If Europe promotes Putin, America should step in.

NATO is celebrating its 75th anniversary even as its members fight a brutal proxy war with Russia over Ukraine. The alliance celebrated its anniversary in Brussels last week and plans to hold a formal summit in Washington in July.

The session could be controversial. Concerns about Ukraine’s collapse are growing, with a growing number of policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic assuming the risk of broader conventional and potential nuclear war, and the alliance will do everything it can for Kiev. I believe it should.

French President Emmanuel Macron played the Napoleon card and suggested the allies would send troops to Ukraine. During a meeting with officials from European countries, he said the following: But from the point of view of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out. ” When criticized, he doubled down and said: “If we decide to be weak today, if we decide not to respond today, we have already lost.”

Mr. Macron imagines that stationing allied forces in Ukrainian cities could insulate Ukraine from attack and deter Moscow without a war. He garnered support from officials in Estonia, Lithuania and Poland. More serious governments, including the Biden administration, have rejected the idea. After all, Americans will bear the primary burden of the broader war and pay the greatest cost.

Nevertheless, as Warsaw noted, some member states have already sent troops to Ukraine. Some have threatened to act independently.reported wall street journal: “Slovakia’s Prime Minister Roberto Fico said in a teleconference that the preparatory documents he received for the summit sent a shiver down his spine. “I cannot say for what purpose they should be there and what they should do,” Fico added. Author Edward Luttwak has helpfully provided a detailed military mission for the Atlantic Alliance.

NATO countries will soon have to send troops to Ukraine or accept a crushing defeat. Britain and France, like the Nordic countries, are already quietly preparing to send troops, both small elite troops and logistics and support personnel that can remain far from the front lines. The latter could play an important role by freeing up their Ukrainian counterparts for retraining for combat missions. NATO forces could also free up Ukrainians currently busy recovering and repairing damaged equipment and take over the technical parts of existing training programs for new recruits. These NATO soldiers may never see combat, but they don’t have to be in order to allow Ukraine to make the most of its scarce human resources.

Regardless of whether such personnel conducted mano-a-mano with Moscow’s forces, they would be actively involved in the war and would therefore be legitimate targets. Allied casualties are inevitable given Russia’s large-scale missile and drone attacks. In that case, neither the US nor NATO would need to be involved, Macron said, which was easier said than done at the time since the bodies would be shipped back to European countries and possibly the US. The escalation and possibility of conventional nuclear war is almost inevitable.

Although nominally for defensive purposes, some are free to advocate direct intervention in combat. For example, retired Colonel Alexander Krauser proposed sending personnel to operate anti-missile batteries. [and] “We are sending people to Ukraine, but they are not going to fight aggressively against you.” Unfortunately, Moscow is unlikely to respect that distinction. Allied forces are actively engaging Russian forces, and Moscow will be unlikely to ignore them. In that case, Mr. Crowther would be subject to massive retaliation.

But some European and American officials will go further. They deployed air and naval fleets to mop up the air and sea of ​​Russian forces, intervening more broadly “to decisively change the military tide,” as they perceived the Mongols to be resurgent. They even advocate the use of nuclear weapons against those who appear to be doing so. These would put us at risk for World War III, putting thousands, perhaps millions, of lives at risk. Proponents of such measures seem to be quite confused.

Indeed, what unites these proposals is that only Washington has enough power to defeat Moscow. NATO countries, which barely pretend to send troops, are now planning how to effectively borrow U.S. forces. The very structure of the Transatlantic Alliance, which treats all member states equally, encourages ivory tower warriors to take dangerous flights of fancy across the continent. Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is a strong candidate to replace the retiring Jens Stoltenberg, and many Eastern European countries believe they are qualified to serve as NATO’s top secretary-general. Consider dissatisfaction. Both Estonia’s prime minister and Romania’s president considered running. The former asked, “Are we equal or not equal?” Therefore, these questions still remain. “I feel that we were not consulted enough,” Latvia’s former defense minister Artis Pavlics complained.

Estonia may be a nice tourist destination, but with only 7,100 armed men and women, it’s only a rounder in the conflict with Russia. Tallinn should not oversee NATO’s military affairs, except to provide an honor guard for visiting dignitaries in Brussels. Latvia is even less reliable, with only 6,600 people armed. Romania, with at least 69,900 troops, is worse off.

In fact, very few governments in Europe are considered good. Former Estonian President Tomas Hendrik Ilves asked Rutte: “What kind of moral credibility does this man have?” Rotterdam has chronically failed to meet NATO’s 2% GDP target. Moreover, the Dutch military strength is less than half that of Romania. Italy and Spain have large economies, but also great military power. Germany’s long-term commitment is uncertain at best.

Even Britain, which has the best military in Europe, is not ready for war with Russia.London is contraction The military is cutting back on plans to increase military spending. Sky News’ Deborah Haines said: “If called into battle, troops would run out of ammunition in ‘days’.” “Britain lacks the ability to protect its skies from missile and drone attacks at the level that Ukraine is enduring.” It will take five to 10 years to be able to form a combat division consisting of…

Proposals for Ukraine to join NATO, slightly less reckless than joining the war, continue to be rejected by most member states, despite the 2008 Bucharest Declaration recognizing Kiev and Tbilisi’s membership.In fact, member states lied because no one in NATO wanted to protect both countries. over the next 14 years Regarding the intention to invite the governments of both countries to participate. Sadly, the Russian government, previously misinformed about NATO expansion, took this prospect seriously and ultimately galvanized President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade. Even at that point, the Alliance was not ready for a nuclear war over Ukraine and did not participate. And despite increasing attempts by Eastern European countries to draw the United States into war, most member states today are unprepared for such a conflict.

But Secretary of State Antony Blinken continued to encourage Ukraine while refusing to act, declaring: Our purpose at the Summit is to help build that bridge to our members. ” But if Kiev is not worth risking mass casualties and destruction today, it will not be worth doing so tomorrow. Nevertheless, as some European countries press ahead with sending troops to Ukraine and risk war with Russia, Washington should tell Europe to hold back or shut up.

Vladimir Putin’s government is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine. Moscow is therefore responsible for mass death and destruction. Nevertheless, the United States and European countries did much to foment the conflict and share responsibility for the resulting horrors.

That makes it even more important for the Allies to retreat from the abyss. The US government recognized long ago that Ukraine was of little importance to US national defense. Kiev spent most of U.S. history as part of the Russian Empire in one form or another. Washington never considered going to war over who would rule Kiev. You shouldn’t do that now.

The Biden administration should make clear that if European intervention in Ukraine leads to war, America’s allies will act independently, despite NATO. The Alliance has no obligation to rescue people who participate in someone else’s fight. Washington should also outright reject Kiev’s NATO aspirations. No one has the right to participate. Alliances are thought to increase security. Accepting countries at war with Russia will create conflict, not peace.

Instead of prolonging the war between Russia and Ukraine, the United States and its allies should strive to end hostilities. Doing so will not be easy, but the ongoing proxy war risks expansion and escalation. Ukraine is not worth the risk. To properly celebrate NATO’s 75th anniversary, the Biden administration should end today’s proxy wars.