Opinion

NATO delay on membership for Ukraine setting stage for WWIII?

Instead of seeking to repair the immense damage done by a failed and quixotic policy to collapse the Russian state, many Western leaders and pundits seek a de facto declaration of war. This, to them, is the only alternative to admitting defeat. Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence favor this.
Featured Image
Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky speaks to the media on the second day of the 2023 NATO Summit on July 12, 2023, in Vilnius, LithuaniaPhoto by Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Frank
Wright
Frank Wright
Comments 
20

(LifeSiteNews) — The NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, was widely expected to see news of Ukraine’s “expedited” membership. Recent reports – including one from the European Parliament – trailed the possibility of a quick entry for the war-torn country into the alliance, with a last-minute intervention by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky calculated to apply pressure. 

On the night before attending the summit, Zelensky pressed for the immediate admission of Ukraine to NATO, as outlined in his Twitter post on the evening of July 10.

A day later, he was no longer making demands. 

As Politico reported, Zelensky responded to news his demands would not be met with bitterness and rage. 

Saying “Ukraine deserves respect,” he described NATO’s effective refusal to enter a full-scale war with Russia as “absurd.”

His reception at the summit itself was in stark contrast to past photo opportunities with world leaders.  

Tellingly, Zelensky did not feature in the official photograph of NATO leaders. 

Ukrainian President Zelensky noticeably absent from photo with NATO leaders at recent summit in Lithuania

Why did NATO refuse Ukraine?

According to Al Jazeera’s Jonah Hull, whilst some Eastern European nations supported Ukraine, others such as the U.S. and Germany opposed its accession in wartime. 

Speaking of the efforts to finalist an agreement between NATO members on the issue, he said:

It is an attempt to diplomatically bridge a divide that has formed between members on the eastern flank – who largely agree with Ukraine – and those that include Germany and importantly, the U.S., who feel that now is simply not the right time during a war and ahead of any peace agreement that nobody could possibly foresee the parameters of.

In his opening statement to the press, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg suggested that unless Ukraine wins, there can be no membership of NATO. 

We agree that NATO’s door is open. We agree that Ukraine will become a member which is an important message.

And then we agree that it’s for the NATO Allies and Ukraine to decide when the time is right and not for Russia to have a veto.

The former Socialist Prime Minister of Norway, who was set to be replaced in September, renewed the customary pledge of unlimited support for the war in Ukraine. 

And then the most urgent task, and all Allies agree on that, is that we will stand by Ukraine. We will provide support to Ukraine for as long as it takes.

Because unless Ukraine wins this war, there’s no membership issue to be discussed at all.

And that’s the reason why Allies are stepping up and providing donations, military support, in an unprecedented way.

Stoltenberg, who has agreed to stay on for an additional year as NATO head, has presented Ukraine with a promise on which the alliance may never have to deliver. 

He is hinting at an emerging reality which no one in the West seems willing to mention: what happens if Ukraine does not win? There seems to be only one plan in the open at present. 

The sensible case for World War III

In the run-up to the summit, commentary appeared urging NATO to enter the war directly. 

The Observer, sister publication of The Guardian, ran with the following headline on July 8: “Defeat for Ukraine would be a global disaster. NATO must finally step in to stop Russia.”

Foreign Affairs, the house magazine of the U.S. Council on foreign relations, published a piece urging a similar line: “Western Europe Is Still Falling Short in NATO’s East.”

In addition, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham called for bipartisan cooperation – to “declare war on Russia,” as Robert F. Kennedy described the likely outcome of this initiative. 

 

These are attempts to answer the unspoken question of “what next?” For a significant war faction, whose portmanteau shelters the formerly anti-war Left along with seasoned neoconservatives, the reply is escalation to full-scale war. 

Promises of war

This is an extreme response to the reality on the ground, and in the economies of the anti-Russia alliance. Instead of seeking to repair the immense damage done by a failed and quixotic policy to collapse the Russian state, many Western leaders and pundits seek a de facto declaration of war. This, to them, is the only alternative to admitting defeat. 

Former Vice President Mike Pence said in an interview on Wednesday July 5 that he was certain the U.S. would directly fight Russia in the event of a Ukrainian collapse.  

Speaking to Hugh Hewitt, he asserted: 

I have no doubt that if Vladimir Putin overran Ukraine, it would not be too long, Hugh, before the Russian military crossed a border where we would have to send our fighting men and women to fight against them.

Continuing escalation

The weapons continue to flow, with the latest development being the supply of widely prohibited “cluster” munitions to Ukraine by NATO.  

The supply of these “bomblets,” which are air-delivered anti-personnel mines, has been personally approved by U.S. President Joe Biden. Their delivery sees another “red line” crossed in a pattern of reckless escalation. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned of the danger of constant escalation being a pathway to all out war.  

Why we fight

Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal spoke on June 29 to the United Nations Security Council. His frank appraisal of the situation in Ukraine reveals much of the sordid reality of a failed state, for which some in the West are willing to risk World War Three. 

Blumenthal’s speech was an indictment of a war routinely described as the dutiful defense of democracy, which in fact includes the direct transfer of wealth from U.S. taxpayers to donor class giants such as BlackRock. 

We found $4.5 billion worth of payments from the United States Agency for International Development to pay off Ukraine’s sovereign debt, much of which is owned by the global investment firm BlackRock.

That alone amounts to $30 taken from every single US citizen at a time when 4 in 10 Americans are unable to afford a $400 emergency.

We found tax dollars earmarked for Ukraine padding the budgets of a television station in Toronto, a pro-NATO think tank in Poland, and, believe it or not, rural farmers in Kenya.

Business as usual

Blumenthal’s summary contrasts an ugly reality with the glamorous advertisement of a war he describes as a fraud. 

The U.S. policy I just described — which sees Washington prioritize unrestrained funding for a proxy war with a nuclear power in a foreign land while our own domestic infrastructure falls apart before our eyes — exposes a disturbing dynamic at the heart of the Ukraine conflict: an international Ponzi scheme that enables Western elites to seize hard earned wealth out of the hands of average U.S. citizens and funnel it into the coffers of a foreign government that even the Western-sponsored Transparency International ranks as one of the most corrupt in Europe.

He cites the silent inaction over the imprisonment of U.S. citizen Gonzalo Lira, whose online criticism of the war saw him arrested at gunpoint in May 2023 at his Kharkov, Ukraine home. 

Quoting top U.S. government officials, Blumenthal points out the reckless policy of the escalation of military supplies to Ukraine. 

‘Things we couldn’t give in January because it was escalatory were given in February,’ a former State Department official complained after meeting with Ukrainian counterparts.

‘And things we couldn’t give in February we can in April. That has been the distinct pattern, starting with, for crying out loud, Stingers,’ they said, referring to shoulder mounted missiles.

He noted that the U.S. president himself described this process as a prelude to global war. 

President Joe Biden himself said in March 2022, ‘The idea that we’re gonna send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks… don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say, that’s called World War III.’

Blumenthal’s striking report includes testimony from the Ukrainian front lines. 

As a Ukrainian soldier complained this month to Vice News, we don’t know what Zelensky’s ‘plans are, but it looks like extermination of its own population — like of the combat-ready and working-age population. That’s it.’

This horrifying assessment chimes with that of Senator Lindsey Graham himself, who said in August 2022:

I like the path we’re on.

With U.S. weapons and money, Ukraine will fight Russia to the last person.

The last word

In his reply to Zelensky’s embittered reaction, Graham summarized the war faction’s desired response to the obscene collapse of Project Russia. 

He speaks for a donor class who wishes that theirs is the last word on what comes next in Ukraine. If this reckless and corrupt faction is not replaced by the voices of humanity and realism, that may be the last word for everyone. 

The NATO summit has ended in a postponement of overtures initially made to Ukraine in 2008 by President G.W. Bush. The future status of this nation is one few in the West are willing to consider in the light of the facts. Yet the issue of NATO membership simply obscures the elephant in the room. 

Ukraine is not winning. 

At this point, to the reality-based community, the choice appears to be obvious. Either “Ukraine” ceases to exist as it was, or we do. That is the question. 

 

20 Comments

    Loading...