Editorial: Bail-out for Ukraine

Last week, NATO hoped to put up a united front at its two-day summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, which was being held in the backdrop of the military conflict in Ukraine. Prior to the opening of the summit, Turkey, the second-largest military force in the alliance after the US, gave its green signal to the accession of Sweden into NATO. Apart from approving renewed spending goals for members, the summit promised long-term support to Ukraine. What stuck out as a sore point was that the conference did not provide a clear timeframe to Kyiv on the promised membership to the alliance. The statement issued at the summit was that “an invitation to join the alliance will be extended when the allies reach a consensus and conditions are met.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, now having crossed the 16 month-mark, has taken a toll on Kyiv, which has secured only assurances of military supplies from NATO member states. The G-7 economies have guaranteed that military training and institutional support for attaining NATO membership will continue to come Ukraine’s way. But this tiptoed approach has left the President Zelenskyy disappointed, as he was pursuing firmer commitments from NATO on membership within a timeframe.

Ukraine has now mobilised a large quantity of NATO-supplied weaponry and a great number of troops for its counter-offensive which began last week. However, Kyiv cannot boast of air supremacy against Russian defences that could in turn catalyse advances on the frontlines. The Russian army is relatively stronger in numbers, it has strengthened its supply routes, and it seems better positioned to deal with the counter-attacks. And it appears that Moscow has prepared for a protracted engagement with Kyiv, considering NATO has promised to back Ukraine for as long as it takes.

A few days ago, the US announced a $800 mn security assistance package to Ukraine, which was the 42nd of its kind announced by the Biden administration. Washington has committed $41.3 bn to Kyiv since the beginning of the conflict. This time, the US has supplied additional ammunition including Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM), also referred to as cluster munitions (bombs), which have been banned by the global Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). Adopted by 111 parties in Dublin in 2008, it prohibits all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions. Among the 74 nations not party to this Convention, are nations that make and use these munitions. They include the US, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Israel, Pakistan and most member states of NATO.

Both Russia and Ukraine are said to have employed cluster bombs during this conflict, which as per Human Rights Watch has caused numerous fatalities among non-combatants. As per analysts, the war will drag out for a while, as the US, like many European nations, is seeking Russia’s defeat. It is an end-game for which significant political capital has been earmarked. So, despite the objections raised by the UN Secretary General and human rights advocates, the US has proceeded to arm Ukraine with deadly cluster bombs.

The NATO’s collective security formula enshrined in Article 5 also says that ‘an armed attack against one or more member states in Europe or North America, will be treated as an attack against all of them.’ This implies that if Ukraine is immediately offered membership into NATO, Russia’s invasion will be construed as a collective attack on the military alliance, which will require it to retaliate using armed force – more specifically, set the stage for World War III. And that is why Ukraine has been left to bleed.