggrieved that the West foiled its plans to subjugate Ukraine. Rather than invading a NATO country, Russia will initially continue probing and chipping away at its weaknesses.
The current slew of brazen greyzone attacks in NATO countries, often using criminal networks, to hack, but also physically meddle with critical infrastructure, such as undersea cables, are just a preview of what to expect. Russia is creatively testing everything possible under the threshold of triggering NATO’s Article Five and at the same time putting NATO’s credibility increasingly under question.
The root of the problem is Russia’s imperial identity. Moscow expanded to become the largest country on the planet by terrorizing conquered populations and exploiting their resources. Putin acts in that tradition. Russia uses Ukrainian men in the annexed regions as canon fodder, kidnaps Ukrainian children, and sells stolen Ukrainian grain. Ukrainians are forced to take Russian citizenship or be denied medical assistance.
Once the West pushes Ukraine to accept partial occupation in exchange for peace, the Baltic states might be next. Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians are urgently preparing for such a grim eventuality. Faced with the threat of nuclear escalation, will Western leaders abandon the Baltic states? Their timidity regarding Ukraine does not augur well. Deterrence only works when the adversary believes it is resolute. Putin has learned that the West can be easily intimidated and distracted. Thus he might be prepared to gamble once an opportune moment arises, such as when the U.S. is embroiled in conflicts in Asia or the Middle East.
About the Author:
Andres Kasekamp is a Professor of History at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. He was previously the Director of the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ending-ukraine-war-wont-stop-russias-threat-nato-213401
I agree fully with everything this author is saying.
The bottom line is that the West’s cowardice and its efforts to prevent escalation has provoked the complete opposite from mafia land and its gang of trash countries. Why should they not increase their aggression when they are facing jellyfish? We have nothing positive to look forward in the future to if we don’t get real leaders in our capital cities … soon! This doesn’t mean Trump. He will make things FAR worse.
I would remind you, Vladolf first invaded Ukraine when Democrat Obama was president. Then Vladolf invaded Ukraine again when Democrat Biden was president. Did Vladolf invade Ukraine further than he already was when Republican Trump was president? Even a 3rd grader could tell you who was better for Ukraine than I read here.
FAR worse……..?
Let’s find a 3rd grader and ask them. 😉
I would remind you, Vladolf first invaded Ukraine after the pro-russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted in the 2014 Maidan Revolution ten years ago. It had nothing to do with who the US president was; it had to do with Ukraine rejecting russia and looking to the West. (As ‘Honestly’ posted last year, “Between 2014 and 2016, the Obama administration committed more than $600 million in security aid to Ukraine including things like counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies.”)
putler saw no need to invade while his puppet was in the White House. That’s why he’s working to get trumpkov back in the White House now.
For Ukraine, Obama was a complete failure, as Trump and Biden were and are. Considering us having signed the BM, we should’ve done a whole lot more in 2014 than what the coward Obumer had done.
Then you must be very confident about another Trump term in the Oval Office. Could you give me something more than mafia land not having invaded Ukraine during his first one? That theory seems to be quite shaky, seeing that there can be other reasons why the war criminal didn’t invade during Trump’s tenure.
Ukraine; assuming a Dem victory, which now seems unlikely, will need its own independent nuclear deterrent since it is never going to get the level of support from the “allies” that is needed to force a victory.
Funding for that and all other materiel will have to come from the $350 billion putinaZi stash.
Ukraine can use this money to defeat the putinaZis and become a leading global arms manufacturer.
Very sadly it now seems likely that putler is going to get his man into the WH.
Zel will be forced to decline the pending Trumpkov-VanZkov proposal because it will be a steaming pile of shit. But he will be left dangerously exposed; with no countries willing or able to cover the sudden loss of American support.
If at least Europe was in the process of making itself and Ukraine Trump-proof, there would still be a glimmer of hope, but they are all still sleeping at the wheel, so it seems.