Russia’s NATO Problem: The Hindu Editorial on Ukraine War

Russia’s unwarranted incursions into Ukraine after weeks of building troop formations along their shared border have raised tensions in the region with wide-ranging effects around the world, particularly for NATO countries and others that have strategic ties with the two countries. keep. Reports said several Ukrainian cities, including the capital Kiev, came under attack on Thursday morning, even as the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting to halt the invasion. US President Joe Biden and the leadership of NATO and the European Commission vowed to impose “severe sanctions” on Russia. This round of sanctions will eliminate prior economic penalties imposed on Russian entities and individuals close to the political leadership, and is expected to involve cutting top Russian banks from the financial system, halting technology exports and directly targeting the Russian president. Is. Moscow is hardly surprised by the response, as it has shown little sympathy for the idea of ​​Ukraine getting diplomatically involved in the question to address Russian security concerns. Ever since Russia began gathering troops along the Ukrainian border, the US, NATO and Europe have sought to press for a diplomatic solution. This includes direct US-Russia talks and French President Macron’s meeting with Mr. Putin.

While the sense of despair in Western capitals over Mr. Putin’s steadfastness and aggression is evident, and the use of severe sanctions that stems from it is a strategic imperative, it is unlikely that the potential for escalating violence and the devastating toll on human life and property in Ukraine is until then. That can be denied until Mr. Putin’s broader questions on NATO are answered. At the center of their fears is likely to join Ukraine’s NATO and NATO troops potentially deployed along the border with Russia. NATO’s historical record of its propensity for expansionism may have fueled such insecurities. Following the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, the Eastern European Military Alliance, NATO and Russia signed the “Founding Act” on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security in 1997. In defiance of the spirit of the agreement, NATO quietly expanded to five rounds during the 1990s, pulling countries from the former Soviet Union into its orbit. Cooperative exchanges, communications hotlines, and arms control verifications, such as Cold War fail-safes, have fallen even further since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. It may be the case that Mr. Putin’s failure to develop Russia into an economic superpower that naturally attracted neighboring countries and international capital was partly due, in part, to NATO and strategic questions related to Russia’s territorial integrity. Explains the deviation of Moscow’s attention. But unless Western nations assure Putin that NATO will not seek to continue expanding its footprint eastward, Moscow will have little incentive to return to the negotiating table. But Russia and Mr. Putin must understand that war is not a means to peace and security.