Russia’s Attack on Ukraine: How Putin’s War Exposed NATO

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has changed NATO – out of necessity. Because Putin and his attack have relentlessly exposed the weaknesses of the alliance.

Putin’s attack on Ukraine exposed NATO’s weaknesses. Europeans are responsible for most of these weaknesses. Far too many different weapon systems that don’t work together. Countless tanks that have graced the stats for years but are now completely unusable.

And the war revealed another weakness: there is not enough ammunition in Europe. The stockpiles are empty, as NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg found out this week. If you order ammunition for heavy artillery today, you won’t get it for two years. It can also take longer, says Stoltenberg.

“The war in the Ukraine consumes enormous amounts of ammunition, which depletes the Allies’ stocks.” Far more ammunition is fired every day than the industry produces. The secretary-general added that the armaments companies should please work in shifts around the clock, including at night.

Hardly anyone obeyed stock rules

If NATO were a commercial enterprise, one would probably speak of an oath of disclosure. The Alliance had supply rules, but apart from the Americans, hardly any country followed them. It is estimated that no EU country would have enough ammunition for more than a week.

The February 24 attack did not come as a surprise to NATO. A few days earlier, Stoltenberg had sent a final warning to Moscow. “There must be no misunderstanding here,” Stoltenberg warned the Kremlin, announcing that NATO would do whatever it takes to defend its own territory. The guarantee of assistance applies: an attack on one counts as an attack on all.

NATO’s dual strategy in the Ukraine war

However, this guarantee only applies to its own member countries. Since the beginning of the war, NATO has been pursuing a dual strategy for Ukraine. Ukraine is receiving massive arms support, but not at any price. Not at the price of NATO becoming a war party.

“This strategy largely worked,” sums up Tobias Debiel, Professor of International Relations at the University of Duisburg-Essen. “One has avoided setting up no-fly zones, for example, which would be linked to immediate intervention by NATO. And one has also remained cautious about the delivery of combat aircraft, which would have ended up in a gray area under international law.”

The alliance held

The strategy held, NATO held together. Even if some eastern members would like more action against Russia, even if the usual suspects like Erdogan and Orban sometimes left the force. The unit remained relatively closed. Many would not have predicted that before the start of the war.

America’s Secretary of State Tony Blinken, for example, says he’s never seen NATO “stronger or more diverse,” at least not in the past 30 years that he’s been active in foreign and security policy.

Armaments policy patchwork quilt

European security experts hope that the new unity in the alliance will form a new basis for finally tackling the alliance’s structural problems. The hic-hack about joint tank deliveries, the disaster with the shortage of ammunition – if there is one lesson, said German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius at the NATO meeting in Brussels, it is the need for common standards for weapons and ammunition in Europe.

So far, however, this has almost always failed due to individual national interests – the 27 defense ministers in the EU, who are all happy to order their national branded tanks, branded howitzers and branded assault rifles, preferably from their own armaments companies in the country. Functioning cooperations are rare, despite the programs that the EU has set up. In terms of armaments policy, the EU is still a patchwork quilt.