E fundit!

22:51 TODAY

Businessman Artur Shehu breaks his silence: I am a long-time land owner in Zvërnec, I don't know the investors at all

Albanian businessman Artur Shehu spoke on the Opinion show...

How NATO should restrain Vladimir Putin's Russia

2023-04-22 13:33:00, Blog Andreas Kluth

In July, NATO allies will gather in Vilnius for their second summit since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his genocidal war against Ukraine. This year there will be 31 member countries, after Finland joined the club in a direct response to Putin's hostility.

What should they decide? One way or another, every discussion will affect Putin. The neo-tsarist, imperialist, irredentist and atavistic threat he represents threatens not only non-NATO countries like Ukraine or Moldova, but also NATO allies, including Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

And while some items on the summit's agenda may seem uncontroversial, others present dilemmas that may hinge on the success or failure of Ukraine's expected "spring offensive." The easiest category should be resources. Allies must reach a binding agreement to spend at least 2 percent of their Gross Domestic Product on their militaries.

Also, NATO should have more say in where that money goes. One country might be told to build fewer submarines, another to invest more in fighter jets, and so on. The goal should be to confront the Kremlin, not as a chaotic mob, but as a coherent and coordinated fighting force.

Allies must formally abandon their old strategy of deterrence by "punishment" or "retaliation". This model assumed that in the event of a Russian attack, the enemy would first occupy parts of NATO territory. But then the US and other allies would come to their aid, freeing their friends and driving Russia out by committing a very large military force.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, deterrence through retaliation made more sense in the relatively peaceful period of the previous era, symbolized by the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997. Its premise was that Russia and the West “will build together a lasting and comprehensive peace", based on "mutual trust and cooperation".

Russia vowed not to behave aggressively in Eastern Europe, while NATO promised not to deploy large forces or heavy weapons in eastern member states - and certainly not nuclear weapons - to avoid threatening or provoking the Kremlin.

It also meant that the Allies could not stop a Russian surprise attack, even if they wanted to. Putin unilaterally destroyed the basis for that cooperation. First, he deliberately abandoned the Founding Act when he annexed Crimea in 2014 and annexed the rest of Ukraine in 2022.

Second, by committing atrocities in Bucha and other Ukrainian territories they occupied, his troops showed what awaits the Baltics, Poles or Finns as they wait to be liberated by the rest of NATO. Therefore, today only the approach of deterrence through revenge is no longer enough.

NATO must agree on the "prevention through denial of aggression" approach. This is the proper jargon to defend "every inch" of NATO territory. So stopping the Russians before they invade any territory. To make this kind of deterrence credible, NATO must have formidable forces not only in the rear - for example in US bases and nuclear bases in Germany - but also in the front.

After Putin invaded Crimea, the alliance took a small step in that direction, with a so-called "Advanced Presence". It consists of 4 multinational battle groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Last year, the alliance added 4 more - in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia.

But these dislocations remain small. This was part of the old rationale for trying not to provoke Putin, which Putin has made look obsolete by becoming a paranoid and angry aggressor, with or without provocation.

Therefore, the presence of NATO troops on the front line must become a permanent combat force, with entire brigades instead of simple battalions, each armed to the teeth. This raises the question of nuclear weapons.

Since the start of the invasion of Ukraine, Putin has repeatedly violated nuclear taboos by threatening tactical strikes. A few weeks ago, he announced that he would deploy nuclear weapons in the neighboring country - almost a vassal of Russia - Belarus. (He may have already deployed nuclear weapons in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which lies between Lithuania and Poland.)

NATO must show Putin, as well as his potential challengers inside Russia and dictators like him around the world, that it will never tolerate such nuclear intimidation or blackmail. Otherwise, Putin will get on with it, and other regimes - starting with the Iranian mullahs - will race to have their own nuclear weapons.

In that scenario, the world would turn into a nuclear "matchbox". NATO should therefore announce plans against any kind of nuclear blackmail by Putin. If he plants nuclear bombs in Belarus, NATO will have to plant its own in the Baltic countries or Poland.

The most troubling question concerns Ukraine. Uncertainty over its future in or out of NATO has been a factor in tensions between Russia and the West since at least 2008, when the alliance said Ukraine and Georgia "will become members," but at an unspecified time. in the future.

That left Kiev "a quarter in and three quarters out" of the alliance, as Putin further reinforced his narrative that the West is determined to encircle Russia. Today, there are very strong arguments for Ukraine's accession to NATO. After the war, it will still need security guarantees from the West.

And the prospect of membership - like that of the European Union, which Brussels promised last year - will boost the morale of Ukrainians as they fight for their national survival. Having said that, the problem remains Article 5, the mutual protection clause in the case of Ukraine.

One consideration in weighing whether or not to expand NATO should be whether the potential member would make the alliance stronger or weaker. Finland makes NATO stronger, just like Sweden. But not Ukraine. Moreover, the promise to accept Ukraine into NATO would compromise another imperative.

The US and its allies must never dictate to Kiev its objectives in self-defense, or the terms of peace negotiations. But if all allies were to pledge to defend Ukraine, their fates would be intertwined and NATO could "sleepwalk" into World War III, depending on the choices Kiev makes.

To avoid this, the West would have to interfere in Ukraine's decisions. To some extent, the fates of Ukraine and Europe are already tied together. This is why the West must support Ukraine with everything it has, except for Article 5. Beyond that, the best NATO can do is leave Moscow in no doubt that any attack on any of its allies would lead to in a certain defeat of Russia./ " Bloomberg " - Adapted and translated by CNA.al