The age-old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, brings a smile to people’s faces even though it has been pondered for thousands of years. Yet the proponents of either side of the argument have not started a war over what is considered one of the most profound philosophical questions humanity has faced. However, the question “what came first, the threat of NATO flanking Russia or the threat of Russian Soviet-like expansion in Europe?" may not be regarded as philosophically fundamental but it may trigger a NATO-Russia war that could lead to World War III.
Sweden and Finland have the "full, total and complete backing" of the United States in their decision to apply for NATO membership. U.S. President Joe Biden says that these two countries are in immediate danger of Russian occupation. His logic is as follows:
“New members joining NATO is not a threat to any nation; two new members in the ‘high north’ would enhance the security of NATO allies and deepen its security co-operation across the board.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country has no problem with these two countries joining NATO, but if the Western military alliance moves weapons into the two countries’ territories, then there will be consequences. Putin seems to be playing with words here: “I am not concerned about you sneaking into my house at night, but if you try to steal my goods, then we’ll have a problem.” In his less playful moments, Putin was more forthcoming:
“The expansion of military infrastructure on this territory will undoubtedly cause us to respond ... NATO’s endless expansionary policy also required additional attention on our part.”
Again, we end up with the same question: Is NATO’s expansion policy the reason for Moscow’s preventive policies and moves, or are Moscow’s policies and moves the reason for NATO’s expansion policy? If I were in Putin’s shoes, I would not risk my country’s security over a misunderstanding of NATO members' attitudes either. But, if I were in his shoes, I, too, probably would not be aware of my mismanagement of those security risks. Security management is an important part of risk management. If the risk is the relation between uncertainty and attaining objectives, Mr. Putin probably did not know the limits of the tools at his disposal to attain his country’s objectives. So, he started a new chain reaction of cause-and-effect between the chicken and the egg.
The only way out of these whirling thunderstorms is a real policy change in Moscow. It is too late to turn to NATO and tell the alliance not to enlarge toward the east; it will. Neither would the word-play of “expand but not weaponize them.” It will. NATO will expand with news members and arm them to the teeth. NATO is not Mr. Putin’s fiefdom. It was yesteryear’s defensive front against Soviet expansionism, it is today’s anti-Russia offensive pact and it will become the anti-China alliance of tomorrow.
What about Turkey’s objection to Sweden and Finland joining NATO? If one does not read President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s veto statement about these two countries when looking for points to bemoan against Turkey like Thomas S. Kaplan and Bernard-Henri Levy in the Wall Street Journal, or when attempting to insult the Turkish people and their president like Alexander Ward, Quint Forgey and Connor O'Brien in the recent issue of the Politico Online, you’d see that it has nothing to do with NATO's expansionist anti-Russian trends or its newly acquired offensive nature. Turkey simply wants to limit its allies’ support of separatist terrorists from the PKK and its extensions in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately, the U.S and some other allies’ support of the terrorists cannot be prevented within NATO with the existing mechanisms; but Turkey can make a strong point within NATO about certain member states’ support of terrorism.
That support comes in two shapes and methods: Some countries directly aid and abet PKK terrorism, sending the group thousands of truckloads of heavy weapons, ammunition and logistical assistance, and providing training under the disguise of fighting the Daesh terrorist group. Some others provide PKK-derivatives political assistance by inviting them to official meetings in their cities. The PKK’s terrorist-turned regional administrators, taking off their terrorist fatigues and donning Western attire, rush to European capitals to receive financial support and discuss how to dismember Iraq and Syria. There are more PKK-related terrorists in Stockholm than in the Iraqi mountains; Ankara does not want these hostile countries to become sham allies of Turkey in NATO.
Another form of hostility toward Turkey within NATO comes in the form of embargoes placed by certain allies to prevent Turkey's fight against terrorism. Why would the U.S. or the U.K. governments not sell spare parts of certain weapon systems to Turkey? Why would the U.S. Congress not allow the Raytheon Company to sell the Patriot air defense systems to Turkey, leaving it no option but to go for the Russian S-400s? Why would Canada not sell the advanced camera systems for its unmanned armed drones to Turkey? All these overt and covered embargoes are designed to weaken Turkey’s fight against PKK terrorism.
Turkey could not afford more hostility within an alliance to which it has been devoting almost all of its military resources since 1952. By vetoing Sweden and Finland’s membership in NATO, Turkey is making a very distinct point that has nothing to do with Russia’s and NATO’s egg-and-chicken problem. The torrent of support for Sweden and Finland’s membership in the U.S. and Europe, and the outburst of criticism leveled at Turkey in the Western media (Bernard-Henri Levy thinks that this is a good opportunity to expel Turkey from the alliance) should be an eye-opener for President Putin. The more he resists NATO’s expansion, the more flanked his country will be.
Whatever it is – pride, arrogance, vanity in the face of the Western alliance – he should set it aside and make peace now in Ukraine. Let that actor-turned-president of Ukraine pretend as much as he can that his country single-handedly beat the hell out of mighty Russia, this senseless war in Ukraine must stop. It is becoming more and more difficult for Mr. Putin to convince the people of the world.
