Who is popular today?

KANISA GEORGE

For weeks international news outlets have been dominated by reports of military readiness and aid to Ukraine amid the Russia vs the West showdown. Buzz words like Belarus, Kyiv, and military operations have painted a grim picture of a very likely Russian invasion, which according to the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has the potential to be the most significant war since 1945.
This current state of unrest isn't new, and perhaps efforts by key international players who have either silenced the fallout or found ways to reduce its impact have run out of ways to keep war at bay. For years Ukraine has moved to shed its Russian imperial legacy and forge increasingly close ties with the West. In response, Moscow has strongly criticised the US and its North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) allies for providing Ukraine with weapons and holding joint drills, which, based on Moscow's account, has encouraged Ukrainian to try to regain the rebel-held areas by force.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said Ukraine's aspirations to join NATO are a red line and expressed concern about plans by some NATO members to set up military training centres in Ukraine. Putin believes that this would give them a military foothold in the region even without Ukraine joining NATO. What is clear is that NATO is at the heart of this fallout – one that can have substantial international ramifications. In December 2021, Russia sent a list of security demands to the US outlining its position on Ukraine and its bid to join NATO. Ukraine's ability to gain admission to the alliance would require the unanimous approval of the 30 states, and from all appearances, Russia isn't a happy camper. Beyond the obvious issues of domination and power often associated with global conflicts, NATO is at the centre of it all. But what does NATO have to do with anything? In fact, who or what is NATO?
Founded to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down, NATO was once viewed as the world's most powerful military alliance. With a little over 70 years under its belt, at inception it consisted of ten European nations, the US and Canada, and was deemed necessary to "shape the peace" after the Second World War. The NATO military alliance was created to counter the threat of communist expansion by the USSR in Europe and is, according to some proponents, a collective defence arrangement used to place the whole of Western Europe under the American "nuclear umbrella." Under the agreement, members seek to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. Accordingly, one key feature of the treaty has to be the military doctrine of "massive retaliation," or what is commonly known as collective defence.
The principle of collective defence is laid out in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and it guarantees that the resources of the whole alliance can be used to protect any single member nation. The treaty sees an armed attack against one as aggression against all, and the alliance will react with any action necessary, including armed force. For example, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attack on the US, Article 5 was invoked, resulting in NATO allied forces invading Afghanistan.
Most supporters of NATO agree that this is one of the most important features of the alliance as it seeks to protect smaller countries that would be defenceless without its allies. NATO's existence depends on its member countries contributing forces. As such, it's only as strong as the individual forces of each nation. As a collective, each country must put enough resources into its defence.
Article 3 states that in order to achieve the objectives of the treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, using continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. Under the NATO guidelines, each country should be spending two per cent of its GDP on defence, but one report found that most countries are not reaching that target. So, is it no longer easy to sustain, and is it even necessary in the modern world?
Alexander Vershbow, former deputy secretary-general of NATO, supports its continued existence in the face of Russian hostility. Several supporters believe it remains essential to deter Russian aggression, along with the threat of nuclear power. One former US ambassador to Ukraine proffered that foreign policy is more effective, more realistic, and less risky when you have allies, and NATO provides this security.
But is the threat still real? National interest contributor Sharon Tennison proffers that Europe is no longer under threat, and world leaders need to reassess expenditures of resources that address real and present dangers to their stability. A somewhat controversial position is the view that the US's conflict with Russia is political, not military, and merely requires creative diplomacy instead of the "blunt military instrument that is NATO."
Is the Russian vs the West clash a show of bravado, or the need to flaunt nuclear power? In the heights of this potentially deadly show boating, one thing is unmistakable – nothing can stop man's need to disrupt peace.
The post Russia vs the West appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.