International | Engaging NATO in Ukraine, a dangerous idea

In view of the unbearable images coming from Ukraine, is it any wonder that repeated calls “to do more” to defend this country have been heard in the media?

Michel Fortman
Honorary professor of political science and researcher at the Center for International Studies and Research of the University of Montreal

Some even go so far as to suggest military intervention by the Atlantic Alliance in this conflict or the sending of an ultimatum to Moscow such as: “You have 72 hours to withdraw from Ukraine, otherwise…” Whatever the sympathy one may feel for Ukrainians, or anger at Russian aggression, these far-reaching suggestions demand critical examination to determine their relevance and viability.

The first thing to emphasize is that a NATO military intervention in Ukraine would be the equivalent of declaring war on Russia. Do we think that the 30 members of the Atlantic Alliance will accept such a choice? The answer is in the question. The idea is therefore, at the outset, quite simply unrealistic.

Second, Western military involvement in Ukraine would constitute a radical escalation of the conflict. It would be hard to argue otherwise.

So far, the Russians have taken the initiative in the aggression, and are therefore solely responsible for the deplorable situation that the Ukrainians and the rest of the world are currently experiencing. Do we really want to aggravate and extend the conflict to Europe?

And let’s not forget that, by doing so, we would be giving Vladimir Putin a ready-made excuse to say he is under attack and to mobilize Russian society as a whole, which is not the case at the moment. Indeed, the Russian forces currently deployed have proved, for the moment, insufficient to massively invade Ukraine. A total mobilization of Russia would certainly give them the means.

A third argument of the “warmongers” can be questioned. According to them, NATO can cope with the Russian army. It has the necessary resources in soldiers and equipment. Isn’t the budget of the United States alone 10 times greater than that of Russia? In fact, one would have to ask what forces NATO could deploy quickly to counter the Russian invasion. The answer may surprise: about 40,000 soldiers, who would be opposed to 250,000 Russians formed into six armies, in addition to about ten thousand combat tanks, not to mention the artillery and the air force. To which it must be added that the responsibility of the forces of the Alliance is to defend the whole of the border which separates Russia from the NATO countries, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, which would stretch their field as much as possible intervention. The idea of ​​confronting Russia militarily under present conditions is therefore nonsense.

A final argument advanced by those who want to involve NATO in the conflict in Ukraine is that the nuclear threat is insignificant. Vladimir Putin, we are told, is a rational man who will never press the nuclear button, knowing that it would lead to the destruction of Russia.

But who can bet on the rationality of a man who engaged his country in a catastrophic war, without any real reason?

Moreover, it is clear that a confrontation between NATO and Russia will undoubtedly put the survival of the regime in question, a reason which, in itself, would justify a nuclear strike in its eyes. Should we also remember that, unlike the Alliance, Russia has an imposing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons that could serve as instruments of intimidation against NATO? The theory is that the use of these weapons with a smaller charge and range would not necessarily lead to an escalation in terms of so-called strategic weapons, which have a greater charge and range. However, whether the weapons are tactical or strategic, the shadow of nuclear power would in any case hover over a direct confrontation between the Alliance and Russia, and ignoring it borders on unconsciousness.

Navigating through the serious and delicate situation that we are experiencing in Ukraine means avoiding two pitfalls: on the one hand, the uncontrolled aggravation and extension of the conflict and, on the other, inaction and indecision. . So far, the West has honorably taken up this challenge. While maintaining a united front, Europeans and Americans were able to mobilize international public opinion, adopt a regime of very tough sanctions against Russia, intervene on a humanitarian level and successfully support the Ukrainian forces militarily, while keeping a firm but calm tone, and leaving the door open for de-escalation.

These policies have borne fruit, judging by Russia’s increasingly evident isolation on the international scene, but also by the military successes of Ukrainian forces on the ground.

While being in a situation of inferiority, they succeeded in stopping the advance of the Russian forces on almost all fronts, reducing the latter to bombarding the cities, thereby underlining the criminal nature of their aggression.

Does this mean that the international community has done its utmost? Obviously not. There are many options of all types available to NATO and its members (see suggested readings). We have therefore not exhausted the tools available to help the Ukrainians neutralize the forces of their aggressor. But, given the stubbornness of the Russian leaders, the Atlantic Alliance must certainly also prepare for the worst. However, it is imperative to let the Russians take responsibility for an escalation of the situation. The unity of the international community is at this price.

Closer than you think

If the Atlantic Alliance is drawn into the war in Ukraine, Canada, as a member of NATO, will have an obligation to participate. Will Justin Trudeau have his say? Are we ready, as a society, to embark on this path? And what are the implications of such a decision? Some have argued that it is time for NATO to intervene in Ukraine. Have they thought about these questions? Because the answers are not very obvious.