Ukraine proving NATO membership not crucial for alliance’s assistance

OTTAWA—The big news last week was that Finland requested membership into the NATO alliance, and this week Sweden said it's taking the same measure. These developments were heralded by the NATO Association of Canada with a lot of chest thumping and fist pumping. Finally, NATO can add these two, long-neutral Scandinavian nations to the 30-member alliance bonded by an agreement to collective defence. We were informed that the reason Finland and Sweden are seeking sanctuary in a military alliance with NATO is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I could understand that logic if this was requested during the first few hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his military into Ukraine on Feb. 24. In those early days, analysts predicted that the Russians would capture Kyiv and topple the regime of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in three days. The speculation was that at the end of one week, Putin would be master of all Ukraine and his blood-thirsty troops would be poised to annex the rest of Europe. The most logical second target was considered to be the Baltic countries of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. All three are NATO member states, and, since 2004, all three have had sizable multi-national forward-deployed battle groups stationed along their borders with Russia. Canada commands the battle group in Latvia and maintains a rotating force of about 600 combat troops at Camp Ādaži. As Russian tank convoys rolled towards Kyiv, these NATO troops in the Baltic were reinforced and put on enhanced alert. It appeared that the Third World War was an imminent reality. However, within days, even obscured by the fog of war, it became apparent that there was something terribly wrong with the Russian military. Putin’s intended rapid military advance stalled and more and more imagery emerged of destroyed Russian armoured vehicles and dead soldiers. The armchair generals who predicted a swift Russian victory can be partially forgiven, because during the military buildup prior to the invasion, all the focus was on Russian martial strength. We were told that Putin had assembled a force of 190,000 troops along with thousands of armoured vehicles and artillery. It is true that this represents only a portion of the entire Russian Armed Forces, but it also amounts to the majority of Putin’s actual combat capability in terms of ground forces. On the flip side, the Ukrainian military at the time of invasion, stood at a strength of 246,445 personnel with an additional 900,000 enrolled in the reserves. These troops have been receiving top-notch training from NATO instructors—including Canadian soldiers—since 2014. During that eight-year period, Ukrainian combat units also had the opportunity to rotate through the front lines in the contested breakaway eastern districts of Donesk and Luhansk. This provided Ukraine’s military the opportunity to gain experience with NATO-provided weaponry and to test their training under battle conditions in a low-intensity conflict. Bullets are still bullets. Thus, Putin’s invaders soon found themselves outmatched by the Ukrainian defenders in terms of tactical skills, logistics, weaponry, discipline, and morale. In early media coverage of the invasion, reporters filmed Ukrainian civilians bravely making Molotov cocktails from empty bottles. These images captured the defiant spirit of the Ukrainian people, but to date I have not heard of a single engagement wherein Ukraine civilians stopped a Russian tank with a homemade firebomb. Instead, what we have seen over the first three months of this war is Ukraine’s superiority in weaponry. The U.S. and NATO countries—including Canada—have provided a modern arsenal that allows Ukrainian soldiers to explode $8-million Russian tanks with $200,000 Javelin anti-tank rockets. The West has also provided Ukraine with shared intelligence in the form of drones and satellite imagery. The U.S. refers to this as the “unblinking eye,” which makes it impossible for the Russian troops to hide from observation. Last week, the Ukraine army used a combination of pinpoint intelligence and massed long-range firepower to obliterate an attempted Russian river crossing at Siverskyi Donets. It is estimated that during this battle, the Russians suffered the loss of 1,500 soldiers, 56 armoured vehicles, pontoon bridge sections, and even a tugboat. British intelligence estimates that, to date, Russia has lost 15,000 soldiers, with two to three times that number having suffered “life-altering wounds.” When you subtract that number from the original invasion force of 190,000, the Russians have suffered almost a complete loss of fighting capability. Putin’s justification for invading Ukraine was to eliminate a threat on his border before it became militarily stronger and joined the NATO alliance as a full member. Give the results so far, it would seem he waited too long, and Ukraine did not need to be a member of NATO to garner the alliance’s assistance. Finland and Sweden should take note. Scott Taylor is the editor and publisher of Esprit de Corps magazine. The Hill Times

Ukraine proving NATO membership not crucial for alliance’s assistance

Finland and Sweden say they are seeking sanctuary in a military alliance with NATO due Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it may not be necessary.

Time for a shift: Canada must treat Alzheimer’s like other progressive diseases

Between wars and fears of fascism in the U.S., there’s plenty to be scared about

Poilievre can’t just ‘cat-call from the periphery’: Tom McElroy

The problem of political homelessness

Liberals have fumbled green energy transition, and Conservatives have zero interest

Trump alienates women and Puerto Rican voters

No end in sight for costly Russia-Ukraine stalemate

NATO Summit a cluster of missed chances to prep for the future

The tide has changed for the Russian war machine

To entice Canadian soldiers, give them the tools they need to do the job

Like past conflicts, the full extent of war in Ukraine won’t be known for years

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Ukraine proving NATO membership not crucial for alliance’s assistance

Finland and Sweden say they are seeking sanctuary in a military alliance with NATO due Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it may not be necessary.

Get The Foreign Policy Newsletter