NATO, Ukraine, and the Decline of the Power of Deterrence: Although NATO has the resources to protect Ukraine, divisions among its members and misguided assumptions about escalation undermine the goal of deterring Russia. 

NATO’s political will is currently insufficient to guarantee a Ukrainian victory in its war against Russia. This could not only lead to the destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign nation, but could easily arouse the Russian dictator’s appetite for its neighbor’s territory, including Poland, the Baltic states, and other NATO and non-NATO allies  

NATO has the resources to protect Ukraine but divisions among its members and wrong concepts undermine the goal of deterring Russia. 

Article 5 of the treaty commits NATO members to defend another member if it is attacked. It makes sense to assume that Putin would be deterred not to attacking Poland or any of the Baltic states.  

Furthermore, according to NATO’s mission statement, the organization’s main responsibility is to, “safeguard the freedom and security of all its members through political and military means”.  

Furthermore, NATO, “strives to secure a lasting peace in Europe and North America,” based on the defense of, “common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.”  

Its mission also claims that the organization looks beyond the North Atlantic region. The statement claims that, “a more dangerous and unpredictable world makes things less safe for everyone. As a result, the Alliance also contributes to peace and stability through crisis prevention and management as well as partnerships with other organizations and countries across the globe… NATO not only helps to defend the territory of its members, but also engages, where possible and when necessary, to project its values further afield, prevent and manage crises, stabilize post-conflict situations, and support reconstruction” 

However, under the current circumstances, NATO cannot ensure peace and global security.  

The National Security scholar Mara Karlin has pointed out in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs that the United States and NATO can apply various means to deter aggression, such as increasing military bases in remote places like the Indo-Pacific, building local alliances, and providing military aid to allies.  

However, a more fundamental problem undermines NATO’s effectiveness in the Russia-Ukraine war: A weakness that affects its power of deterrence.  

NATO is divided. There is no consensus on the need to arm Ukraine against Russia. Countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, and Serbia –which is a non-NATO member—are illiberal regimes that have deviated from the constitutional principles that guide modern democracies and most NATO members. These countries find the European Union's democratic standards and immigration policies tyrannical. Those differences have brought them, except for Poland, closer to Russia.  

Turkiye, another NATO member, no longer plays the role it did during the Cold War. Turkiye is allied with the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, supports Hamas, and has expressed consistent hostility towards Israel, a non-NATO ally. 

Turkiye has also applied to join the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa Alliance (BRICS). Many countries, including some U.S. allies, have applied for economic reasons; Turkiye, however, also has its political reasons. BRICS is not just an alliance based on commercial interests, but a political entity aimed at creating an alternative order to the West. Russia and China lead BRICS, which includes several authoritarian states that share the same antagonism to Western moral and political ideals, like Iran. Unsurprisingly, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia have also shown interest in joining BRICS, and most likely will be accepted.  

Although Turkiye has provided some weapons to Ukraine and opposed the Russian invasion,  the country purchased Russian S-400 missiles, which led to the United States’s decision to impose sanctions on Ankara. Russia also deferred gas supply-related debt payments to Turkiye for $4 billion. Similarly, Russia has allegedly used Turkish territory to transfer war-related wars and war technological devices to Russia.  

Some traditional members of the Western club have not displayed impressive behavior either.  

During Israel’s war in Gaza and southern Lebanon, France called for a total arms embargo on Israel, one the most critical non-NATO allies. Great Britain, Canada, Belgium, Italy, and Spain also banned or restricted arms transfers to Israel, claiming that Israel’s military offensive in Gaza has violated international law.  

These European NATO members have chosen to ignore the nature of the war Israel is conducting and downplay the importance of fighting radical Islamist terrorism and Iran, both threats to NATO members.  

These divisions and attitudes could only hurt Ukraine.  

NATO has increased its collective defense spending by nine percent to help Ukraine. However, those who have spent the highest amount relative to the size of their economies are countries that border with Russia, such as Poland and the Baltic states. The U.S. is still the largest and most dependable donor to Ukraine. It is no wonder that a senior NATO official pointed out that, “Europe needs to step up even more.”  

Another essential element that limits Ukraine’s maneuvers is NATO’s obsessive fear of escalation. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany have restricted the use of weapons in case Ukraine uses weapons to attack Russian territory. By displaying such fear, a warmonger like Putin is more likely to stick to an aggressive attitude. 

It is no wonder that John Healey, the UK defense Minister, stated that the British Military is, “very skilled and ready to conduct military operations… [However] Unless we are ready to fight, we are not in shape to deter.” 

Healey referred to budget cuts, but he may well have referred to the frail approach described above. Russia’s recruitment of North Korean soldiers to fight in Ukraine may well be the result of such public weakness.  

Ukraine has been left with no choice but to act independently.  

As Peter Dickinson pointed out, Ukraine’s bold incursion into Russia early in August succeeded in breaking Putin’s red lines and thus debunked Western fears of escalation in Eastern Europe. 

Ukraine, like Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, acted with determination. Despite Western pressure, both countries proceeded to follow their interests. Contrary to Western concerns, no regional war broke out, and no Western soldier sacrificed his life.  

As scholar Daniel Pipes explained, it is no wonder that small countries like Ukraine and Israel are increasingly operating independently of big superpowers or large institutions such as NATO.  

Thus, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky presented his “victory plan,” which proposes incorporating Ukraine into NATO, strengthening Ukraine’s defense, and reducing restrictions on the use of long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia. Likewise, Zelensky called for a joint defense operation to shoot down Russian missiles and drones directed at Ukraine, an idea NATO rejected, again to avoid escalation. Zelensky even suggested that Ukraine might even pursue nuclear weapons. The Ukrainian president is feeling NATO’s shortcomings.   

NATO members, including its American leaders, should reconsider their attitudes and policies to uphold their commitment to secure Ukraine's integrity and global stability.  

About the Author 

Luis Fleischman, Ph.D., is co-founder of the Palm Beach Center for Democracy & Policy Research, professor of Social Sciences at Palm Beach State College, and the author of the book Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Security Threat to the United States. Follow him on LinkedIn and X: @LuisFleischman. 

Image Credit: Creative Commons and/or Shutterstock.