NATO Essentially Committed Itself To A Forever War With Russia During The Ankara Summit

Its members’ pledge of €140 billion divided between the rest of this year and the next disincentivizes Russia to cease hostilities even once it obtains full control of Donbass since it now knows for certain that NATO will exploit the lull in fighting to rearm Ukraine before Kiev resumes hostilities.

The Ankara Declaration that followed the latest NATO Summit essentially committed the bloc to a forever war with Russia. That’s the logical conclusion after its embers pledged “€70 billion in military equipment, assistance and training for Ukraine and affirm[ed] their sovereign commitments to sustaining at least equivalent levels in 2027.” This means that NATO will continue arming Ukraine even in the event of a ceasefire, thus, Russia is incentivized to continue the conflict in part to destroy this new equipment.

After all, one of the goals of its special operation is to demilitarize Ukraine, which obviously wouldn’t be fulfilled if NATO continues massively exporting military-technical equipment to it. Russian officials from Putin on down are also on record explaining their rejection of any ceasefire on the basis that the lull in fighting would only give Ukraine an opportunity to rearm before resuming hostilities. Therefore, agreeing to a ceasefire in spite of that could represent a “loss of face”, so Putin is unlikely to accede to that.

What he initially had in mind as evidenced by the leaked copy of spring 2022’s draft peace treaty that was sabotaged by the UK (and, most observers forget, Poland) was Ukraine agreeing to strict limits on the size of its armed forces and the equipment that they’re allowed to use. Zelensky was emboldened by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s promise of continued military-technical support if he keeps up the fight and Poland agreeing to retain its irreplaceable logistical role into pulling out of the peace process.

Ukraine’s demilitarization can thus only be achieved by the US coercing it into agreeing to the abovementioned limits, Russia’s continued on-the-ground advance getting him to reconsider his recalcitrance, or Russia literally destroying the new equipment that it’ll receive from NATO till 2028. The first is no longer realistic after Trump reneged on the “Spirit of Anchorage” that could have achieved this goal, the second can’t be taken for granted, while the third is a recipe for another forever war.

That’s precisely what NATO wants too since it envisages Trump 2.0’s new “war of attrition” degrading Russia’s comprehensive national strength while extending the amount of time for testing new AI-assisted weapons on the battlefield. Former top Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov warned earlier in the summer that his country is embroiled in a “new war” that could last decades and candidly admitted that “we were not prepared” for Starlink empowering Ukraine to carry out precision strikes deep inside of Russia.

While Scott Ritter argued that “[NATO’s] ability to continue defense expenditures at the present rate of growth will more than likely lead to the political and economic collapse of the individuals and political parties which currently advocate in support of such policies”, that sounds like wishful thinking. To be sure, NATO will certainly experience growing costs as a result of the “war of attrition” that it’s waging against Russia through Ukraine, but so too will Russia experience such costs as well.

Absent an unexpected political breakthrough, the most realistic way in which this impending forever war ends is by the abovementioned costs becoming unbearable for Ukraine and Kiev finally capitulating to Russia’s demilitarization demands so that Putin can end the conflict without “losing face”. Its conscription crisis coupled with its demographic one might be what ultimately breaks Ukraine. That might not happen for a while, however, so all sides should brace themselves for fighting a forever war.