Beware Perpetuating NATO by Fanning the Flames with Russia (Le Figaro, France)
"The urgent
need for a solution in Ukraine is all the greater, since our security is
threatened in a far more serious fashion on another front … The atrocities
committed by terrorists of the Islamic State in Iraq,
how they were able to amass such resources, and their spectacular progress,
illustrate the failure of Western policy since the Arab uprisings began.
Whatever responsibility the Syrian regime bears for the emergence of the
Islamic State, the priority is no longer the ouster of a bloody dictator, but
preventing the creation of a jihadist state at the heart of the Arab world with
networks leading straight into European suburbs. … The absence of a strategy,
however, must not lead the Alliance to exacerbate the conflict with Russia for
the sole purpose of perpetuating itself."
The NATO summit in Wales was presented as a return to basics
for the Atlantic Alliance. After distant expeditions in places like
Afghanistan, the military organization will return to its initial raison d'ętre:
the defense of its member states directly threatened by Russia which, while no
longer Soviet, appears to have lapsed back into imperial ways.
Putin's activism in Ukraine is the best catalyst for a
transatlantic revival. But will the return of war to the gates of Europe be
sufficient to restore NATO to its raison d'ętre?
Every country with a Russian minority is concerned about
Moscow's new aggressiveness, which includes its direct intervention in Ukraine which
can no longer be denied, just six months after its unilateral annexation of
Crimea. NATO must reassure states concerned with actions capable of dissuading
Russia from testing the solidarity of Alliance. So as not to renege on the commitments
of the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, the permanent deployment of troops
sought by some in Central Europe is no more on the agenda than a military
confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. The creation of a rapid reaction force
of 4,000 men capable of intervening anywhere within 48 hours is meant to demonstrate
that Article 5 of the Alliance's founding charter, guaranteeing the collective defense
of all member states against external attack, will be implemented.
These precautions are not in vain at a time when in Ukraine -
the logic of war taking hold could encourage an uncontrollable build-up of
nationalism in Moscow. They however establish a marked distinction between
states that are members of NATO, and those like Ukraine which are not. They do
have the particular advantage of being less costly than the overall rise in defense
spending, which is indispensable, but which a Europe in crisis refuses to accept.
Like the sanctions imposed on Russia, the creation of a
rapid reaction force will not resolve the core issue of finding a compromise
acceptable to both Kiev and Moscow, which would contribute to preventing the
definitive partition of Ukraine and prevent a sustained armed conflict in
Europe from taking root. Without a clearly defined strategy to achieve this goal,
NATO seriously risks failing in its essential mission and showing itself
incapable of preventing chaos from taking hold within its borders.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The failure of the Ukrainian military offensive
against the pro-Russian rebels should encourage Western governments to put
pressure on Kiev with a view to a ceasefire and a real negotiation with
Moscow. In the absence of an agreement giving Ukraine a special status of
neutrality between NATO and Russia, a new “iron curtain” will come crashing
down before our eyes and divide the continent.
The urgency of a solution in Ukraine is all the greater,
since our security is threatened in a far more serious way on another front:
the destabilization of the Middle East. The atrocities committed by terrorists
of the Islamic State in Iraq, how they were able to amass such resources, and
their spectacular progress, illustrate the failure of Western policy in the
region since the Arab uprisings began. Whatever responsibility the Syrian regime
bears for the emergence of the Islamic State, the priority is no longer the
ouster of a bloody dictator, but preventing the creation of a jihadist state at
the heart of the Arab world with networks leading straight into European
suburbs.
Barack Obama is right to want to assemble an international
coalition to achieve this. It will have to be as broad as possible. However, it
is urgent that he adopt a strategy, especially in Syria, which he admits he has
"not yet" defined.
Outside the transatlantic area, NATO is not the ideal
instrument. It has demonstrated its limitations during the long-term
intervention in Afghanistan, where nothing has really been resolved after the
longest and most expensive operation it has ever conducted. That the Alliance
is refocusing on its original mission is a good thing. The absence of a
strategy, however, must not lead the Alliance to exacerbate the conflict with
Russia for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself.
*Pierre Rousselin is Deputy Editor
of Le Figaro in charge of international
news.
