Too little too late? A critique of NATO’s response to the Russian threat

Approximately 100,000 battle-ready Russian troops have mobilised along the border with Ukraine, with many fearing an invasion is imminent.  

The United States and its NATO allies have pledged support for Ukraine, supplying military equipment, offering aid and deploying troops to neighbouring NATO countries. This includes approximately 8,500 US troops deployed to NATO strongholds in the region. 

However, President Joe Biden and his European counterparts have stopped short of pledging direct, boots-on-the-ground support for the Ukrainian military in the event of an invasion.

But according to Peter Jennings, the executive director of ASPI and a former deputy secretary for strategy at the Department of Defence, NATO’s response has been slow and disjointed.

Jennings argues more should have been done following Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014 to prevent future incursions.

“It didn’t have to be this way,” he writes in ASPI's The Strategist. 

“… Across those seven years, the US and its European allies could have made Ukraine a much pricklier and more indigestible target.

VIEW ALL

“That would not have required forward-deploying large numbers of troops, just a tougher-minded plan to arm and train Ukrainian forces.”

He notes that the West could have blocked the “limited routes” that can be exploited by ground forces looking to advance into Kyiv.

“Why haven’t they been made impassable? Why is it only now that significant shipments of lethal equipment are taking place? Will there be time to get these weapons into the right hands?” he asks.

In failing to plug these gaps, Jennings argues, NATO has played into the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Whatever NATO does now looks flustered and gives Putin an opportunity to claim that Russia is being provoked,” he writes.

He describes the response to current tensions as “pathetically inadequate”.

“France has offered to send troops to Romania under NATO command; Denmark is deploying F-16 aircraft to Lithuania; the Netherlands is sending two joint strike fighters to Bulgaria; and Spain is sailing a frigate to the Black Sea,” he notes.

“The Biden administration’s revised plans to put 8,500 US troops under ‘heightened preparedness’ to be sent to some NATO countries but not Ukraine may help to reassure Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, but they impose no added cost or risk on Putin and confirm Joe Biden’s long-stated position that the US and NATO will not directly defend Ukraine.”

Jennings lambasts Biden for his handling of the crisis, pointing to his failure to lead a clear and coordinated NATO response.

“… Biden persists in telegraphing US weakness, ruling out military action, offering negotiating concessions, accepting that a Russian attack is inevitable and showing that there’s no allied unity on possible sanctions,” he continues.

Jennings is also critical of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who he suggests has been absent in recent weeks, with much of the White House’s messaging left to press secretary Jen Psaki.

“Leaving the public face of crisis management to media minders doesn’t build confidence. Matters of war and peace can be led only at cabinet level,” he stresses.

“Biden doesn’t look as though he is giving the issue the time it deserves. His wider national security team looks as if it is playing a solo hand rather than shaping a coordinated effort.”

The European response, he adds, has been “just as flaky”, noting a missed opportunity for the newly elected German government.  

“Instead, Germany has baulked at providing Ukraine lethal aid, saying ‘weapons deliveries would not be helpful at the moment’. Berlin’s public offer to send a field hospital is the worst possible signal,” he writes.

“The French focus seems to be to pitch for a European-led response, but the European countries most able to shift the strategic balance in Ukraine have absolutely no intention to do so.”

However, Jennings welcomes the UK government’s contribution to the response, with embattled Prime Minister Boris Johnson describing a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine as a “new Chechnya”.

“The British prime minister is implying that an invasion could lock Russia into a long-term occupation, fighting against a determined insurgency backed with Western support, in the context of a significantly strengthened NATO eastern front,” Jennings continues.

But despite US and NATO “fluffing their lines”, Putin faces a greater strategic challenge, with Jennings arguing his current posture is unsustainable.

“A warmer than usual winter means that moving heavy armoured vehicles towards Kyiv on slushy ground will be difficult. Crossing the Dnieper River will be no easier today than during the terrible battles in Ukraine in 1943,” he writes.

“If Putin’s aim is to stage a manufactured coup in Kyiv to install a puppet leader without a ground invasion, there has been sufficient intelligence warning of that risk and therefore an opportunity to harden key buildings and deploy special forces to make that a difficult task.”

Compounding Putin’s challenges is Beijing’s alleged request to postpone a potential invasion until after next month’s Winter Olympics.  

“Russia’s options are all unpalatable. Push on with an attack and face the risk of a costly long-term occupation; risk a bloody nose with a coup that could be thwarted; annoy a strategic partner in Beijing that could help shield Russia from sanctions; or back down with a risk of embarrassment at home and a stronger NATO abroad,” Jennings notes.

In lieu of Russian hesitation, President Biden may have the “narrowest window of opportunity” to exploit Putin’s weaknesses.

“The chal­lenge is to find a way for Russia to back down from conflict without looking defeated. Is there any scope to explore a pathway to demilitarise the Donbas or a wider area of eastern Ukraine? Could the possibility of Ukraine’s membership of NATO (now extremely unlikely to be agreed) be formally frozen for a decade or more?” Jennings adds.

“What all parties to the dispute need now is time, before the ice hardens and the tanks roll.”

Jennings observes that while formal negotiations may be unlikely, Biden should consider calling Putin to explore the possibilities.

“In that call, Biden also could give Putin some understanding of what tougher sanctions might mean for his personal wealth, as well as the holdings of the oligarchs who prop up his regime,” he concludes.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia's political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..