When Iraq invaded Kuwait, late Jordanian King Hussein telephoned President Saddam Hussein to request that he pull back his forces and return to negotiations to resolve disputes. Saddam replied: “They had gone too far and needed to be taught a lesson.”
He tried to imply that the operation was simply an effort to discipline the other, but subsequent developments demonstrated that it was greater and more dangerous than that. The Iraqi invasion led to an earthquake that backfired on Iraq itself and Saddam.
When Vladimir Putin amassed his forces on the Ukrainian border, European leaders didn’t believe that he would actually invade it. They dismissed the action as an act of intimidation at most.
Saddam’s Iraq is nothing like Putin’s Russia. But some voices in the West are starting to claim that the outcomes of the invasion of Ukraine will not meet the expectations of the invader. They say that NATO today is more powerful than ever, since its formation during the time of Joseph Stalin. They believe that Ukraine today is closer to NATO than any time before, even if it has yet to officially join the alliance.
The best evidence of this is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent comments. Erdogan – who along with Putin is engaged in Syria and who had introduced Russian missiles to NATO – received Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the weekend and told him that his country deserves to become a member of the alliance.
We musn’t forget the visit by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to Beijing , who said it was impossible to separate the American and Chinese economies. She also spoke of placing relations between the major powers on more solid ground.
It is no exaggeration to say that it isn’t in the world’s interest to see a wounded, isolated and unstable Russia. We also musn’t forget that Finland, which had abandoned its neutral status to join NATO, enjoys a 1,340 km-long border with Russia.
A decade ago, Europeans whispered that NATO had lost the reasons for its existence. They believed that threats had died down with the collapse of the Soviet Union. They believed that Russia wasn’t an enemy and that its generals’ longing for their Soviet past was nothing more than that. European countries believed that it was time for Europe to defend itself, instead of continuing to rely on the United States.
NATO was revived when Putin reclaimed Crimea in 2014. NATO leaders ignored Putin’s statements that Ukraine was never an independent nation.
Doubt over NATO’s purpose died when Russian tanks crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border on February 24, 2022. Months later, several parties concluded that Ukraine would never have been invaded had it successfully joined NATO.
When NATO members meet in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Tuesday, they will all be reminded that the summit is practically being held on Belarus’ border and a short distance from Russia’s borders. Putin has the right to be angered by the choice of host city - a former Soviet member – that will be used to deliver a firm message that the West will deny Russia a victory in Ukraine. The summit will guarantee that the generous western support to Ukraine will continue for years to come.
Putin knows that the NATO family would not have grown to more than 30 members had former Soviet countries not betrayed their past. Perhaps the greatest evidence of the West’s commitment to Ukraine is Washington’s agreement last week to supply it with cluster bombs in spite of some NATO members’ great opposition to the weapons.
The invasion of Ukraine awakened in its people a sense of their national identity. A recent survey showed that 70 percent of the people supported the continuation of the fight against Russia and refuse to relinquish an inch of Ukrainian land to it. Zelenskyy, a regular politician, has been transformed into a national symbol and a star across Europe.
One can say that the invasion helped consolidate the American leadership of NATO. Even though the European reaction to the Russian war exceeded expectations, the Europeans themselves have acknowledged that Ukraine’s continued resistance comes down to the firm American stance, which was translated into generous support that was in turn backed up by aid from major European powers.
It is unlikely that the gatherers at Vilnius will agree to Ukraine’s immediate official membership in NATO because that would lead to major dangers, foremost of which is the possibility that the alliance would become involved in a direct confrontation with Russia, which continues to remind everyone of its nuclear arsenal.
Of course, the summit will send a clear message that Ukraine will ultimately join NATO. It may provide it with a military, intelligence and financial support program for years to come, allowing Ukraine to continue the fight, even if its counteroffensive slows down. Some parties have spoken of a possible American support program, similar to the one it offers Israel, that would remain in place until the conflict ends, or Ukraine formally joins NATO.
The Vilnius summit is being held 500 days after the eruption of the war. It is hard to believe that Ukraine will reclaim all of its territories from Russia. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that Russia would be capable of deciding the war in its favor or force Ukraine to surrender.
A quick solution to the conflict, which has left around half a million people dead and injured, does not loom on the horizon. Rather, the conflict is likely to destabilize faraway countries because of its impact on energy and grain prices.
The image of the master of the Kremlin took a hit after the Wagner crisis but it did not impact Russia’s ability to continue the war. The message of the Vilnius summit is clear: The war is on and Russia must be denied a victory. NATO is aware of the danger of dealing Russia a resounding defeat, but it is also sending a provocative message that it has gone too far and needs to be taught a lesson.
