No matter whether the crisis in Ukraine begins to de-escalate in the coming days, Vladimir Putin, with his 19th century outlook, has demonstrated the hollowness of the West’s 21st century approach to Euro-Atlantic security. The twin pillars of the European security establishment—NATO and the EU—have been unable to respond effectively because their assumptions about the nature of conflict and the burdens that members ought to bear to provide for the common defense, formed out of the experiences of the mid-to-late 20th century, have not been updated.
For all the exalted talk about NATO as the mailed fist of the West, prepared not only to defend the European heartland but also to expand the zone of peace and prosperity into Eurasia and to stand guard on the front lines of the Western world from Afghanistan to the waters off Somalia, NATO remains, at heart, a trip-wire defense alliance, triggered when an outside adversary aggressively crosses the line. However, operations such as the 1999 Kosovo air war, launched even though no NATO member had been attacked by Serbia, made it unclear what would trigger alliance military action. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Syriza’s Rise Will Test Greece and EU, but the Euro Is Safe
- Strategic Horizons: U.S. Must Be Prepared for Life After Putin, Even if Russia Isn’t
- Despite Tougher Policy, France’s Hollande Still Seeks Solid Russia Ties
- Global Insights: Calling Russia’s Bluff on Iran Nuclear Talks
- Diplomatic Fallout: No Shortage of Potential Work for International Peacekeepers in 2015