Putin's Failure and NATO's Lesson

NATO's lesson after a bloody crisis

By Darryl Weng

---

As a Ukrainian father clasps his hands with his daughter’s in a last farewell, tears stream down and hapless promises are made. Bombs flame buildings and cities of Ukraine. Families split and flee.

Despite the modernity of the 21st century and evolution of diplomatic relations, Putin of Russia has the audacity to attack a sovereign country through mobilizing military into its land, most likely to invade.

Luckily, in spite of the massive attacks by the Russian military from the north, east, and south, Ukraine still holds with strong resistance through civilian efforts and weaponry aid from other countries. A serious miscalculation by Putin. However, Putin is far from foolish. Two decades ago, Putin had planned the incursion of all ex-Soviet States, in an effort to regain territory lost post-Soviet era. From sanction-proofing the Russian economy to bolstering Russia’s economic dominance in oil and gas throughout the European continent, Putin set himself up for a master plan. Rather than foolishness, Putin has thrown away his tactics for “glory” and ambition. Putin decided to approach the fastest route to his success that carries high risk. By invading and placing Ukraine under control of the Kremlin, Putin would be undefiable to conquer other countries and glorious in the eyes of his Russian subjects. If he were to fail the invasion, the consequences would be far greater, from dissatisfaction among Russian citizens and distrust of his regime.

Already, Putin’s authority has been questioned when Alexei Navalny took to the national stage to oppose Putin, with the support of many Russian citizens. Even with the heavy Russian propaganda aimed at keeping Russian citizens in line with Putin’s every publicized action, the presence of social media, deaths of Russian soldiers, and malicious attacks on Ukraine’s citizens may incite anger among Russians soon and, as a result, Putin’s authority will be questioned once again at an even greater extent.

The importance of public opinion among Russians towards Putin is so vital that Putin cannot risk a prolonged war with Ukraine. Society is not without people of moral values and the longer war and violence continue, those with morals won’t be so enthusiastic. To ensure his precious Russian society is preserved, Putin must ensure victory in Ukraine is as quick and bloodless for his soldiers as possible.

If Ukrainians continue their front and prevent Putin from taking desperate shortcuts to speed up invasion efforts, Russian efforts will soon dry up. Ukraine’s neighboring countries, U.K, and U.S have stepped up support militarily(Additional note: U.K has provided much support financially and successfully sanctioned Russian banks involved in the Swift System) for Ukraine. Perhaps Putin should quit his ambitions, for the costs are becoming too great for his regime.

So has democracy won? Is it such that NATO leaders like Biden or Macron will present us with victory speeches and be praised for a well-orchestrated effort for the survival of democracy in Ukraine against the bitter Russia?

Instead, let the question be, “Why have we let Ukraine enter a bloody war with Russia?”

Despite the pressure faced, the EU and U.S leaders, as well as leaders from other NATO countries, were far from choiceless, and the warnings of such a ruinous crisis were clear. The issue stems from Biden himself, admitting that Ukraine would find itself in a military conflict with Russia. And since the EU is already under Russia’s heavy economic influence of oil and gas, there is little to no motive to prevent a war in Ukraine. After all, Ukraine was denied NATO membership. It was these multitude of factors that led to Putin believing he could reasonably attack Ukraine without any concern of a NATO country using military forces to repel Russian forces. Had Ukraine joined NATO, Putin would have never budged the nation.

History has shown that no major belligerent nation has decided to attack any NATO member militarily. Due to high membership and influence of NATO, any country to make itself antagonistic to NATO would be foolish. Therefore, had Ukraine joined NATO before the Ukraine-Russia conflict, there would have been none of the bloodshed and dispersing of family lives today. To deny Ukraine NATO membership at a time when a military conflict has even the smallest chances of occurring is outrageous.

Now it is time to fix the mistakes before another crisis arises. All countries whose democracy is being threatened by a foreign country should immediately be granted membership in NATO, for their contributions would be far greater than those of nations inept of facing political and military trouble. The goal of NATO should be simple: push for peace across the world. While it’s inevitable that belligerent entities will arise every so often, the isolation of such malignant entities will render them inept in carrying out actions that threaten world peace or humanitarian efforts. In order to do so, NATO must increase membership to spread the responsibility of political and military safety to as many other countries as possible.

We have learned for decades that an isolationist stance is not feasible, and the influence of democracy and moral values across the world must not be contained to a portion of the world. Where is Ukraine’s NATO membership? Where is Taiwan’s NATO membership? The time is now, and we cannot afford another crisis.