Opinion 
 

Opinion

Bursting the Bubble

A long-term solution is to accept the Russian veto over the Ukrainian membership of NATO since extending membership to Ukraine would only lead to European destabilization.

By Syed Zain Abbas Rizvi | February 2022


As the Russian troop buildup on the eastern Ukrainian border is being seen as a pretext of invasion or a full-scale warning to the United States, the recent development feels like a déjà vu! There is no surprise that Russia, under the stronghold leadership of Vladimir V Putin, could actually follow through with this threat. The panic is justified, and the preparatory drill in Ukraine is understandably not enough to eliminate the possibility. Artful diplomacy has all but failed to appease the risk of an attack, and threats never seem to deter Russia in its foothold.

An implication by Putin seems the only direction to put an end to this impending fiasco: a guarantee that Ukraine would be denied membership to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Yet, the US administration has made its position clear: it would not allow Moscow to dictate Ukrainian ambitions and military alliances. This impasse, however, seems superficial at best. To gauge a clear perspective, one should analyze the approach of each party involved and then answer one question: does this conflict even has any inherent meaning to risk a full-fledged war?

The US officials fixate on denying Putin any leverage in the geopolitical games in Europe. Despite a slew of threats of an invasion, the priority is to protect NATO policy, which is to allow any European nation the right to apply for NATO membership. Antony J. Blinken, the US Secretary of State, stated: “One country does not have the right to dictate the policies of another or tell that country with whom it may associate; one country does not have the right to exert a sphere of influence.” At face value, this notion appears to be a noble principle, but does the US itself abide by this principle in practice? I hardly think so!
Sidelining the gruesome warfare waged in Afghanistan and Iraq (bordering genocidal tendencies), let us talk about the US neighborhood: starting with Cuba. The economic turmoil is barely an alien concept to millions of Cubans. The reason is a decades-long US embargo imposed on Cuba. While the US officials maintain their stance of ‘conserving democracy,’ they fool no one. Every democracy around the globe knows that the Cubans are getting punished for deviating from the US viewpoint. In 2020, the United Nations General Assembly denounced the embargo by a vote: 184 to 2. And human rights activists have long been tagging this economic brutality as ‘indiscrimination.’

Probing further into Latin America, we come across another victim of the US political bullying: Venezuela. “The US officials are prepared to starve Venezuelans until their leadership surrenders, or they oust them out,” words of one European Union official. Their crumbling economy and debilitating social crisis is a manifestation of the extent to which the US can push its weak neighbours to fend off enemies - even economic foes - from its own hemisphere. One wonders how Mr. Blinken so blatantly vows US commitment to conserving European freedom when his own regime has been strangulating autonomy in its own backyard.


Picture this: Russian forces on Mexican borders or Chinese diplomats in Cuba. Even picturing the hypothetical scenario seems surreal. Mexico, sharing a long border with the US, serves as a perfect parallel to Ukraine. While Ukraine is being encouraged to stand up for its right to forge an alliance with NATO and house troops on the verge of Russian soil, the Mexican government has openly claimed that it cannot just take foreign policy decisions without US discretion. We are talking about inviting diplomats and dignitaries, let alone adversary troops on the US border. If Mexico is implicitly obliged by the US to take its security into account, then why isn’t Ukraine bound by the same barometer? How exactly is the US justified to rebut Russian aggression in its own sphere of influence? By no means do I support Russian regional bullying. And by no regard, I deny Ukrainian’s right to its own foreign policy. But that does not justify simply overlooking the US pressure in Latin America and saying - well, that is a notion relegated to the dustbin of history.

Having discussed the US hypocrisy, the Ukrainian path to NATO membership is studded (by default) with impediments almost impossible to supplant. One of the clauses in the NATO treaty states that the membership decisions are subject to the unanimous consent of all 30 member countries. That alone shatters the Ukrainian ambition to be a NATO member down the road. While the US, at least on paper, agrees to the notion, countries like Germany and France have long opposed the idea of inclusion. Even Biden has consistently soft-pedaled the proposition of extending NATO membership to Ukraine. The reason at the forefront is the Ukrainian flirtation with political corruption.

European officials have occasionally argued that Ukraine has failed to establish itself as a stable democracy - defying a fundamental tenet of NATO membership. In 2020, the Transparency International ranked Ukraine 117th out of 180 countries on its Corruption Index. The threshold far exceeded any NATO nation - a deal-breaker for aspiring a membership. Even Biden addressed the Ukrainian Parliament on his visit after the Russian invasion in 2014, adding: “This is a delicate thing to say to a group of leaders in their House of Parliament, but you have to fight against the cancer of corruption that is endemic in your system right now.” Clearly, the US and European officials already deem Ukraine unfit to be a member of NATO. However, the list of reasons goes further than merely a corrupt political system.

The reason at the heart of this tacit refusal is avoiding Russian aggression: both militarily and economically. The NATO covenant obligates the member countries to defend a member against an adversary in times of peril. This clause would bid the US and European nations directly at conflict with Russia should Ukraine attains membership. That is the core reason for European pessimism. While the United States has a dynamic economy and a fortified corner, its European vis-à-vis are vulnerable to Russian proximity. While the US could afford to be cavalier in butting heads with the Kremlin, countries like Germany have to pick their battles carefully. The history enlists the destructive example of Georgia in 2008 alongside the Crimean Annexation in 2014. Russia is a legitimate threat to Europe if provoked. Not only militarily, but Russia could severely impair the broader European economy - like withholding gas exports or disrupting the Crude market. The risks are high, and the decision is patent when we consider the Russian sway over the disinterest of NATO.

Ultimately, it is apparent that NATO has no immediate plans to induct Ukraine over and above the Russian threat. This impasse is merely a dilatory tactic to maintain a pretense of power. The Biden administration does not want to admit defeat and relinquish control in the geopolitical tug-of-war. And the European members do not want to embolden Putin in his draconian escapades. Yet, this facade won’t last long and the intimation of membership would not suffice Ukraine anymore.

Russia is bolstered by an understanding of reality; it now wants an acknowledgment of victory. It is high time that the US lets go of its naivety and accept the facts. NATO should also endorse the reality: extending membership to Ukraine would only lead to European destabilization. Thus, instead of prolonging tensions, a long-term solution is to swallow the bitter pill and accept the Russian veto over the Ukrainian membership of NATO. Because let us burst the bubble - it already wields that veto.

Read More