NATO is celebrating its 75th year as its members fight a brutal proxy war with Russia over Ukraine. The alliance marked its anniversary in Brussels last week and will hold a formal summit in July in Washington. 

That session could be contentious. Fears of a Ukrainian collapse are increasing, and an increasing number of policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic believe the alliance should go all in for Kiev, assuming away the risks of a broader conventional and potential nuclear war. 

France’s President Emmanuel Macron played the Napoleon card, suggesting that allies deploy troops to Ukraine. While meeting with his European counterparts, he opined, “There’s no consensus today to send in an official, endorsed manner troops on the ground. But in terms of dynamics, nothing can be ruled out.” When criticized, he doubled down: “For us to decide today to be weak, to decide today that we would not respond, is being defeated already.” 

Macron imagines that putting allied troops in Ukrainian cities would immunize the latter from attack, deterring Moscow without war. He drew support from officials in Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland. More serious governments, including the Biden administration, rejected the idea. After all, Americans would bear the principal burden and pay the greatest cost of a broader war.

Nevertheless, as Warsaw pointed out, some members already have deployed troops to Ukraine. Others are threatening to act on their own. Reported the Wall Street Journal: “Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico told a televised briefing that preparatory materials he had received for the summit sent shivers down his spine. The documents, he said, suggested that a number of NATO and EU countries were considering sending troops to Ukraine. Fico added: ‘I cannot say for what purpose and what they should be doing there’.” The author Edward Luttwak helpfully offered detailed military missions for the transatlantic alliance:

NATO countries will soon have to send soldiers to Ukraine, or else accept catastrophic defeat. The British and French, along with the Nordic countries, are already quietly preparing to send troops—both small elite units and logistics and support personnel—who can remain far from the front. The latter could play an essential role by releasing their Ukrainians counterparts for retraining in combat roles. NATO units could also relieve Ukrainians currently tied up in the recovery and repair of damaged equipment, and could take over the technical parts of existing training programs for new recruits. These NATO soldiers might never see combat—but they don’t have to in order to help Ukraine make the most of its own scarce manpower.

Whether or not such personnel went mano-a-mano with Moscow’s troops, they would be actively involved in the war and thus valid targets. Given Russia’s extensive missile and drone attacks, allied casualties would be inevitable. In that event, Macron said, neither the U.S. nor NATO need be involved, but that is easier said now than done then, with bodies being shipped back to European nations and possibly America. An expanded conventional and possible nuclear war could scarcely be avoided. 

Others freely advocate direct intervention in combat, though for nominally defensive purposes. For instance, retired Col. Alexander Crowther suggested sending personnel to run anti-missile batteries: “You’d have to be really clear to Putin [and] say, ‘We’re sending people to Ukraine, they’re not going to be doing offensive combat against you’.” Alas, Moscow isn’t likely to respect that distinction. Allied troops would be actively engaging Russian forces and could scarcely be ignored by Moscow. In that case, Crowther would be inviting massive retaliation. 

Yet some European and American officials would go even further. They have urged deploying aerial and naval armadas to sweep the skies and seas of Russian forces, intervening more broadly “to decisively turn the military tide,” and even employing nuclear weapons against what they appear to perceive as the Mongols reborn. These would risk World War III, putting thousands and perhaps millions of lives in the balance. Proponents of such measures appear more than a little deranged. 

Indeed, what ties such proposals together is that only Washington has sufficient power to overcome Moscow. NATO members which barely pretend to field a military are currently plotting how to effectively borrow U.S. forces. The very structure of the transatlantic alliance, treating all members as equals, encourages dangerous flights of fancy by ivory tower warriors across the continent. Consider the complaints of Eastern Europeans that they deserve to fill NATO’s top spot, the secretary generalship, for which the Netherlands’ former Prime Minister Mark Rutte is the strong favorite to replace retiring Jens Stoltenberg. Both Estonia’s prime minister and Romania’s president considered running. The former asked, “Are we equals or are we not equals? So these questions still remain.” Artis Pabriks, former defense minister of Latvia, complained that “we feel that we were not consulted enough.”

Estonia may be a lovely tourist destination, but with only 7,100 men and women under arms it is but a rounding error in any conflict with Russia. Tallinn shouldn’t oversee anything military in NATO, except maybe providing an honor guard for visiting dignitaries in Brussels. Latvia has even less credibility with just 6,600 people under arms. At least Romania, which fields a military of 69,900, is more serious.

In fact, few governments in Europe look good. The former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves asked of Rutte, “What moral credibility does this guy have?” Rotterdam has chronically failed to hit NATO’s two percent of GDP target. Moreover, the Netherlands fields fewer than half as many soldiers as Romania. Italy and Spain have sizable economies but risible militaries. Germany’s long-term commitment is uncertain at best. 

Even the United Kingdom, with Europe’s best military, is not ready for war with Russia. London is shrinking its army as it trims plans to increase military outlays. Sky News’ Deborah Haynes observed that “the armed forces would run out of ammunition ‘in a few days’ if called upon to fight”; “the UK lacks the ability to defend its skies against the level of missile and drone strikes that Ukraine is enduring”; and “it would take five to 10 years for the army to be able to field a war-fighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops backed by tanks, artillery and helicopters.”

Only slightly less reckless than entering the war are proposals to bring Ukraine into NATO—which most members have continued to reject despite the 2008 Bucharest declaration endorsing the inclusion of Kiev and Tbilisi. Indeed no one in NATO wanted to defend either country, so members lied for the next 14 years about their willingness to invite the two governments to join. Alas, having previously been misled about NATO expansion, Moscow took the prospect seriously, which ultimately animated Vladimir Putin’s invasion decision. Even then the alliance wasn’t prepared for nuclear war over Ukraine and stayed out. Nor are most members prepared for such a conflict today, despite the increasing attempt by Eastern Europeans to drag America into the war. 

Yet Secretary of State Antony Blinken continues to encourage Ukraine while refusing to act, declaring: “Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Our purpose at the summit is to help build a bridge to that membership.” But if Kiev isn’t worth risking mass casualties and destruction today, it won’t be worth doing so tomorrow. With some Europeans nevertheless pushing to deploy troops to Ukraine and risk war with Russia, Washington should tell Europe to put up or shut up. 

Vladimir Putin’s government is responsible for invading Ukraine. For that Moscow bears responsibility for mass death and destruction. Nevertheless, the U.S. and European states did much to encourage the conflict and share blame for the resulting horror.

Subscribe Today

Get daily emails in your inbox

That makes it even more important for the allies to step back from the abyss. Washington long ago recognized that Ukraine matters little for America’s defense. Kiev spent most of US history as part of the Russian empire in one form or another. Washington never considered going to war over who ruled Kiev. It should not do so now.

The Biden administration should make very clear that if European meddling in Ukraine leads to war, America’s allies are on their own, NATO notwithstanding. There is no alliance obligation to rescue those joining someone else’s fight. Washington also should forthrightly reject Kiev’s NATO aspirations. No one has a right to join. Alliances are supposed to increase security. Accepting a country at war with Russia would yield conflict not peace.

Instead of prolonging the Russo-Ukraine war, Washington and its allies should work to bring hostilities to a close. Doing so won’t be easy, but the ongoing proxy war risks expansion and escalation. Ukraine is not worth that risk. To properly celebrate NATO’s 75th anniversary, the Biden administration should end today’s proxy war.