Sinking NATO: The Implications of All Out Support for Zelensky's Hard Line
Thanks to Starmer, Macron and Merz, NATO is on the rocks
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited London on Monday, December 8 where he met with Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Emmanuel Macron, President of France and Friedrich Merz, Chancellor of Germany. Two things happened: Zelensky made it clear (and expanded on the subject on his way to Brussels after the meeting) that Ukraine would not cede any territory to Russia. At the same time, the three leaders strongly supported using seized Russian assets ($245 billion) to fund Ukraine’s war. Keir Starmer claimed that in the meeting with Zelensky they “discussed positive progress made to use immobilized Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine’s reconstruction.” Actually, there is strong opposition in Europe to the use of Russia’s assets, led by Belgium, Italy, Hungary and Slovakia, with serious doubts expressed in France and Germany (despite seemingly acceding to Starmer). The US also is strongly opposed.
The three European leaders, all of whom are deeply unpopular and face hostile electorates, may think they are saving Zelensky from a predatory Putin and from Donald Trump, the hated American president, but actually they have freed the Trump administration from any need to forge a compromise on Ukraine. By backing Zelensky and undermining Trump’s efforts, Trump can now focus on US geopolitical priorities. Along with China, Russia is critical for American policy. The 2025 National Security Strategy makes it clear the US wants to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia.”
What does “strategic stability with Russia” mean? It means a return to a more balanced relationship between the two superpowers. Part of the restoration obviously means ending NATO expansion and keeping Ukraine out of NATO. The new National Security Strategy follows this approach. It means a considerable rethinking of the NATO alliance. NATO cannot be opposed to US geopolitical leadership if the alliance will continue. Thanks to Starmer, Macron and Merz, NATO is on the rocks.
The 2025 National Security Strategy openly worries about Europe’s industrial, social and political decline, and the loss of freedoms not only on the periphery (Romania, for example) but at the core in France, Germany and the UK (where even some local elections have been delayed at least for the next two years and where the UK government has tried to intimidate and suppress the opposition).
In a stunning statement about Europe, the National Security Strategy declares “Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.”
The US is not going to openly break with NATO, but it is shifting the burden of responsibility onto Europe, declaring the US won’t continue “unfairly” paying for European security. While the Europeans are now trying to increase their investment in defense (up to 5% pf GDP), it will be years before any real change takes place in Europe’s armed forces. Young people in Europe on the whole don’t want to serve in the army, and the alarm is great enough that France is initiating a limited form of military service and the Germans are instituting a form of a voluntary lottery system, seen as a first step to conscription. Britain’s army is crumbling and finding recruits is difficult, as the armed forces continue to shrink. The lack of funds in the UK makes reconstitution nearly impossible. Elsewhere, in Poland, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced a plan to make all Polish men undergo compulsory military training.
Thus there is a massive gap between intentions and reality when it comes to European rearmament or any ability to replace the United States to assure stability in Europe. Under these circumstances, the decision by the “big three” plus Zelensky to undermine the US initiatives on Ukraine and Russia looks suicidal, and it is.
It may be that some sort of Ukraine negotiations stumble forward, but unless Kiev’s government changes hands (Trump is calling for elections) and changes its policy, the chance for any negotiations is slim to none. The administration will try and pursue improved ties to Russia, notwithstanding the Europeans, and look to lower the nuclear threshold with arms agreements, if it can and if the Russians are willing. In parallel, Washington could start lifting sanctions or agree to waivers on certain sanctions, allowing for US business deals and investments in Russia. Moving this way generates its own momentum and leads to changes in the geopolitical landscape, as Washington refocuses on its core interests.
'NATO exists to confront the problems caused by its existence'
Prof Richard Sakwa, 2014
When Dwight Eisenhower took command of NATO in the early 1950s, he said at the time (to paraphrase) that if the U.S. still had military forces in Europe in ten years (the early 1960s) then NATO will have failed in its mission.
If the objective of NATO was to keep the peace in Europe, then NATO has been a dismal failure.
The expansion of NATO into eastern Europe is the primary cause of the current war. History would have turned out much differently had NATO stood down and been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. But that would have upset too many rice bowls, so here we are.
How would the USA behave if Mexico signed a mutual defense treaty with the PRC, followed by China pouring weapons and advisors into our southern neighbor. We would do to Mexico what we did to Iraq back in 2003; we would destroy the country. We were preparing to destroy Cuba during the Missile Crisis in 1962.
So Russia is behaving much as the USA would behave if we were in their position.
The road to a negotiated peace in this current war looks like a bridge too far insofar as I am concerned.