Putin’s effort to split NATO may depend on Germany | TheHill – The Hill

Make no mistake, Russias fundamental strategic objective in coercing Ukraine is to undermine NATO. In Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRussia crisis exacerbates US political divisions Americans should be paying attention to Ukraine White House says it's nixing use of 'imminent' to describe Russian invasion MOREs mind, a weaker NATO directly correlates with a stronger Russia. Long-festering policy differences within the alliance, self-inflicted vulnerabilities to external pressures and weak political leadership in key Western states are already on full display. Ponderous rhetoric about NATO solidarity, endlessly repeated by the Biden administration, only underscores rather than conceals these problems.

Putin well understands these phenomena. He is actively seeking to exacerbate existing tensions and weaknesses, and create new ones, and has already made significant progress in undercutting the alliance. Today, these divisions eviscerate the credibility of threatened post-invasion sanctions against Russia, no matter how serious the West might be. If Russia remains undeterred, the long-term damage to Americas global position, compounding the corrosive effects of the Afghan withdrawal, could be incalculable.

NATOs problems are hardly new. Not for nothing was Henry Kissingers pathbreaking mid-1960s analysis entitled The Troubled Partnership. Nonetheless, the undeniable Soviet Cold War threat; Americas sustained, vitally important perception that ensuring Europes security enhanced its own; and U.S. leaders like Ronald Reagan, determined to defeat communism not merely manage or contain it, ultimately prevailed. NATO members collective-defense commitments held, and the USSR collapsed. The story becomes vaguer from there, with upticks after 9-11 and during the ensuing war on Islamicist terrorism.

During the 1990s generally-shared Western euphoria (remember the end of history?), NATOs expansion was both inevitable and beneficial to all involved. But Washington failed to think through how far NATO should grow. There was talk of possibly including Russia at some point, although that opportunity, not nurtured seriously during the Clinton administration, died through inattention. Spains former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar proposed making NATO a global alliance, including members such as Japan, Australia and Israel, but Europes burghers were uninterested.

Unfortunately, and critical here, NATOs eastern European flank was left unfinished, with many former Soviet republics isolated in an ambiguous, clearly dangerous grey zone between NATO and Russia. In 2008, with bipartisan support, President George W. Bush proposed fast-tracking NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Germany and France blocked the move, and now assert tautologically that not being NATO members means they are of no special concern to the alliance. Contemporary criticisms that Ukraine is not ready for NATO membership because of corruption and an unsteady democracy overlook Bushs prior initiative. They also conveniently ignore that eastern and central European states admitted after the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union collapsed were hardly clones of Luxembourg or Canada.

But who determines the strategic status of the grey-zone countries? Ukraine exemplifies this issue, struggling to shed its communist past and create durable representative government. While key national territory has already been annexed or subjugated by Moscow, Ukrainians nonetheless still believe they should decide their international future. Russia believes it should decide, and many Europeans and Americans seemingly agree: Russia is powerful, borders Ukraine and there are historic antecedents. Perhaps we should ask Chinas neighbors how they feel about that logic. Not long ago, we could have asked that question of Germanys neighbors.

Undeniably, Ukraine is now under brutal pressure, including the palpable risk of further Russian military invasion. In response, President BidenJoe BidenOath Keepers leader spoke to Jan. 6 panel from detention center Biden nominee faces scrutiny over fintech work, compensation Overnight Defense & National Security Pentagon deploying 3,000 troops to Europe MORE has not solidified the alliance. He has in fact increased its divisions through his soon-to-be-historical banter about minor incursions, desperate efforts to concede something to Moscow to halt the march toward military hostilities and public disagreement with Ukraine itself on the imminence of a Russian attack. Observers watch daily for more signs of Biden going wobbly.

Europes reaction is mixed. Despite domestic political turmoil, Great Britain has been firm, even ahead of the U.S. by some measures. Eastern and central European NATO members need no lectures on the Kremlins threat, and they are wholly resolute, notwithstanding reliance on Russian natural gas. More distant NATO countries are less visible, but at least not obstructionist. France is being France, with President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronGermany's chancellor says he will not be at Beijing Olympics Americans should be paying attention to Ukraine Merkley slams 'shameful' decision by UN secretary-general to attend Beijing Olympics MORE, facing a difficult reelection race, pirouetting around the international stage searching for attention.

Then theres Germany. Basing its reluctance to do much of anything on its recent history, Berlin has it exactly backwards. Precisely this history should impel Germans to be the most steadfast and resolute opponent of efforts to change European borders by politico-military aggression. Of all European countries, Germany owes this to its neighbors, in concrete deeds not just words. Instead, it has been passive at best, and frequently unhelpful. This is NATOs core weakness, and Putin is pounding on it for all he is worth.

Germany led Europe in ignoring Reagans 1980s admonitions not to become dependent on Russian oil and gas. Incredibly, Russias Gazprom hired former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to help complete the first Nordstream pipeline, begun during his tenure. Schroeders successors effectively did nothing to mitigate Germanys vulnerability and now act as if terminating Nordstream II is unthinkable. Maybe the devil made them do it.

Germany has not come within sight of meeting NATOs 2014 Cardiff agreement that members spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. It has long refused to provide Ukraine with lethal military aid, and recently barred Estonia from sending German-origin weapons to Kyiv. Berlins offers to send 5,000 military helmets and a field hospital were greeted with well-deserved mockery and incredulity. To top it off, the commander of Germanys navy was recently fired for all but supporting Russias position.

Newly-installed Chancellor Olaf Scholz will meet Biden in Washington on Feb 7. They have a lot to talk about. Germany was delighted to shelter under Cold War Americas nuclear umbrella and NATOs European fastnesses. We will soon see if Germany is ready to do the right thing by Ukraine. Putin is watching closely.

John Boltonwas national security adviser toPresident TrumpDonald TrumpConservative leader O'Toole ousted in Canada Biden nominee faces scrutiny over fintech work, compensation Overnight Defense & National Security Pentagon deploying 3,000 troops to Europe MOREfrom 2018 to 2019, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006 and held senior State Department posts in 2001-2005 and 1985-1989. His most recent book isThe Room Where It Happened"(2020). He is the founder ofJohn BoltonJohn BoltonPutin's effort to split NATO may depend on Germany Belarus is risking its independence for a Russia-centric foreign policy Former Trump officials plotting effort to blunt his impact on elections: report MORE Super PAC, a political action committee supporting candidates who believe in a strong U.S. foreign policy.

Read more:
Putin's effort to split NATO may depend on Germany | TheHill - The Hill