Nato’s struggle for relevance risks peace

As Stoltenberg did a volte-face, rifts over arming Ukraine have plagued the transatlantic alliance

Just hours after Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged member states to “stay on course” in supporting Ukraine, he in the ensuing alliance’s defence ministers meeting insisted allies to reiterate their determination to support Kyiv enrollment into the organisation and support the country through new financial pledges, a new training centre for Ukrainian pilots and provision of more air defence and ammunition.

As Stoltenberg did a volte-face to cover up the cracks within Nato, rifts over arming Ukraine have plagued the transatlantic alliance. After US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and former British defence secretary Ben Wallace in July suggested Kyiv should express “gratitude” to the West for its military support, filing of a complaint by Ukraine at the World Trade Organization against three Nato members — Hungary, Poland and Slovakia — in response to their import bans on Ukrainian farm produce irked Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki who in September dialed back from his commitment of bolstering Ukraine’s defence, suspending weapon transfers to Kyiv.

The fissures in Nato are widening as the US and European Union struggle to develop a consensus on providing additional military aid to Ukraine with the Hamas-Israel war undermining diplomatic support for Ukraine in the South and key coalition members remain ambivalent hastening the process of Kyiv’s enlistment to the elite panel. While an EU proposal of extending $21.4 billion military package to Kyiv over the next four years has been subject to internal schism since European countries are unwilling to pledge such large sums years in advance, it indicates Brussels is expecting war to last long that will take a further toll on the war-battered bloc’s economy.

America’s willingness to channel military assistance to Israel is additionally making Nato’s fundamental objective of securing a lasting peace in Europe more distant as US President Joe Biden’s request is encountering steep challenges to get through the Congress where House and Senate are divided over providing $61.4 billion in military and other assistance to Kyiv.

Sensing an impasse in the Ukraine war and seeing enthusiasm fading away for Kyiv in American and European capitals, Stoltenberg’s frustration has become more marked. Hoping the US would sustain its support for Ukraine despite divisions, he warned the EU about “dangerous” implications if Russia wins.

His apprehensions compounded after Slovakia’s new Prime Minister Robert Fico in October announced stopping military aid to Ukraine, stating that an immediate halt of military operations was the best solution for Ukraine and urging the EU “should change from an arms supplier to a peacemaker”. His warning not to vote for any sanctions on Russia that “will harm us, like most sanctions have” and the intent to block Kyiv’s bid to join Nato, in addition to testing fragile EU-Nato unity, signals a cynicism on a military solution.

Since the end of the cold war, Nato has been transforming itself to survive and keep its relevance in world affairs. The organisation carried out military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995-2004) and Kosovo (1999). It also actively participated in the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan. The alliance is currently engaged in non-combative advisory and capacity-building missions in Africa and Iraq and maritime security in the Mediterranean.

But while Stoltenberg’s December 2019 promise that the organisation would “no way” move into the regional waterways has been belied by actions, Nato’s move to expand its scope to the Indo-Pacific by opening a liaison office in Japan and the secretary general’s insistence to work with partners –Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea — in the recent summit is an effort that may help preserve the organisation’s relevance and elevate its chances of survival but risks subverting regional peace and putting world powers at each other’s throats.

For the first time in June 2022, these countries attended Nato summit in Madrid. The coalition’s push to strengthen ties and expansion into the Indo-Pacific partners was seen by former Australian prime minister Paul Keating and French President Emmanuel Macron as foolish and “a big mistake”. Still, Nato continues to hold dialogue with the Indo-Pacific countries, which may shove the region into a new cold war.

With the Ukraine conflict grinding on, war fatigue is infiltrating the Ukrainians and West as symbolised by divisions within the US Congress to continue sending arms to Kyiv and European amnesia about Ukraine’s EU and Nato membership. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s acknowledgment — “Yes. A lot of people, of course, in the world are tired” and that recruiting troops had become a serious challenge, as well as the fact that EU has delivered less than a third of the artillery shells it promised to Ukraine in one year through March 2024 — indicate the war, if not earlier, is entering a stalemate.

Heightened tensions in the Middle East have raised concerns that the US may not be able to sustain the level of diplomatic and military support to Ukraine it has given so far; the Hamas-Israel conflict just highlights the underlying problem of war fatigue. The contraction of America’s deep pockets for Ukraine before the Mideast crisis was symptomatic of this looming phenomenon.

Stoltenberg is watching the new backsliding arthritically, fretting that this could cost his job in July when Nato will likely name its new secretary general. Former Norwegian prime minister, whose term has been extended four times during the Ukraine war, is facing intense competition from rival candidates, campaigning to replace him as a “consensus builder” and with “clear vision” on Russia.

The secretary general is indeed trying to exploit tensions in the Western Balkans and Indo-Pacific to dilate the Nato purview, scoop up the organisation’s relevance and bolster its struggle for survival. While these efforts are shifting focus from ending the crisis on the European shores and fueling more divisions within the grouping, such attempts to spark confrontations could turn into a full-blown global conflagration, igniting war flames and engulfing other parts of the world that will be a disaster for the entire plant.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 15^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.