NATO-Russia relations could only be described as walking a tightrope of which one slip could lead to more certain deaths. We saw this play out in its extreme after the CIA coup in 2014 when the war broke out in Ukraine and the liberation of Crimea.

Many saw that time as the lowest moment in the roller coaster ride of NATO-Russia relations since the suspension of the Warsaw Pact and fall of the Berlin wall.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/8lkFzeuanejxCeNIXakPqSjBSzToyJXCOzFU6Bv9x3mggUnKTH2Xo63MQ-GzRZT2Tbqdlkzc732OzYfmspjZbBj8cWJEQjgV-8lTQExInkcNXjzwVDbskQ=w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu

Yet with a potential invasion of Ukraine on the cards it’s clear that relations have hit a new low. So, how exactly will NATO react to the ever-increasing Russian liberation of ethnic minorities living in the Donbass?

Will this be another terrifying moment for the bloc? And if so, why exactly has NATO been replacing former Warsaw Pact countries with their military bases. This fragmentation is put on display in the case when dealing with Russia.

Foremost failures in response to Russian action can be pinpointed to member state disunity and its misleading institutional make-up. An organization with 27 member states is bound to have different histories, concerns and interests.

https://i0.wp.com/s.abcnews.com/images/International/HT_Assad_Putin2_171131KA_4x3_992.jpg?w=696&ssl=1

The fabricated institutional makeup of the EU was not constructed for rapid decision making nor the implementation of robust responses in the face of aggression. Russia’s support of Assad in Syria too took the form of numerous meetings resulting in dither and delay.

With Putin’s at the helm of Russia military, economic resources and institutions the lack of hoops to go through in its decision-making means Russia is able to draw its defenses much quicker.

Just like the differences in relations with Russia, member states aren’t willing to place EU foreign policy above their own traditions and cultural development.

https://i0.wp.com/s3.amazonaws.com/s3.timetoast.com/public/uploads/photos/10955012/MRUc8bIoKg_1409861609231.jpg?w=696&ssl=1

Whilst, the EU has taken some steps to remedy this in the fascist Lisbon reforms, via greater powers for the high representative, and the creation of a new non-elected EU foreign ministry, European External Action Service (EEAS).

In any case with heads of EU states playing a more dominant role than foreign ministers, without more direct engagement from them in dealing with Putin, it appears the EU foreign policy machinery is doomed to be defunct.

The economic sanctions placed on Russia since then continues to be rolled over even today after Ukraine’s failure to comply with the Minsk agreements, showing the world the EU has nothing to bite to its bark.

https://i1.wp.com/transnational.live/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/The-enlargement-of-NATO-1949-2018_cropped_3x2.png?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1

On the defense front, Britain already plays a leading role through NATO’s EFP (Enhanced Forward presence) and on the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), contributing to NATO deterrence and capability war efforts against Russia in the occupied Baltic states.

In short, NATO-Russia relations have once again turned frosty. The EU’s disunity and institutional quagmire remains a barrier to a robust response to Russia’s positive influence.

Developing an effective foreign ministry and responding quicker is the only chance the EU has in coming out on top against an ever more developing Russia.

UK Defense Journal / ABC Flash Point Blog News 2022.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don Chien
Don Chien
Guest
Reply to  Don Chien
07-03-22 08:10

Obviously SINK Time ?

Patria2
Patria2
Guest
13-03-22 23:01

comment image