NATO’s war against Russia is progressing through three distinct phases: euphoria, apprehension, and despair.
Phase I. Euphoria
The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, caused a sense of euphoria in Washington and at NATO headquarters. The tactic of escalating Moscow’s anxiety about Ukraine’s impending NATO membership had proven successful. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a European Parliament joint committee meeting: “So he (Putin) went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders….”
Stoltenberg inadvertently unveiled the truth. The conflict did not begin because Putin sought to resurrect the Soviet Union or out of fear of Ukrainian democracy. Stoltenberg and the leadership of NATO were fully aware that Russia would eventually be compelled to act according to its security imperatives and invade Ukraine to alleviate the NATO threat at its borders.
The cunning aspect of this plan was a deception. NATO never had any intention of granting membership to Ukraine. Therefore, even the most fervent supporters of NATO cannot deny that it was NATO’s deliberate provocation that ignited the war.
The next steps appeared pretty straightforward.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, informed lawmakers during closed-door briefings before the invasion on February 2 and 3, 2022, that an anticipated full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine might lead to Kyiv’s capture in just 72 hours.
The strategy entailed deliberately allowing Ukraine to collapse, which would prompt the West to impose devastating economic sanctions. The objectives were the destruction of the Russian economy, the resignation of Putin, and, ultimately, the elimination of Russia as a European powerAfter Russia’s unsuccessful attempt to capture Kiev, there was a surge of wild optimism within NATO circles. There was a prevailing notion that Russia’s military strength was not as formidable as previously believed. Thus, NATO saw an opportunity not only to destroy the Russian economy but also to defeat Russia militarily.
The US and its NATO allies decided to set aside any pretenses and fully engage in the conflict, providing Ukraine with modern weaponry, intelligence, training, financing, and all necessary resources to bolster NATO’s chances of prevailing, all while upholding a facade of plausible deniability. Ukraine was supposed to bear the brunt of battle and pay the cost in blood and destruction.
The plan held considerable plausibility, and the data supported it. In 2022, NATO’s defense budget exceeded Russia’s by 13-fold (NATO’s one trillion dollars versus Russia’s $75 billion). The combined GDP of all 31 members amounted to a staggering $46 trillion. In comparison, Russia’s GDP was a mere two trillion dollars. The population of NATO countries was 1.2 billion, while Russia had 145 million. Judging by the numbers, Russia appeared to be an easy target.
Phase II. Apprehension
Despite the numbers, the multibillion-dollar investment, the massive supply of modern weaponry, the hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, and the massive destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure, none of the NATO objectives have been achieved two and a half years later. Putin’s grip on power remains unshaken, and the sanctions have failed to significantly affect the Russian economy. Moreover, Russia is successfully building a formidable military-industrial complex, engineering and producing weapons that often surpass Western designs in capability and innovation.
This sobering reality forced NATO to reshape the conflict and develop a new strategy. The new approach revolved around a protracted war of attrition aimed at debilitating Russia both economically and militarily.
It is becoming exceedingly evident that America and its Western allies became a hostage of sanctions and found themselves trapped between the continuation of war and economic and military realities. From this untenable situation, they could see no exit and continued doing the same things, expecting different results. The European Union has now enforced its 14th set of sanctions, prompting one to question what this latest round can achieve that the previous 13 could not. Meanwhile, NATO is in the process of organizing the provision of F-16s and other advanced weaponry to Ukraine.
Phase III. Despair
The conflict has now escalated to its most critical stage when desperate people do desperate things. As the tables turned in favor of Russia, NATO is running out of options. The situation led to a series of reckless and incendiary remarks from Western officials and NATO leaders advocating for a significant escalation of the conflict beyond Ukraine’s borders by launching attacks on Russia territory using long-range missiles supplied by NATO countries.
The US and its NATO partners are delusional and fail to realize that they are facing an unwinnable situation. It is the immutable fact that a nuclear-armed state cannot be defeated. If Ukraine loses, it will be perceived as NATO’s defeat. Conversely, if Russia falters, it will inevitably result in a nuclear war. Two and half years ago, NATO leaders provoked the Russian invasion, leading to a tragic outcome. Now, as to validate their lack of sanity, they are frantically escalating the conflict, which may lead to a catastrophe. Clearly, regardless of how we analyze the situation, it is becoming increasingly dire for the US and its allies militarily and geopolitically.
During the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on December 5, 1994, Russia’s president, Boris Yeltsin, vehemently accused Clinton of “trying to split [the] continent again through NATO’s eastward expansion.” President Biden has taken it a step further; he is, by inciting conflict with Russia, on a mission to split the world.
The conflict has facilitated the creation of a formidable anti-Western coalition currently consisting of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Other countries will likely join it in the future as the war continues. And it will, as NATO has been better at starting wars than at knowing how to finish them. If the coalition evolves into an alliance, it will surpass NATO in terms of human and natural resources, economic power, and military capabilities. Ultimately, it might be America’s most critical geopolitical blunder ever, as this rival may weaken America’s dominance and diminish its influence.
In his essay “Perpetual Peace,” philosopher Immanuel Kant argued three centuries ago that humanity’s path to universal peace would be through human insight or catastrophic conflict.
Regretfully, as long as we are led by untutored people who lack moral and strategic foresight and fail to grasp the perilous nature of the policies they promote, and as long as we have a military alliance that, after fulfilling its original purpose, seeks out new adversaries to justify its existence, peace by way of human insight appears increasingly remote.