There is desperation and brilliance to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s proposal to provide Ukraine with post-war security by offering to cover it with the umbrella of NATO’s Article 5 Security guarantee, but not membership itself. It is loopy, because it would commit the US and Europe to precisely the risk of direct military engagement with Russia, a nuclear superpower, that they have been trying to avoid since Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Georgia in 2008.
It seems as unlikely that US President Donald Trump would agree to such a move as former US president Joe Biden, who meticulously (and for Ukraine disastrously) drip fed the provision of arms to avoid an assessed nuclear escalation risk.
However, Meloni’s idea also has a kind of genius. She has thought this through at least as clearly as France and the UK, with their troubled proposal to put troops on the ground as behind-the-lines peacekeepers.
That is a hard to understand concept and faces a plethora of challenges, from a dearth of the airlift, troops and artillery needed sustain a war-fighting force big enough to deter Russia, to an over-dependence on the US for critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. And that is if the Kremlin agreed and the US provided the necessary backstop should Russia decide to attack the peacekeepers. Neither seems likely.
PUTIN TEST
The cleverness of Meloni’s proposal lies in the way it would test to destruction Putin’s rationale for his invasion of a sovereign neighbor, one that so many in the West — including Trump — have swallowed whole. This is that Putin acted to counter a threat posed to Russia by NATO’s eastward expansion.
There is no question that Putin attacked Ukraine in significant part in response to NATO’s open-door policy — the alliance had not actually done any expanding toward Russia since 2004; subsequent additions were to the south, in the western Balkans, while Finland and Sweden joined only after the Ukraine invasion.
The important question — the one that Meloni’s proposal would test — is the nature of the threat Putin saw. Was it that Putin felt NATO would be able to use newly acquired bases to attack Russia? This is what Kremlin officials routinely say or imply, and NATO’s critics assume. Or was it because even the promise of NATO — and, equally, EU membership — threatened his plans to force those neighbors into a renewed sphere of control? This was the belief, born of centuries of experience with Russian domination and expansion, of the countries that began pounding on NATO’s door for admission as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed.
The evidence all points to the latter, as I have argued in detail here. Indeed, when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, Ukraine’s constitution excluded joining any military alliance and NATO had stood by the terms of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. This committed the alliance to not station nuclear weapons, bases or troops on the territories of its new members. It was not until 2017 that the first NATO soldiers moved to Poland, for example.
The net effect of the founding act was to grant new members the security they craved under NATO’s Article 5 collective defense pledge, but without provisions that Russia could legitimately consider provocative.
Meloni’s proposal for Ukraine would have the same result, but from the opposite starting point: non-membership. This would offer much clearer assurance to Moscow that it would not end up with NATO bases on another 1,974km of its land borders, in addition to the roughly 2,500km it already has. It is because all evidence points to the motive for Putin’s aggressive policies toward the Baltic states, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and others as a desire force them into his own NATO and EU sound-alikes — the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Union — that he would likely refuse Meloni’s proposal.
If his goal were peace and the security of Russia’s borders, rather than its expansion as a great power by force if necessary, he would surely accept.
CLARIFYING MOMENT
It is worth testing Meloni’s idea. Putin’s refusal could then provide a clarifying moment, putting into context his invasions of Ukraine, as well as demands such as Kyiv’s disarmament and NATO’s roll-back from all former Soviet-bloc nations. So, too, his latest proposal for regime change, which is to place all of Ukraine under transitional UN control, remove Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and “finish off” Ukraine’s armed forces.
That earned a public rebuke from Trump on Sunday. He told NBC he was “very angry” and threatened tough oil sanctions if Putin blew up US peacemaking efforts. This clarity could at the same time shine a useful light on those US efforts.
Despite Trump’s threats on Sunday, there has been a deep and cynical gulf between the new US administration’s stated goal of saving lives and ending an unwinnable war, and its actions. Those have been to cede most of Russia’s key demands, exclude Ukraine from the negotiation, and coerce Zelenskiy into granting the US control over all of his nation’s mineral resources and infrastructure in perpetuity.
As Bloomberg News reported on Saturday, Kyiv is now trying to secure less usurious terms, without causing a rift that leads to a further suspension of US military aid. If this clarity were all that adopting Meloni’s proposal achieved, it would be well worth the effort as we are drowning in Russian and now US disinformation. Under the guise of self-defense, Russia is engaged in a classic, colonial war of territorial expansion as it tries to regain control over a lost empire.
US EXPLOITATION
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is exploiting Kyiv’s moment of greatest dependency to impose a resource-extraction contract.
That deal was recently revised into a form worthy of Belgium’s 19th-century exploitation of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while offering Ukraine no security guarantees whatsoever. This is done in the name of helping Ukraine, yet the net effect of the deal would be to exclude Europe from Ukraine’s economic future and cripple its post-war reconstruction, while taking no responsibility for its defense.
Such is the untrammeled rule of the strong. The savage intent of both powers now pawing at Ukraine is worthy of the opening passages of Heart of Darkness, the novel Joseph Conrad set in the Belgian Congo.
“They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale,” says the narrator, Marlow, adding that conquest of the world “is not a pretty thing.”
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS