Should NATO Expand Its Involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian War?

Low Ukrainian morale, depleted military capabilities and the unprecedented deployment of North Korean troops to European conflict zones have all raised questions about the role of NATO in this war. A more pronounced role for the military alliance could help to defeat Putin and push back against this new ‘axis of evil’.

Matching the Russians - Justifications for NATO’s proximity to the war so far have centred around limiting the conflict to its original two adversaries: Russia and Ukraine. However, the recent deployment of North Korean troops has shattered such reasoning. Whilst Russia solicits assistance from its various allies towards the objective of victory and thus recklessly internationalises the conflict, NATO’s reluctance to commit further may well spell the end of Ukrainian sovereignty.

NATO’s reluctance to commit further may well spell the end of Ukrainian sovereignty

Protecting Civilians - One of President Zelenskyy’s earliest appeals was for NATO to ‘close the skies’ and protect innocent Ukrainians against Russian attacks. This sort of involvement has historical precedent for the alliance as NATO forces were responsible for stopping Slobodan Milosevic’s genocide of Kosovan Albanians in 1999. Deploying forces to shoot down Russian projectiles or allowing Ukraine to use long-range NATO missiles on launch sites inside Russia could provide some much-needed respite to besieged Ukrainian civilians.

Securing Global Security - Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not an isolated conflict. China’s designs on Taiwan, Iran’s operations in the Middle East and North Korea’s nuclear project all tie in with President Putin’s ambitions for a destabilised, disunited NATO. By standing up now, the alliance may help to secure the world against the emerging threats posed by this ‘axis of evil’, insulating its allies against potentially more fatal future conflicts.

With the world arguably teetering on the edge of destructive conflict, de-escalation may be the best policy. By maintaining distance, NATO can help to defend Ukraine without undermining prospects of long term peace in Europe.

Putin’s Gambit - By repeatedly insisting that any direct NATO involvement, including the deployment of NATO missiles within Russian territory, would be tantamount to a declaration of war, Putin has shown his hand. While this may ultimately amount to strategic bluffing, the risk of conflict between two nuclear powers likely outweighs any potential advantage gained by enhancing Ukraine's military capacity.

The risk of conflict between two nuclear powers likely outweighs any potential advantage gained by enhancing Ukraine’s military capacity

Sufficient Assistance - Current levels of NATO support plausibly strike the perfect balance between facilitating a successful Ukrainian defence and avoiding an expansion of the conflict. The USA has provided £42.6b in support since February 2022, whilst the likes of Britain have emptied their stockpiles of ammunition to adequately arm Ukraine. Such NATO commitments have fostered Ukrainian breakthroughs in places such as Kursk without dragging the West into a full-scale war with Russia, meaning any expanded role could be counterproductive.

Road to Peace - Expecting the total capitulation of Russia, a nuclear-armed superpower, is strategically unwise. This raises the significance of offering Putin an acceptable exit-ramp in pursuit of peace. Permanently eroding trust and escalating the conflict such that a long-term settlement becomes unrecoverable is precisely the opposite of what might be necessary. Instead, NATO could seek to mediate the territorial dispute and find a workable solution both by guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty and by listening seriously to Russian security concerns.