Despite NATO internal consolidation, doubtfully the Alliance is capable of counter fighting Russia’s aggression against one of its members. Such a conclusion is based on both the Alliance bureaucratic decision-making procedure and the evolutionary processes in the organization of collective security.
NATO was established in the post-war period, the times of economic crisis, destruction and a low social level. The Alliance members’ readiness to provide collective security was due to the devastating consequences of WWII. As of now, because of the high level of economic development and social stability in the member countries Europe has lost its collective defense readiness. One should admit that over the past 20 years NATO has lost the values and guidelines stated in its Charter. The Alliance interaction with authoritarian regimes has become more flexible, and the mission to support democracy and security in Europe has become more situational, everything depends on the regimes posing threats.
The NATO-Russia real confrontation can be in place only in case of global conflict between the Kremlin and entire Alliance. However, such a scenario is more than real, moreover, it contradicts Russian doctrinal practice.
After Russian military invasion of Ukraine, accompanied by massive air strikes on cities, social and critical infrastructure, the Ukrainian authorities asked NATO to close the airspace over the country. Official Kyiv appealed to 1993 when the Alliance conduct the Sky Monitor operation to track unauthorized flights in the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War. NATO shut the sky despite the fact that Yugoslavia was not the Alliance member.
NATO’s refusal to comply with Ukraine’s request raises concerns. Brussels’ main argument is that NATO’s help in protecting Ukrainian cities will lead to a confrontation with Russia. However, this very scenario will happen anyway in case of necessity to implement Article 5 of the Washington Treaty in the event of Russian aggression against the Baltic countries or Poland. Doubtfully NATO will react in a different way in this situation. Obviously, the Baltic countries’ position as for providing support to Ukraine is explained by their leaders’ understanding that in case of Russian aggression, probably, they will not be supported by such countries as Germany, France or Hungary.
Thus, there are doubts that the collective security organization founded to counter the threats from the Soviet Union, is capable enough to ensure the security of Europe amid confrontation with Russia.
Such a prospect is in line with the Russian Alliance-related policy ultimate goal – to destroy collective security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic space.
Sources in diplomatic circles inform that Moscow takes NATO’s refusal to close the sky over Ukraine as a signal that the West was not ready for a military confrontation with Russia and it intended to avoid it at all costs. Such an assessment will have a negative impact on security in Europe and give a green light to Moscow to conduct operations in the Baltics and Eastern Europe more actively. Thus, the Alliance has already started losing the confrontation with Russia, although the war in Ukraine demonstrates that Russian military potential is a myth created by propaganda. The huge losses that Russia suffers in Ukraine would scale up dramatically and finish the war if the West helped Ukraine with air defense and aviation systems.
As for the United States and a number of European countries, the war in Ukraine is an opportunity for them to receive big orders for combat aircraft after giving Soviet aircraft, being in service with many countries of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, to Ukraine. Such a step will contribute into NATO aviation flee and strengthening of the Alliance military capability.
However, the low readiness of potential donors of combat aircraft for Ukraine is explained by the catastrophic state of the air forces of these countries where part of the fleet is in non-flight regime.
Read also: Germany: NATO’s weak spot-to-be
