Changing power equations in EU: NATO’s vulnerabilities exposed as Ukraine war turns one

A new great game is being played out in Ukraine. In one year, the conflict has fundamentally changed power balances globally and exposed the weakness of the once impregnable Western alliance. It has also brought back the focus on the Baltics, which joined NATO after the disintegration of the USSR, despite assurances to the contrary given by the Americans to Mikhail Gorbachev. Today, these States are left pondering how safe is NATO’s embrace? Will they be invaded and then liberated or would neutrality as suggested by Gorbachev have been a better option? The ongoing hostilities have shifted the attention and focus of the West, away from the Indo-Pacific, from China’s rise and the threat China poses to the existing world order. At the recently concluded Munich Security Conference held for the first time without Russia’s participation, discussions inevitably centred around the Ukraine-Russia war. Many Western participants acknowledged that the Global South had moved on and regarded it as a European issue. It was left to the German Chancellor in Munich to repeat what India’s External Affairs Minister (EAM) had said earlier: “Europe must understand that its problems are not the world’s problems. It must appreciate that the world’s problems are also Europe’s problems”. As observed by one commentator in Munich, the atmosphere had an eerie resemblance to 1938, just before World War II. Like World War I and II, that war was fought mainly on European soil. It was won by the Allies because of the British Indian army and the late entry of the US into the war after Pearl Harbour. Will Europe and the West draw back or drag the world into another catastrophic world war? In that event too, it will be fought only on European soil. If nuclear weapons are used, it will devastate Europe. The last time it was used thousands of kilometres away, on Japanese soil. Not this time. Does Europe realise the ramifications? The Ukraine conflict has profoundly changed the global balance of power and destroyed the myth of a multi-polar world. It has weakened both Russia and Europe and strengthened the US mighty war machine. Protected by the Atlantic Ocean, President Joe Biden is determined to continue the conflict till the last standing Ukrainian is willing to fight. A warrior of Cold War I, Biden revels in Cold War 2.0. His intention is to fatally weaken Russia and bring down Putin. Many EU Members, including the Baltic nations, given their history and past subordination by the Russians, feel the same. But is this scenario realistic? From a Western and EU perspective, the conflict is a sharp and unpleasant reminder that wars need not always be fought out in distant lands. The West and NATO want to make Russia bleed through a long drawn out conflict even at the cost of Ukraine’s destruction. The Ukraine conflict has exposed the vulnerability of NATO’s northeastern flank. The Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — desperately need to be secured by NATO as its weakest link. Although these States have been on the frontlines of Russian aggression for a long time, the situation is getting worse. How effectively the three Baltic States will respond to the ramifications of the Ukraine conflict will depend on the degree of support by their EU and NATO allies. Economically, Baltic States face many challenges. Much before the February 2022 escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, their representatives had been some of the most vocal proponents warning about the impending Russian threat in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region. In response to calling out the Putin regime’s revanchisism, they were frequently dubbed ‘Russo phobic’ by the Kremlin and also globally. The Baltic States despite their size have provided significant diplomatic, military and humanitarian support to Ukraine. In terms of percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) from 24 January to 3 October 2022, Estonia (0.8 per cent), Latvia (0.9 per cent), and Lithuania (0.4 per cent) rank as the number one, two, and four donors respectively. Although the US and United Kingdom provided €26.9 billion and €3.8 billion respectively in government support for Ukraine during that same period, those amounts represent merely 0.2 per cent of their GDPs. Estonia, with a population of just over 1.3 million people, has welcomed over 110,000 people fleeing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with over 60,000 having remained in Estonia. The country is therefore wrestling with a 4.6 per cent increase in population within a short span of time, whilst navigating political, economic and social issues of its own. Latvia’s first defensive mobilisation following the February 2022 escalation was in the form of direct aid to Ukraine. The Baltic state has provided Ukraine with humanitarian aid, and a variety of war materials valuing close to a third of its national defence budget. When measured as percentage share of GDP, Latvia is the foremost supporter of Ukraine, having committed a total of 0.9 per cent (€298 million) in humanitarian, financial, and military aid. The full-scale military invasion of Ukraine directly opened a second front in Latvia in the form of an “energy war.” Escalating gas prices have become the front-running economic issue. Gas prices have tripled since the February escalation. While the government has promised support to cushion citizens from high energy prices, Latvia has experienced among the second highest inflation rate in Europe in 2022, at 16.9% — double that of Germany or France. This has impacted domestic politics. The parliamentary elections in Latvia in October 2022 reflected a major shift away from pro-Russian sentiment. This was the first time the pro-Russian party, ‘Harmony Centre’ did not pass the 5 per cent threshold since the second regaining of Latvia’s independence in 1991. Instead, the pro-European New Unity party tripled its support in Latvia’s Parliament, from eight to 24 seats. Lithuania no longer has certain military equipment that could be donated to Ukraine without risking its own security. Considering this, in November 2022, the proposal to transfer Lithuania’s howitzers and air defence systems was turned down. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, energy crisis, growing inflation, and other socio-economic pressures, will inevitably make the Baltic’s more susceptible to internal and external pressures. Promoting Baltic resilience — from defence to socioeconomic — should be a key priority for NATO and EU, given the proximity of the Baltics to Russia and its ally, Belarus. This however is far from assured. NATO membership was touted as a sure means of securing the Baltic’s. After all, by implication any attack on one State would activate Article V of NATO’s Charter. The reality is that they remain vulnerable to any Russian military aggression. Baltic territories are relatively small in size, which means that in case of a possible invasion, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania do not have Ukraine’s strategic depth that would allow these NATO member states to lose any territory and regroup for counterattacks. Indeed, they are the weakest link in NATO’s chain of defence. What of the price of the conflict to Ukraine? It has been repeatedly suggested that not losing the war is itself a form of victory for Ukraine. But not losing is not a victory. There are very heavy costs attached to Ukraine’s refusal to seek a peace agreement. In one year, Russia now controls significantly more Ukrainian territory than before 24th February 22. Cumulatively, this accounts for an increase of Russian occupied territory from approximately 7 per cent including Crimea, before February 22 to more than double a year later.  Not losing looks uncomfortably a lot more like losing rather than winning. What is the way forward? EU and NATO must understand that just as India has to live with China and Pakistan, EU has to live with Russia. Nations cannot alter their history and geography. Russia is linked to Europe. Russia is large, European, Slav and Orthodox, White, with a long and shared history, culture and civilisation with the West. Russia also has a formidable nuclear arsenal, like its ally, China. The EU must learn to deal with Putin and Russia, rather than seek to bleed and destroy it. In an article in the Washington Post, Henry Kissinger had invaluable advice to offer to the West. He said: “Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them”. Kissenger added: “Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. … We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction…..For the West, the demonisation of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one”. Calls for a negotiated end to the conflict have gone unheeded by the West that seems determined to bring down President Putin. The West seems to be in no mood to listen to Kissinger who at 99, in a recent article, had invaluable advice to offer to the West: “The question will now be how to end that war. At its end a place has to be found for Ukraine and a place has to be found for Russia — if we don’t want Russia to become an outpost of China in Europe.” President Putin’s dilemma of whether to consolidate gains which are being reversed by expanding the range of weapons (which is implicitly acknowledging the possibility of using small tactical nuclear weapons) is bringing the international community closer to a major conflict than any other time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. In his last public declaration a few days ago, he threatened to renege on arms control agreements and to resume testing. These shifts in Russian policy directly impact EU’s security. Sitting secure across the Atlantic, the American neo-con have a different outlook based on an overriding false premise: that the US military, financial, technological, and economic superiority enables it to dictate terms in all regions of the world. It is a position of both remarkable hubris and remarkable disdain of evidence. The neo-cons are ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia’s vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry. The facts on the ground, however, suggest otherwise.  The West’s economic sanctions have had little adverse impact on Russia.  Moreover, the US capacity to resupply Ukraine with ammunition and weaponry is seriously hamstrung by America’s limited production capacity and broken supply chains. Russia’s industrial capacity of course dwarfs that of Ukraine’s.  Ukraine has now lost much of its industrial capacity in the war. The most likely outcome of the current fighting is that Russia will conquer a large swath of Ukraine, perhaps leaving Ukraine landlocked or nearly so.  Frustration will rise in Europe and the US with the military losses and the adverse consequences of war and sanctions.  This could result in the rise of extreme right-wing parties within the EU. Italy is the latest example. Why focus only on Russia’s weaknesses?  Why not analyse the West’s own vulnerabilities and threats to the EU’s political as well as economic health? As recognition grows that war will only end with a negotiated settlement, a proactive policy could maximize Western leverage before months of turmoil erode it furthur. More and more weapons might lead to a Ukrainian victory, or they might cause more and more destruction that imposes devastating burdens not only on Ukraine, but on a fragile European Union as well. Instead of risking this disaster, the real solution is to end the neo-con fantasies of the past 30 years and for Ukraine and Russia to return to the negotiating table, with NATO committing to end its commitment to the eastward enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia in return for a viable peace that respects and protects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Some in the West speak of a possible mediating role for India as president of the G20. At present, the West would like Russia to accept a peace deal with return to status quo. That is neither realistic nor probable. Why should India waste its political capital by urging a one sided peace deal to Russia? What would India gain? The present climate is not conducive to mediation. The Americans would like to continue hostilities till the last standing Ukrainian on the battlefield. What India could bring to an eventual mediation upon request by both sides is the conviction as PM Modi said earlier to President Putin that this is not an era of war. India brings the concept of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and of the wisdom of Bhagavad Gita (2-38-39): “Prepare for war with peace in thy soul. Be in peace in pleasure and pain, in gain and in loss, in victory or in the loss of a battle. In this peace there is no sin”. The author is a former Ambassador of India to the Netherlands. Views expressed are personal. Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .