Is NATO expansion the new Versailles?

On 1 September 1939, German military forces crossed the border into Poland. The UK and France, after some days, complied with their treaty obligations to Poland and declared war on Germany. They then basically sat back and did nothing while Poland burned. The invasion of Poland was inevitable, and it is possible to put a date on that inevitability: 28 June 1919.

We’ve seen this cycle before; fight a war, win/lose a war, impose a treaty (or not) and then wait 20 – 40 years for the ‘losing side’ to complete their grievance process and start a war to ‘rectify’ the ‘injustice’ of the previously imposed peace.

As World War II followed as an inevitability from the one-sided Treaty of Versailles, so will the invasion of Ukraine follow the relentless expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War. While there was no victory parade, no humiliating armistice signing in a rail carriage, and no grand treaty at Versailles, there most certainly was a 'victory', and the victors did impose their will on the defeated.

As Versailles begat WWII, so to the constant eastward expansion of NATO begat the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, and the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. And yet NATO did not learn from either, and continues to state that it is Ukraine's prerogative to choose to join NATO, thus leaving the door open for further eastward expansion.

Giving credit to the concept of NATO, its very existence has ensured peace across its member nations for over seventy years. And it is inconceivable that any nation-state would seriously consider attacking a NATO member. So there are huge incentives to join NATO, not least being the end of historically ever-present external threats and the need for large armies always ready for war.

And there have been incentives for NATO to seek to add new countries to the club, not least ensuring that there are no more wars between member nations, and eliminating the threat of near-peer aggression against any NATO member. For that matter, any country, near-peer or not, has to think twice or even three times before engaging in overt aggression against a NATO member. An attack on a NATO member is a terrible idea.

Should NATO have expanded? Yes. The eastward expansion was appropriate, especially into Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. Creating a mutually defending core European entity that (almost) mirrors the EU was the logical progression. There cannot be a European Union without a common European defence sphere. The issue, however, is not the future of the European core, but about the extent to which Europe and the United States are willing to go to impose their will on the rest of Europe and surrounding areas.

In effect, NATO creates a giant overlapping sphere of influence and control, protecting the western core (France, Germany and the Benelux) from aggression from the east, the exact mirror of Moscow's needs. Russia needs its borderlands in the west, namely Belarus and Ukraine. Russia remembers German tanks. And they know perfectly well that those German tanks had to fight through eastern Poland, Belarus and Ukraine to reach Russian soil.

Would this justify an invasion of Ukraine? No. Of course not. Did Versailles justify the invasion of Poland in 1939? Of course not.

Was the Treaty of Versailles unjust, and did it contribute to the rise of militant nationalism in Germany? Sadly yes. Has the west's apparent inability to say "enough is enough" when it comes to the eastward expansion of NATO contributed to Russia's recent wars? Sadly also yes.

Will NATO and the United States now accept that NATO expansion is at an end? No. And they cannot, because to do so 'abandons' Ukraine and other countries, and tells them that they will never have the same security that all NATO members share. But to now make that statement will force Russia's hand.

Brutally honestly, the best we can hope for now is a Cuban Missle Crisis outcome, in which Russia blinks after receiving a secret promise that Ukraine will never be part of NATO. That back door agreement will have to come with a guarantee that there will be, at an 'appropriate time', probably within the next six months, a public statement that NATO agrees that Ukraine will never join.

But that will not happen, and cannot happen.

So probably the realistic best hope is for a fast Russian offensive, the quick collapse of the Ukrainian government and the formation of a new government in Kyiv that publicly renounces any NATO ambitions and pledges closer ties with Russia. The alternative will be the occupation of Ukraine while the west looks on, making as much noise as possible, all the while doing nothing. Just like 1939 and Poland.

Can a wrong treaty be undone? Can NATO admit that it has reached its limits? I think we are about to find out.