New York Times Op-Ed on NATO

and the Russia Ukraine Conflict

Yesterday, Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014 the New York Times has published an interesting opinion-editorial piece on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as it relates to the Russia Ukraine conflict. As the piece references, NATO was in a period of transition, if not an identity crisis. With the end of the Cold War, and now, reduced operations in Afghanistan, many have wondered as to what the future of NATO would look like. Being created as a Cold War security alliance and international organization, many have questioned the need for the international organization to continue to exist.

And yet, with the recent Russian actions in Ukraine, as the authors of the piece argue, “More than anyone, President Vladimir Putin of Russia has set the agenda for NATO’s 65 summit meeting this week, which could well be the most consequential since the Cold War ended.”

Here, NATO will most likely discuss their response to Russia’s support of separatist rebel forces in Eastern Ukraine. As the piece alludes to, there might be disagreement by NATO forces on how to best deal with the escalating situation in the Ukraine. From the piece,

“The question is whether NATO is up to the challenge of pushing back against Mr. Putin’s expansionist tendencies, starting with the need to reassure Eastern European countries that feel most threatened by Russia’s push into Ukraine. While leaders of NATO’s 28 member states are expected to reaffirm the alliance’s core principle of common defense — an attack on one is an attack on all — when they meet in Wales, they have serious differences that could undermine the initiatives intended to deal with Russia and other threats.

The summit meeting’s centerpiece is a formal agreement on a new rapid-reaction force of 4,000 troops, capable of deploying on 48 hours’ notice to protect any NATO member from external aggression, which under the current circumstances means Europe’s periphery — the Baltic States and Poland. Wisely, alliance members have decided to abide by the NATO-Russia Founding Act, a 1997 agreement under which NATO pledged not to base substantial forces in Eastern Europe permanently, which could harden the growing divide and make a diplomatic solution to Ukraine, if one is still possible, more difficult.”

I recommend reading the entire piece, as it points to serious issues that NATO will have to deal with regarding the Russia Ukraine conflict, but even more so, arguably regarding how it views itself as an international organization and alliance structure today.