Dilemma Ignored
It was not an easy task for the dominating military alliance, NATO, to balance between the quest for displaying internal coherence, and dealing with the challenge of the war in Ukraine.
Two bad options
NATO was facing a crossroads this week around 11th and 12th of July, 2023: Either concede that Russia was willing and able to fight for its posture to avoid NATO enlargement into Georgia and Ukraine, and thus find its own posture vis a vis Russia at the negotiation table, or go all in, backing the Ukrainians with all means available, thus risking escalation by direct confrontation with Russia. When facing a dilemma, neither option seems appealing. Accepting another strategic defeat was not exactly what NATO needed now, where it has all sails set for displaying internal political unity. The other option, to drive the security situation in Europe further towards conflict, that could imply Russian attacks on troops from a NATO member state and the activation of article 5, with all that this entails, while the populations of the NATO countries slowly but surely come to realize that it was all of NATOs own making, well, that was also not an option for the leaders gathered in Vilnius.
A popular solution
The path chosen was for geopolitical observers all but given. As has become increasingly popular among Western leaders lately: When facing a dilemma, ignore it. Public opinion is everything hence let’s celebrate the path to membership so that the de facto members can come under de jure status, welcome to Sweden and Finland, and then in addition we repeat the intention of letting Ukraine into the alliance, send some more weapons, and leave the whole thing unsettled. This leaves us with only one apparent loser, the Ukrainians. Almost perfect.
Out of touch with reality
But only almost perfect: It seems to solve everything, but in fact it leaves all salient issues on the table. A huge part of this strategy of ignoring the choice to be made, is to provoke escalation, that can further bolster the narrative of the evil enemy that unites us. Another thing is that it sacrifices unlimited masses of young men on the battlefield without designated purpose. Of course, the usual voices of newly constituted so called ‘geopolitical experts’ from think tanks and academies express the hope that when Kiev has resolved the conflict by driving the Russians out of Southeastern Ukraine, then it will be possible to include Ukraine into the alliance, and that would deter Russia from attacking ever again. You do not have to pass the beginner exam in geopolitics to see that this is utter nonsense: One glimpse at events on the ground should be enough to realize the folly.
Chop a heel and cut a toe
Hope is not a plan, and without any foundation, hope can be your worst enemy, because it can lead you to believe in unsubstantiated conclusions and distorted ideas about what to do. Ignoring a true dilemma can be equally fatal. NATO, led by Washington seemed to have chosen the path of blindfolded limitless involvement, where the expected outcome is a long conflict, shifting in intensity on the whim of short-term interests in Moscow and Washington, a non-solution that will leave The Ukraine Question unsettled until there is no more Ukrainian state possible and the problematic thus evaporates. This path will keep both Washington and Moscow relatively content. At least for a while. The Ukrainian president, who usually finds the right face for the occasion, had trouble avoiding shedding a tear behind his grimace on Wednesday, though, when USA and Germany were unable to back an accession plan for Ukraine and landed on consensus to destroy NATO procedures for adaptation to reach a weak consensus, instead of providing a viable policy. Classical institutional decay under leadership vacuum.
Anyone happy?
It was all expected we can say in hindsight. Tragic, nevertheless. When intensity of political unity is suddenly boosted, followed, and maybe even overly boosted, by dismantling of foundational organisational structure like the Membership Action Plan (MAP) in NATO, then vulnerability for a political community is high: It is the institutionalization of political unity that ensures its intensity. Furthermore, Washington can experience politicization of the war in Ukraine up to and especially after the presidential election already in 2024. Germany, France, Spain and Italy will have to come to terms internally, at home in the respective capitals and as a group of doubters, concerning Washingtons demeanor and recent behavior. Serious hangovers are to be expected as cleavages turn into divisions: who are really interested in a prolonged war in Europe? - Who wants to be enemies with Russia in the long run? Washington perhaps, but who else?
Blind bliss into the abyss?
And then we are back to geopolitics: With a horizon for ending hostilities non-existent, the question becomes who has the stomach for it. Note that we in our basic deliberation on the clash of interests between Washington and Moscow have denoted the current prospect for the conflict as 2nd priority for Moscow, since Ukraine is kept out of NATO as long as the war goes on, but 3rd priority for Washington as long as USA is unsuccessful in destabilizing Russia, which seems to be Washingtons 1st priority, concerning Ukraine. You can always celebrate a victory if you can convince yourself that you have won. When you are in fact losing, then ignorance is a blessing. The question remains though, whether ignorance is truly a blessing, when it is chosen as a strategy by the most powerful entity on earth in serious matters of Global Politics.