Vladimir Putin’s encroachment on Ukraine continues unchecked as the West hesitates
Brussels, the European Union capital, is currently filled with a sense of uncertainty as everyone eagerly awaits the US presidential election and the confirmation hearings of a new European Commission.
However, amidst this sense of paralysis, one person remains unfazed by the constraints of democratic politics – Vladimir Putin.
Putin’s aggressive war tactics on European soil, utilizing Iranian drones and possibly North Korean forces, continue to advance, slowly but steadily.
Despite NATO recognizing the small tactical gains made by Russia, these incremental victories may ultimately amount to a significant strategic advantage for Putin.
While Ukraine’s ability to maintain control over Russian territory in the Kursk region is commendable, the offensive has failed to achieve its primary goal of relieving the frontline in the Donbas region.
The Eastern European allies of the United States are acutely aware that they could potentially be Putin’s next targets if Ukraine falls. Border crossings from Lithuania and Latvia to Russia have been fortified with mines and barriers.
Although everyone expresses a desire for peace, the only person capable of immediately delivering it is Putin himself.
Unless Putin loses his resolve to fight, Ukraine and its Western allies must prepare to defend themselves.
Even if a hypothetical President Trump could negotiate a ceasefire by leveraging increased access to NATO-grade weapons for Ukraine, the sustainability of any agreement remains uncertain.
Many observers anticipate a potential settlement akin to the 38-parallel solution that ended the Korean War, sustained by America’s military strength in South Korea.
Understanding historical betrayals like the Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk Agreements, Ukrainians recognize the necessity of NATO membership or a comparable military alliance with the US to deter future conflicts.
There is a looming concern regarding the requirement for both military force and political will to back NATO membership effectively.
Currently, both the US military and European allies fall short in meeting their global commitments.
A study by the Kiel Institute suggests that if Germany’s Bundeswehr were to engage in the level of artillery usage seen in Ukraine, it would deplete its ammunition stocks within 70 days.
The political hurdles to increasing aid to Ukraine or boosting US and European defense budgets present additional challenges in ensuring collective Western defense in the event of Ukrainian NATO membership.
If doubts persist regarding the willingness of the collective West to intervene in Ukraine’s defense, particularly as a NATO member, the possibility of a lasting agreement, especially brokered by the US, grows increasingly distant.
The key to resolving this dilemma on both sides of the Atlantic lies in leadership. A strong and inspiring voice must awaken those who remain complacent, echoing the lessons learned from history where inaction led to dire consequences.
Perhaps, as in past conflicts, true leadership may only emerge in response to escalating threats.
Dalibor Rohac, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, provides these insights. Follow him on Twitter: @DaliborRohac.
