The NATO summit held in Ankara from 7–8 July reaffirmed the alliance’s determination to continue its campaign against Russia in Ukraine. This outcome was expected, though critics argue that NATO has failed to learn from its past mistakes, including its relentless eastward expansion, its support for the 2014 coup in Kyiv, and the removal of President Viktor Yanukovich, wrote Vladimir Ladanov in the Daily Pioneer publication.

These actions, aimed at turning Ukraine into a Western stronghold against Russia, are seen as central to the current geopolitical crisis. NATO’s ambition to dominate Europe’s security space and its disregard for Russia’s vital interests have fuelled the bloodiest conflict on the continent since the Second World War.

Once described as “brain dead” by French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019, NATO has now found renewed purpose in its confrontation with Moscow, though questions remain about the sustainability of this unity.

The alliance’s original purpose was famously summarised by its first Secretary General, Hastings Ismay, as “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Today, all three pillars of that dictum are being challenged. After the Cold War, US Undersecretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz articulated a doctrine that sought to prevent Russia’s resurgence, ruling out meaningful integration with the West.

Yet Russia has re-emerged as a great power, countering the combined might of the Western coalition in Ukraine and resisting attempts at escalation dominance. NATO’s refusal to engage Moscow on equal terms is now seen as a squandered opportunity, leaving the alliance embroiled in a proxy war that undermines its original mission of ensuring Euro-Atlantic security.

NATO’s leadership now faces the risk of fragmentation. US President Donald Trump has signalled his desire to radically redistribute burden sharing, criticising European allies for freeloading at America’s expense.

He has even floated the possibility of suspending defence commitments to countries deemed underperforming or politically at odds with Washington, citing the precedent of ANZUS obligations to New Zealand being suspended in the 1980s.

Trump’s administration is reviewing America’s European force posture, with reductions in troop deployments likely. His broader strategy is to pivot towards the Pacific, freeing resources currently tied down in Europe and Ukraine.

More controversially, Trump favours negotiating directly with Russia to end the conflict, a prospect that alarms European leaders who rely heavily on US strategic assets such as intelligence, surveillance, precision strike capabilities, and nuclear deterrence. Without these, Europe’s position against Russia would weaken considerably.

The third pillar of NATO’s founding purpose—keeping Germany down—is also under strain. Germany’s defence spending has surged, doubling since 2022 and projected to reach nearly €160 billion by 2030, rivalling Britain and France combined.

This rearmament raises concerns about a redistribution of power in Europe and rekindles historical grievances, such as Poland’s demand for wartime reparations. While European elites currently welcome Germany’s military build-up as a counter to Russia, history warns of the risks of such strategies, recalling the disastrous miscalculations of the 1930s.

For India, two key observations emerge from this geopolitical drama. First, European states are poor security partners for India, as their resources are consumed by the confrontation with Russia. Their Indo-Pacific strategies, lacking funding and substance, offer little tangible support to New Delhi.

This mirrors Britain’s pre-WWII decision to prioritise European defence at the expense of Pacific deployments, a choice that weakened its global position.

Second, India’s foreign policy community broadly agrees that a strong, independent Russia is vital for maintaining a favourable balance of power in Eurasia. Europe’s pursuit of Russia’s defeat undermines this balance, complicating India’s strategic options and reducing its flexibility.

Against this backdrop, an early termination of the Ukraine conflict and a restoration of normalcy between Russia and the West would serve India’s interests. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message that “today’s era is not the era of war” resonates strongly in this context, offering a pathway towards stability and balance.

For India, the resolution of the conflict is not merely a matter of global peace but a strategic necessity to safeguard its external environment and ensure that Eurasia remains conducive to its rise.

Agencies