The sun has set on the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, casting long shadows over the alliance's cohesion. On the surface, the summit was marked by growing rifts within the alliance over the radioactive issue of Ukraine's support. Even as the G7 presented a united front, pledging long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, NATO firmly closed its doors to Ukraine's membership aspirations, igniting a firestorm of criticism from the Ukrainian President, and former actor, Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky, it seems, is reprising his role as an ungrateful toddler throwing a tantrum.
An examination of the summit's proceedings reveals that the nature of the institution chosen to guarantee Ukraine's security is less critical than the actual ability and willingness to deliver such assurances. While the G7 nations have pledged support, the stark reality is that the United States, being the only nation capable of offering substantial security guarantees, is de facto unable to do so. Such a move would necessitate congressional approval, a prospect that appears to be a very tall order indeed.
The summit has painted a stark picture of the current state of affairs for Ukraine. Despite all the Western MSM media hype for a robust counter-offensive over the past month, Ukraine has suffered substantial losses, both in human lives and military resources. Approximately 26,000 soldiers and officers have been lost in the fray, along with a significant portion of the advanced military equipment supplied by NATO countries. It is becoming increasingly clear that Ukraine's military situation is precarious at best, and the subtle surface-level withdrawal of support from key players, such as the USA, only underscores this point.
The recent summit has witnessed a sharp increase in the criticism leveled against Ukraine. Engaged in a losing war, the Ukrainian government has drawn negative attention due to its incessant and evolving requests for different types of weaponry. The perceived lack of appreciation for the aid received has ostensibly contributed to the reduction in Western military and financial support. However, as Western arsenals dwindle to alarmingly low levels, threatening their own security interests, it seems the real story might be Russia's forced de-militarization of NATO.
The 155mm shells, the cornerstone of ammunition and pivotal in heavy artillery warfare, are in dangerously short supply in the West, while resources are being exhausted for cluster munitions compatible with battlefield multiple rocket launch systems. The US, while claiming the ability to ramp up production of 155mm shells to 85,000 units per month by 2028, would still be unable to adequately supply Ukraine. Even if the US was to provide its entire output immediately, it would only be enough to cater to Ukraine's daily consumption rate of 5,000 units for half a month. In contrast, Russia reportedly expends 60,000 or more shells per day.
In light of these facts, it appears more plausible that the diminishing support for Ukraine is less about a lack of gratitude and more about Russia methodically depleting NATO's war reserves. Russia clearly has the upper hand in terms of logistics and war industry mobilization, ultimately having the largest impact on the state of play on the battlefield.
Doubt seems to be giving way to an accepting reality about Ukraine's potential NATO membership. The West seems to view Ukraine more as an instrument to confront and weaken Russia than a viable candidate for the alliance. Notably, Ukraine's current socio-political landscape has been inadequate in meeting the prerequisites for NATO membership long before the commencement of Russia's SMO. With the alliance officially requiring democratic governance, stable government practices, and minimal corruption, there remain multiple official reasons to deny Ukraine's membership bid.
There of course are the dire warnings that inviting Ukraine into NATO's fold could open a Pandora's box, potentially tipping the world into the chaos of World War III. From a geopolitical and security perspective, accepting Ukraine into the alliance would be confirmation of terminal brain damage within NATO ranks.
A critical examination of the situation reveals that the claim of NATO's increased strength is more of a façade than a reality. The apparent disunity within the alliance and the US's unwillingness to commit its troops to a war against Russia starkly contrasts with the more aggressive stance adopted by some European nations. This internal discord could potentially signal an impending shake-up within NATO.
Taking into account the stark contrast between the surface-level proceedings at the NATO summit and the revelations brought forward by John Helmer (a well connected Moscow insider), it's evident that the geopolitical landscape surrounding Ukraine is filled with contradictions and subterfuge. Publicly, it may seem like NATO is slowly retracting its support for Ukraine, leaving it to fend for itself against a formidable adversary. However, behind closed doors, a clandestine deal is purportedly in place, set to bolster Ukraine until the year's end.
On the surface, the NATO summit seemed to highlight fractures in the alliance and diminishing support for Ukraine. The G7 nations committed to providing long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, including advanced military support and economic stability. They also pledged to back reforms that could potentially pave Ukraine's way into Western alliances, such as the European Union or NATO. Yet, in the same breath, NATO steadfastly refused Ukraine's membership, inciting criticism from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Such public posturing, however, may belie the true machinations at play.
According to the revelations brought forward by Helmer, what NATO has publicly declared seems at odds with its private dealings. In reality, it's argued that NATO has assented to a secret six-month plan to bolster Ukraine in its struggle against Russia. The plan, hinged on the very survival of Ukraine, is slated to reach its critical point by December. What will unfold at the year's end will set the stage for further negotiations and potentially define the course of Ukraine's future.
This six-month window was articulated by Petr Pavel, the Czech President and a former Czech and NATO army general, declaring at the start of the Vilnius summit meetings, "The outcome by year-end will set the foundation for further negotiations." He highlighted a six-month opportunity window which could "narrow down considerably" by year-end. He then predicted a consequent decrease in the readiness to substantially increase weapons support for Ukraine.
But even with a covert agreement for extended support, Ukraine's prospects appear grim. Despite an influx of weapons and other forms of aid from NATO, Ukraine is confronted with heavy losses and a formidable adversary in Russia. With current catastrophic levels of losses to manpower, Ukraine will not be able to offer any meaningful resistance when Russia commences its final push. The overwhelming pressure, coupled with its status as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game, has pushed Ukraine to the brink. The attempt to use Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia has not only been ineffective but has also resulted in substantial human cost and the erosion of Ukraine's sovereignty.
Furthermore, Helmer cites a source at the June 29th meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Yevgeny Prigozhin, who claims that Putin pledged to demand nothing less than a retreat by Ukraine to Lvov and a westward pullback by NATO, mirroring the retreat patterns of the Grande Armée and the Wehrmacht. This commitment appears to be causing strokes at the NATO headquarters.
NATO's Plan B for Ukraine seemingly centres on a scorched earth strategy, aimed at ensnaring Russia into exhausting her resources and time on reconstructing what the Nazi-sympathizing puppet regime, backed by NATO, has annihilated. However, hope is not lost. Through an impressive demonstration of resilience and restoration, Russia has made significant strides in rebuilding Ukrainian cities, such as Mariupol, that have been devastated by war. Despite the SMO, Russia has managed to rebuild cities and infrastructure while maintaining budget surpluses, reinforcing the merit of its slow but steady approach to this war. This not only illustrates that nations can transcend their circumstances and work towards recovery and growth, even in times of war, but it also highlights the stark difference between the Western-backed Ukrainian approach of employing state terror tactics against its former citizens and the Russian strategy of rebuilding cities from the ashes.
Subsequently, the recent NATO summit in Vilnius, characterized by clear discord over Ukraine's role and future within the alliance, illuminates the existential challenges NATO currently faces. It also underscores the monumental task confronting Ukraine in its pursuit of meaningful security assurances and potential integration into Western blocs. This war, overtly forced upon Ukraine by the West and seemingly fought to the last Ukrainian, puts Ukraine's sovereignty into increasing doubt. This is paradoxically counter to the Western rhetoric of 'standing with Ukraine.' If the U.S. had any genuine intentions, it would have recognized Russia's essential security interests in December 2021 at the absolute latest, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives. Instead, it propelled its puppet regime past a redline established by a resurgent superpower.
Ultimately, these recent developments surrounding Ukraine spell disaster for NATO. The alliance, still smarting from its hasty and humiliating retreat from Afghanistan, is once again finding itself on the familiar back foot. It's becoming increasingly clear that the credibility and viability of NATO as a formidable alliance are under intense scrutiny and that the Global South is taking notice. As the fallout from the Ukraine crisis continues to unravel, the future of NATO hangs in the balance, raising questions about the very existence and relevance of such alliances in today's evolving multipolar reality.