The thirty-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is, collectively and individually, more fearful of a confrontation with the Russian Federation than NATO members are, collectively and individually, confident that NATO would repel the Russian Federation from the territories of NATO members. 

The organization believes providing directly or indirectly to Ukraine twenty-eight MIG-29 fight jet aircraft currently located on the territory of NATO member Poland for use by Ukraine to defend itself against an attack by the Russian Federation would likely result in the Russian Federation attacking one or more NATO members.  The MIG-29 was first manufactured in 1977 by the U.S.S.R. 

The logic is backward.  NATO’s message to the Russian Federation should be if the Russian Federation were to attack a member of NATO for any reason- then NATO is prepared to defend itself.  If the Russian Federation wants a war with NATO, then NATO must be prepared to provide one.  If not, what is the use of NATO as a defensive organization if when is unwilling to defend its members from helping Ukraine? 

Yet, NATO members have provided and continue to provide to Ukraine drones (from NATO member Turkey), artillery (NATO member Germany approved transfer from NATO member Estonia to Ukraine) and rocket launchers to destroy trucks, tanks, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft.  Tens of thousands of weapons thus far in addition to non-lethal equipment and access to intelligence and assistance with preventing cyberattacks.  To most observers, this support would define NATO as being “all in” to support Ukraine.  When fired and disabling the intended target, the occupants of the trucks, tanks, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft will likely perish- those occupants are nationals of the Russian Federation and members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. 

Firearms provided by NATO members to Ukraine are used to kill nationals of the Russian Federation and members of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. 

So, what is the material difference between NATO members providing to Ukraine artillery and rocket launchers and firearms the provision to Ukraine of fixed-wing aircraft designed to accomplish the same goals- to kill?   

NATO is in this fight.  Stop doing a Kabuki dance among attorneys and scholars and bureaucrats and politicians and military officers.  If what the Russian Federation is doing is considered such as affront to societal norms, to the world order, then is not the risk, if there truly is a risk, worth taking? 

The Russian Federation is not seeking a war against NATO.  The Russian Federation is seeking an exit strategy from Ukraine.  They may define victory in a manner not contemplated, but definitely one that was a result of outcome modeling analysis. 

The Russian Federation’s position is enlargement of NATO membership during the last twenty-three years is a threat. 

The truth is the threat to the existence of the Russian Federation within its current boundaries comes not from NATO or an expansion of NATO membership.  The threat of most concern to the Russian Federation is to have on its borders countries who are members of the European Union (EU).  Having economies that are prosperous, globally-connected, engaging with export markets, and with a vote impacting the decision-making process for the EU would easily within reach, within envy distance for the 146 million citizens of the Russian Federation.     

The most obvious question is why would the Russian Federation believe that NATO would want to take offensive measures against the Russian Federation?  The U.S.S.R. (which included the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic as one of its fifteen republics) was hostile to non-like-minded governments prior to World War II and subsequent to World War II.  The Berlin Wall was not constructed by countries to contain the citizens of East Germany- it was constructed by a government controlled by the then-U.S.S.R. 

NATO, and its expansion to countries including Georgia and Ukraine, is not a military threat to the Russian Federation.  The collective membership is a commercial, economic, and political threat as members of NATO share, mostly, a commercial, economic, political, and social baseline which is unshared by the government of the Russian Federation. 

Since the dismemberment of the U.S.S.R. on 26 December 1991, neither NATO members nor non-NATO members have threatened to attack or have attacked the territory of the Russian Federation. 

The Russian Federation has attacked the territories of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.  The Russian Federation has implied that Finland should be prepared for the same treatment should it announce an intention to join NATO.   

There are two NATO members, Estonia and Latvia, that have a direct border to the territory of the Russian Federation. 

There are two NATO members, Lithuania and Poland, who share borders with Kaliningrad, the westernmost (on the Baltic Sea) oblast (administrative division) of the Russian Federation. 

At present, NATO has 30 members. In 1949, there were 12 founding members of the Alliance: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. The other member countries are: Greece and Turkey (1952), Germany (1955), Spain (1982), the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (1999), Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004), Albania and Croatia (2009), Montenegro (2017) and North Macedonia (2020). 

The other issue for the Russian Federation is expanding membership for the twenty-seven member European Union (EU)- particularly countries bordering the Russian Federation- Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine.  When there has been discussion, or interest expressed, by leadership in those three countries to join the EU, the Russian Federation has engaged in actions designed to dissuade, and render those countries toxic. 

So, the attack upon Ukraine by the Russian Federation is not uniquely about a concern for the expansion of NATO membership, the decision is more about the potential of the Russian Federation having not NATO members along a portion of its border, the issue is far more about having EU members along a portion of its border. 

EU membership reflects stability, continuity, collective engagement, collective responsibilities, and prosperity and an acceptance of democracy- and its limitations.  

The Tiredness Problem 

There is an increasing risk to maintaining a global public focus upon issues relating to Ukraine.   

The issue is too much misery on television, in newspapers, on radio, on Internet-based platforms (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.) can overwhelm an audience- who will seek refuge.  Already there is an increasing visual misery index due to higher inflation, higher food prices, higher fuel prices, and the continuing issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.   

Unless a resolution is implemented or is believed by the public to be near, there could be a shift in blame from the Russian Federation to Ukraine.  If the media-presented narrative driven by politicians, pundits, scholars, and commentators (particularly retired military officers) is the Russian Federation can retain what it wants- the Crimean Peninsula, eastern Donbas region, and land bridge connecting the Donbas region south to the Crimean Peninsula.  Meaning Ukraine can either continue to fight, and have their citizens die, or given in to “facts on the ground” and accept the new borders. 

Global media companies have a commercial interest in and a financial benefit when there is a conflict to cover.  Viewership increases.  Commercial rates increase.  Profits increase.  Conflicts are good for business.  Producers and reporters do focus upon marketing when crafting their reporting- that marketing is not necessarily with a profit motive, but the focus of the marketing effort is to create an attraction to the audience.  Reporters and producers are selling a product.  If their product is not as marketable as is the offering of a competitor, then continuing employment may be in jeopardy.  Case in point for United States-based cable networks- was it necessary for hosts of some of their programs (Anderson Cooper, Erin Burnett, Lester Holt) to be in Lviv?  They and their staff use space and resources better used for refugees and the current population of Lviv.  Conflict for cable and network television hosts is for them like crack cocaine.  Hosts and anchors do not need to be in Ukraine- reporters yes, hosts and anchors no. 

The public, meaning the public in all countries, want fuel prices to decrease, want inflation to decrease, and what food prices to decrease.  Until that happens, they will look for someone to blame- and politicians in their respective countries who were public in sharing there would be pain, but it was necessary pain for the greater good, will begin to disavow those statements and begin to blame Ukraine for being, yes, selfish- continuing to ask the world to sacrifice knowing the outcome is already determined.  Pressure will be on Ukraine to agree to whatever stops the war.  Later, perhaps some years later, Ukraine can disavow what it agreed to and seek membership in the EU and in NATO.  

Question of the day:  Why does not Samantha Power, Director of USAID, travel to Lviv, Ukraine?  The Vice President of the United States refused to set foot on Ukrainian soil.  The Secretary of State of the United States engaged in ridiculous now-you-see-me-now-you-don’t theatrics by stepping over the Poland/Ukraine border- such a profile in courage.  And, worse yet, the United States Department of State continued yesterday to reference it as though Secretary Blinken should receive the Nobel Peace Prize, a Medal of Honor, a Presidential Citation.  Members of the United States Congress are not traveling into Ukraine.  Can’t someone from the United States government show some courage? 

Turkish Airlines has substantially increased during the last two weeks, in some instances by 100% the ticket prices for travel from Istanbul to Moscow and from Istanbul to Minsk, the capital of Belarus, among other destinations.  

The attack on Ukraine by the Russian Federation has already resulted in countries confirming increases in defense spending which results in decreased spending upon education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social programs.  In the United States, spending on defense and defense-related programs are combined nearing US$1 trillion on a US$4.829 trillion budget- of which a meaningful percentage is deficit and payments (US$427 billion) on the national debt of US$30.3 trillion.  Defense spending is catnip for most politicians- it creates employment and defense companies are proliferate contributors to political campaigns.  The most quickly the war in Ukraine ends, the less of an increase there will be in defense spending- there will continue to be an increase, just the rate of increase might not be as pronounced. 

The Russian Federation’s logic for the invasion of Ukraine: Consider that Mexico warns the United States that it will not tolerate poor treatment of its citizens who reside in the United States.  Then, Mexico invades and annexes portions of Southern California and Texas.  Sounds ludicrous? David versus Goliath?  Russian Federation versus Ukraine?