E13: Has the Russia-Ukraine war become NATO’s self-fulfilling prophecy?
In the 1990s, French President Francois Mitterand urged for the disintegration of NATO, claiming that the greatest adversary, the Soviet Union, had disintegrated. As nations of the Warsaw Pact abolished their regimes and moved toward democracy and western principles, he contended that the alliance lacked direction. Evolving from such a situation, today, the cause has grown into a movement to expand the alliance. What happened?
Finland and Sweden had stayed neutral at the time I began writing this, but they just made an application to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I dug around to find out how this could have been avoided and some peculiarities of the alliance
- Russia offered to join the alliance on multiple occasions: Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russian Presidents from Yeltsin to Putin have proposed to join NATO, believing that NATO was founded to fight the Soviet Union’s dominance in Europe, and that since the Soviet Union no longer exists, there was no reason to reject the Russian application. Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first president, indicated in 1991 that joining NATO was a long-term goal for his country. In the Afghan War, Russia has worked with NATO and the United States. Despite the fact that no substantive conversations were transpired, Russia had a strong probability of joining the alliance.
- Peculiar relation between Greece and Turkey: Since 1952, Greece and Turkey have been members of NATO. They both joined the alliance together. NATO has a policy of not intervening in intra-alliance issues. The distribution of exclusive economic zones in the Aegean Sea, as well as sovereignty of Cyprus, have often led Greece and Turkey to the brink of war. Greece claims the Aegean Sea up to Turkey’s coast as its territorial waters, and miscommunication has resulted in dogfights between their air forces. Turkey and Greece continue to fight for control of Cyprus. Except for its strategic location and control of the Bosphorus Strait near Istanbul, Turkey was never a natural NATO alliance partner.
Does the saying enemy’s enemy is my friend make sense here?
3. Finland and Sweden: In the aftermath of the Ukraine War, Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership. NATO lacked a clear mission after the breakup of the Soviet Union, but the war in Ukraine has given it new life. Their membership, however, is contingent on the agreement of the other alliance members. Turkey and Croatia are blocking the application. Turkey wants Sweden to abolish the arms embargo imposed on it as a result of its involvement in the Syrian conflict, and Finland to ban terrorist organisations that are targeting Turkish citizens on their eastern flank. Turkey therefore still sticks around like a sour thumb which is vital nonetheless. Croatia has blocked the application wanting attention to be directed towards the treatment of Croats in neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina. Everybody wants to pitch in when they receive a seat at the bargaining table. How united can the alliance be with only a single point agenda, counteracting Russia?
NATO’s article V states that the alliance would act united when threatened from a foreign enemy. However, NATO has never been threatened from the outside prompting its response. It has however, involved itself voluntarily in two major conflicts, the Kosovo war and Libyan Conflict. So, are we pouring relevance to an alliance in cases the conflict could have been resolved peacefully!?
A question to ponder over!
Introduction to NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NATO is an alliance of US, Canada and their European Allies that was formed shortly after WWII in 1949.
Key motives were:
- Deter Soviet expansionism
- Forbid the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent
- Encourage European political integration.
