Over a two-week period in August 2021, the world witnessed the single largest military airlift since events in Berlin in the late-1940s when an alliance of 39 countries evacuated more than 122,000 people from Kabul Airport in Afghanistan.
Despite this astonishing achievement that the UK Ministry of Defence is to now recognise with a clasp ‘Op PITTING’ for the Operational Service Medal (OSM) Afghanistan, the necessity for the 2021 Kabul Airlift signified a turning point for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
For almost 20 years, NATO had led the international community in the War in Afghanistan, with member states contributing the vast majority of troops and air assets allocated to the conflict. The coalition suffered over 3,500 troops killed and nearly 23,000 wounded, but the relative stability that the coalition’s presence in the country achieved allowed some 5.7 million refugees from the country to return. The nation witnessed major improvements in healthcare, education and women’s rights, with a life expectancy increase from 56 to 64 years and the maternal mortality rate halved. Some 43% of the nation’s citizens can now read, compared with just 8% back in 2001.
Despite the casualties, especially among Afghanistan’s own troops, the changes that occurred in 20 years of a NATO-backed government (in place of the previous Taliban government), things were looking up for the people of Afghanistan and the wider region. Unfortunately, political leadership across NATO ended up with cold feet over their continued involvement in Afghanistan, leading to the Doha Agreement in early-2021 where the US reached an agreement with the Taliban for the withdrawal of foreign troops and return to power of a Taliban government.
The Taliban almost immediately began breaching the agreement, but despite this President Biden pushed ahead with plans to withdraw troops by September 11th 2021. In the end, the withdrawal was completed by the end of August 2021 after the Taliban and other militias began a massive push across the country, leading to the aforementioned events in Kabul and the deaths of well over 200 people.
NATO lost face for the mess that was the last-minute evacuation. The troops and aircrew who flew the missions (known in the UK as Operation PITTING) are heroes – make no mistake, but the political decision making behind it all led to a panicky operation and a loss of respect for the alliance’s international standing.
Now, in January 2022 NATO is struggling to prove itself again. US, British and OSINT community intelligence reports indicate that we could see an all-out Russian invasion of Ukraine within weeks, and while NATO’s Secretary-General has been vocal in support of Ukraine’s right to self-defence, there is a growing rift in the alliance between nations willing to support Ukraine and those who want to avoid angering Russia. Prime examples of the two sides are the United Kingdom (who have supplied some 2,000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine in the last few days) as opposed to Germany (who are so concerned that Russia will cut off their supply of natural gas, they’ve actively refused requests for support from the Ukrainian government).
The problem is that if NATO is split on this matter, Ukraine cannot reasonably rely on the alliance to stand up to Russia (which is a large part of why NATO was formed). If the world’s largest military alliance is no longer willing to intervene to prevent issues on its own doorstep, it’s reasonable to assume they won’t be prepared to intervene elsewhere, for example in Afghanistan if in a few years the humanitarian crisis under a Taliban government worsens to a point where the nation is in as dire a situation as pre-2001. The world is watching the crisis in eastern Europe. Will Russia invade Ukraine? Will NATO react to that? Will Russia stop at just Ukraine?
Ukraine faces the dilemma of not being a NATO member at the present time, despite trying to join for years. As such, it does not enjoy the benefit of NATO Article 5 (summarised as “an attack on one member of the alliance is an attack on all”), so the question becomes not one of NATO’s written duties, but one of a moral duty to defend those who ask for help. With Germany seemingly unwilling to assist, the US desperately still trying to find a diplomatic solution, and the UK seemingly the only nation actively ready to support Ukraine with military equipment, it’s not just Ukraine that is worried right now. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all find themselves very close to Russia, and just north of Ukraine. In the event of Russia successfully capturing Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, these nations will find not only a pro-Russia government in Belarus to the south of them but no doubt a large chunk of the 110,000 Russian troops poised to enter Ukraine suddenly looking northwards towards them.
Now let me be clear. I am not saying Russia intends to invade NATO nations (there is no indication that Putin’s aspirations go that far). Such a move would be shocking and costly for the Russian nation, but Russian President Putin’s ambition to rebuild a Soviet Union-type region will look to find buffer states between NATO and itself, something which doesn’t presently exist as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia all directly border Russia. These nations are among the smaller and weaker militaries in the NATO alliance, and regularly see troops from other larger nations (e.g., UK, Spain, Italy, USA) deployed there as part of NATO Air Policing missions and multi-national exercises, the latter having been a sticking point for Russia for some time. Ultimately for Russia to continue and invade these countries would not be a difficult fight for the hundreds of thousands of Russian and Belarusian troops.
NATO has made little effort to reinforce its borders near Russia in this latest crisis, and this is largely down to efforts to maintain diplomatic lines and avoid giving Russia further propaganda of ‘NATO aggression’. For over a month now Russian media has sold a story to the Russian people that NATO is threatening its borders, and that there is a humanitarian crisis ongoing in Ukraine that requires Russian intervention – all of this to justify any military action that occurs in the coming weeks and months.
Ultimately, the world is watching NATO. Following the Afghanistan withdrawal and with the continually growing tensions around Ukraine, NATO faces a choice. If Russia invades, NATO will have to act – words will not be enough this time. If NATO acts decisively and comes to Ukraine’s aid, it will go some way to repairing the damage caused to NATO’s image last year, and likely bolster the morale throughout the alliance after a troubling year.
If NATO fails to act, those members closest to Russia’s border will rightly feel nervous and will bear the brunt of the humanitarian crisis that an invasion of Ukraine will cause. Just a few short years ago, former US President Trump remarked that NATO has lost its purpose and those who agreed with him will see a lack of NATO action on Ukraine as further proof of this.
NATO risks becoming outdated and incapable, in much the same way that the League of Nations ultimately failed to keep its influence on global affairs. The UN, which ultimately replaced the League of Nations is already struggling to maintain the respect it once held, for a myriad of reasons that I’ll leave for another article, and NATO would do well to learn from one of the UN’s repeated mistakes. Statements mean little when not backed by action – you can condemn wrongdoing and issue sanctions, but sometimes it is not enough.
As President Roosevelt once said: “Speak softly, and carry a big stick, you will go far.” – NATO will only continue to be effective in its mission of mutual defence if it is prepared to not only carry that big stick but use it too. Ukraine and the world are watching NATO – and only time will tell if NATO can maintain its influence.