The Fog of War: Ukraine, NATO and the Crucible of Collective Defence
In the unforgiving theatre of war, NATO must steel itself for the grim possibility of Ukraine's retaliation floundering, incapable of scoring a significant triumph. Thus far, Ukraine's victories have been modest at best, but the dreams of a swift and devastating offensive were always destined to be dashed. This conflict is not one of German steel behemoths sweeping aside Polish horseback riders, nor is it akin to the American 'shock and awe' tactics that shattered demoralised Iraqi forces trapped in outmoded tanks, their skies devoid of friendly wings.
Instead, we are observing an intense and brutal war of attrition, where Ukrainian forces chip away at stalwart and well-fortified defences. Current manoeuvres seem to resemble reconnaissance-in-force, splitting along four divergent routes, testing the mettle of the Russian lines, seeking chinks in their armour that might be hammered by artillery, and subsequently exploited by the lurking armoured reserves. Whisperings tell of commandos and partisans behind enemy lines, sowing the seeds of confusion, and working to dismantle the enemy's command and control hubs.
The cornerstone here is deception, a multi-pronged assault to keep Moscow guessing where the decisive blows will land. But, as any seasoned war veteran will tell you, conflicts rarely unfold according to the plan and the scales are heavily tipped in Moscow's favour. General Valery Gerasimov of Russia has had ample time and resources to design and implement formidable defences. Russia also commands an undeniable numerical advantage, from personnel and tanks to the pivotal artillery.
The question of air power looms large. The annals of military history from the Second World War onward are rife with tales of the victorious who ruled the skies. This advantage is conspicuously absent in Ukraine's arsenal, a fact made painfully clear by battlefield footage of American-supplied Bradley fighting vehicles and German Leopard 2 tanks being marked and destroyed by Russian attack helicopters.
Thus, Ukraine's counter-offensive stands on a knife's edge, teetering between success and failure. One certainty emerges from this fog of war: the prospect of Ukrainian victory is far from assured. This concern has already cast its ominous shadow on the White House, where President Biden must surely be pondering the political ramifications of anything less than resounding triumph on the battlefield.
The scripture from 1 Corinthians muses: “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” NATO members, gathered at the impending Vilnius summit, may find themselves facing the chasm of a stalling counteroffensive, their voices wavering. Some may seek solace in a new refrain: that Ukraine simply lacks the firepower for a decisive victory. This, despite the palpable lack of determination in response to this crisis, as evidenced by the lukewarm international response to Ukraine's need for support.
A significant opportunity was missed. Had Berlin not obstructed their deployment, Ukraine could have had more Leopard tanks. Similarly, had Washington acted promptly, F-16s could have been roaring in Ukrainian skies by now.
A potential pitfall awaits: figures such as Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz may attempt to sway Kyiv towards an early peace treaty. Any show of indecisiveness from Europe could serve to weaken Biden's position with Congress, emboldening House Republicans to deny further aid to Ukraine. This would be an egregious error. Should the offensive falter, the West must seriously address the means to boost Ukraine's offensive capability, fortified by clear intentions to welcome Ukraine into the NATO fold.
The leaders in Vilnius ought to ponder this: If Ukraine, bolstered by the formidable might of the Atlantic alliance, fails to resist Russian aggression, then one must question the very purpose of NATO. This conflict is not a simple tale of an oppressor attacking a defenceless sibling state. It's a complex battle with valid arguments on both sides. A more nuanced understanding is needed to prevent the escalation of this conflict and to promote a peaceful resolution.
While Moscow has legitimate concerns about NATO expansion to its borders, Kyiv has an undeniable right to choose its alliances and defend its territorial integrity. In this delicate situation, the world leaders must not forget the human cost of war, and they must strive to achieve a balance between strategic interests and humanitarian considerations.
As NATO members gather to contemplate the looming shadows of a potential Ukrainian failure, they must also consider the lessons that could be drawn from such an outcome. Instead of using it as an excuse to retreat or reduce support for Ukraine, they should use it as an opportunity to reassess their strategies, strengthen their commitment, and prove the relevancy and effectiveness of NATO in the 21st century.
Through this, they would send a powerful message to the world - that the spirit of collective defence and shared democratic values that NATO was founded upon still holds strong, even in the face of adversities and changing global dynamics.