Once again, NATO has proved it is far from obsolete.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization struggled in the years following the end of the Cold War to find its purpose and define its mission. The alliance withstood years of former President Donald Trump’s attempts to bully its members and tear it down. But now NATO has been roused by Russia’s brutal invasion of peaceful, democratic Ukraine, which declared its independence from the old Soviet Union more than 30 years ago.
Ukraine, to be clear, is not a NATO member, though it has petitioned for admission for years. It is, however, a critical buffer between the rest of Europe and a revanchist Russia, which has now dropped any pretense of civility and shown it is willing to take the country by sheer force, no matter the cost to Ukraine’s civilians or to Russia itself. The ruthless bombing of the port city of Mariupol, where a hospital complex and an art school sheltering hundreds of civilians were targeted, signals how far Russian President Vladimir Putin is willing to go.
NATO has responded forcefully. In a recent meeting, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that “today we have tasked our military commanders to develop options across all domains — land, air, sea, cyber and space. On land, our new posture should include substantially more forces in the eastern part of the Alliance, at higher readiness, with more pre-positioned equipment and supplies.
“In the air, more allied air power, and strengthened integrated air and missile defense.” At sea, he said, there would be “carrier strike groups, submarines and significant numbers of combat ships on a persistent basis.”
Mary Curtin, diplomat-in-residence and global policy chair at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, spent 25 years in the State Department as a foreign service officer and served as a political counselor in Warsaw, Poland, for years. A noted expert on NATO and European affairs, Curtin said that Putin has made little secret of his bitterness about the Soviet Union’s demise and his stubborn refusal to accept the independence of countries such as Ukraine.
Ultimately, I think he (Putin) would like to gather up as many pieces of the old Soviet Union as possible. … I think people have been surprised at how rapidly and extensively sanctions were proposed and how many NATO countries are actively supplying support to Ukraine. Putin is seeing that he cannot just walk into Ukraine and take it over. Mary Curtin, former foreign service officer stationed in Warsaw, Poland
That, she said, serves as a reminder of why NATO is so critical. Putin’s aggression against Ukraine, she said, is no isolated incident, but part of a calculated, long-range effort. One of his first actions as prime minister in 1999 was to order the air bombing of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya, resulting in that city’s near complete destruction. He invaded nearby Georgia in 2008 and seized Crimea in 2014. Early this year he moved troops into Kazakhstan to violently suppress protests in that former Soviet state.
“Ultimately, I think he would like to gather up as many pieces of the old Soviet Union as possible,” Curtin said. NATO members, she said, have “for a very long time” been taking more seriously the threat Putin poses.
To that end, she said, despite withholding membership in the alliance NATO countries have been training and supplying the Ukrainian military for years. “We’re seeing a highly motivated, skillful Ukrainian resistance that shows years of training they have been receiving from NATO forces,” she said. NATO members, led by the U.S., have also moved swiftly to impose sweeping and painful sanctions against Russia.
“I think people have been surprised at how rapidly and extensively sanctions were proposed and how many NATO countries are actively supplying support to Ukraine,” Curtin said. “Putin is seeing that he cannot just walk into Ukraine and take it over.”
And no one should dismiss the power of these sanctions, now amplified by voluntary withdrawal from the country by some of the world’s largest corporations. Together, Curtin said, they will weaken Russia as a global power, affecting its economy and citizens alike.
But the threat remains. “Putin has made it clear that he thinks the Soviet model is one that should exist, and we should take him at his word,” Curtin said.
The strength of NATO, first formed in 1949 by the U.S., Canada and Western European nations, has only grown over time. It is now 30 members strong, with substantial military resources that include forces in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, with critical air bases. There’s a NATO Response Force of 20,000 troops, and a special joint task force formed after Russia’s incursion into Crimea in 2014. In a worst-case scenario, it can draw on the combined military forces of its member nations — 3.5 million troops.
Trump was wrong to undermine this alliance. He was wrong to cozy up to Putin. Recently, in a shameless attempt at backpedaling on his earlier claim that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “genius,” Trump said that Putin had “changed.”
Does he mean that Putin is different from the man who attacked Chechnya? Who seized Crimea? Who invaded Georgia? Who poisoned Russian officer-turned-dissident Alexander Litvinenko? Different from the KGB agent he once was? Why does this matter? Because former security adviser John Bolton has said Trump came close to pulling the U.S. out of NATO in 2018, and might have succeeded had he been reelected.
