Kamala, Zelensky, Russia and NATO
No negotiations, no peace, but what about NATO?
Presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris says she will not talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin without Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.
Ukraine’s war, which is NATO’s war, is going badly. NATO’s future is in doubt.
Meanwhile Zelensky, who was just forced to cancel a forthcoming "peace summit" (officially postponed to a future time) because no one wanted to come, has made it clear he will not negotiate with Moscow under any circumstances.
Zelensky understands that any concession he might make to Russia would be fatal for him. As his army is beginning to disintegrate, Zelensky is relying on neo-Nazi elite brigades for his protection.
Because Zelensky is unlikely to move, various "peace formulas" being floated in Europe won't change anything or influence the outcome.
The basic Euro-idea is to try and freeze the conflict, concede that Russia will continue to occupy parts of Ukraine for now, and bring Ukraine into NATO or, if that isn't possible, some sort of security guarantees for the future. Under this approach, Ukraine could rebuild its military, gets its economy back on track, and confront the Russians some years in the future when the prospects are better.
The Russians don't have to reject the latest idea because, thanks to Zelensky, it is DOA (Dead on Arrival). Of course that won't stop Europe and some in Washington for pushing the proposal anyway, while shoveling more arms to Ukraine, hoping the Ukrainians can hold out until well after the US elections. Should Ukraine go belly up before the end of October, it would be chaos for the Democrats in the US and also would likely collapse the German government, perhaps even the shaky French regime.
Most experts don't think that will happen. But most experts often are wrong.
Meanwhile, for their part the Russians won't accept a cease fire in place since it offers them nothing. The Russians clearly want Ukraine to be demilitarized and neutral, and probably won't accept NATO-led security guarantees (although Russian public statements are ambiguous). Officially Russia wants Luhansk, Donbas, Zaphorize, and the Crimea recognized (all have been annexed to Russia), and it demands protection of Russian-speakers in Ukraine.
There is little or no prospect that Russia's demands will be met, neither by the current Ukrainian government or by most NATO countries. For that reason, the Zelensky hard line, so long as it lasts, assures that Russia's real goal will be to replace Ukraine's government altogether with one favorable to Russia and willing to agree to Moscow's claims.
If the Russians can pull it off, then NATO will have to retrench, something it must do anyway if the alliance is to retain any credibility. Unfortunately, despite a lot of bravado talk, the chance to revitalize NATO as a military alliance, does not look promising.
There are profound reasons why NATO is floundering, despite appearances. The biggest reason of all is that NATO has been expanding without paying attention to its need to be a credible defensive alliance.
Ukraine is part of that expansion, and under US and EU pressure, the expansion is spreading to Central Asia, as far as Armenia.
A greater NATO is an alliance without defensible borders, as is increasingly obvious. That is why Ukraine is getting chewed up, despite emptying western arsenals to try and save it. The Russians won't neglect Central Asia or Armenia when the time comes.
It is regrettable that NATO has talked itself into this mess. NATO today is about expansion, not defense. When it comes to defense, NATO is utterly reliant on the United States, and America's commitment to send its army, air force and Navy to defend NATO expansion.
NATO expansion as a policy requires vast military commitments by America's allies. That won't happen. It is fair to ask, what does the US gain by supporting an expansionist NATO policy? There is growing unease in the United States about the hundreds of billions wasted on Ukraine, with no settlement now possible. At some point that policy will result in a major walk-back from the NATO alliance, and from any commitment to defend Europe when it really does little to defend itself.