When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The Surprise That May Finally Bury NATO: The Ukrainian Army

The system of post-World War II alliances has ultimately proven insufficient at the moment the Russian threat turned into actual war. Ukraine’s military has risen to the challenge in a way that may help reorder the system of security for decades to come.

Ukrainian soldiers on a tank.

Ukrainian soldiers after the liberation of Hostomel.

Anna Akage


Here’s a joke that’s been circulating the past few weeks in Ukraine: When the war is over, NATO will be asking to join Ukraine.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

The punchline makes a point of both the pride in the Ukrainian army’s stunning efforts to repel the Russian invaders, and the bitterness at the North Atlantic alliance’s hesitations to open membership to Kyiv.

But the subtext goes even further, raising questions about where the entire system of international security will wind up after the war in Ukraine.

Turn back 77 years, when Europe thought its final war was over. The military alliances created after World War II and the treaties signed on non-aggression, disarmament and non-nuclear status, were designed to keep civilization from repeating the mistakes of the past that had led to perennial instability and tens of millions of violent deaths.

A Cold War logic

On April 4, 1949 NATO was created with a mandate to: “promote democratic values and enable members to consult and cooperate on defense and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.”

More pertinient, were the alliance’s powers when conflict cannot be prevented: “If diplomatic efforts fail, (NATO) has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under the collective defense clause of NATO's founding treaty - Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or under a United Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.”

It was an alliance that for the next four decades would fit soundly in the Cold War logic of détente. So in 1991, when the USSR collapsed and Ukraine (along with other Soviet republics) became independent, the rationale of NATO and its bylaws would essentially begin a slow burn.

The Cold War was over and the world began to disarm. Ukraine was one of the ex Soviet nations that renounced nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from partner countries. In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum was signed, under which Russia, Britain and the United States undertook to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and existing borders and to seek immediate action by the UN Security Council should Ukraine fall victim to an act of aggression.

Two protesters in support of Ukraine.

Two protesters ask Nato for a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Michael Brochstein/ZUMA

Russia breaks the model

Twenty years later, the Budapest Memorandum was violated when Russia annexed Crimea and then invaded Ukraine in 2014, first occupying part of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Another eight years has brought us to the present, with Moscow’s unleashing of a full-scale war against Ukraine. And this is where we see how outdated the old system of alliances really is.

One of the motives the Kremlin has given for the war is the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, although when the war began there was no realistic possibility of this for at least 10 years.

From the outset of the war, Ukraine asked the U.S. and NATO to secure a no-fly zone over the country, which was quickly refused. The reason is obvious and comprehensible: the fear that the entry of the alliance countries into the war could set off what U.S. President Joe Biden called “World War III,” which could include nuclear weapons. That, we must acknowledge now more than ever after the atrocities of last week, leaves thousands of Ukrainian civilians to die by so-called “conventional” weapons.

Poland looks to Kyiv

Where does that leave Ukraine? And NATO? Despite all the moving speeches Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has made before the parliaments of NATO countries, the alliance has proven to be ineffectual in the face of real war. That brings us back to the joke: What was left, instead, was the Ukrainian army.

The stubbornness and professionalism of Ukrainian soldiers and military command came as a great surprise even to the all-knowing U.S. intelligence service. That has also prompted Ukraine's neighbors, primarily Poland, to propose future military alliances with Ukraine, with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson also expressing interest.

It sounds like an antiquated idea but is more relevant than ever: a professional army that wins on the battlefield is itself still a very important diplomatic argument in the 21st century. Yes, brute force is sometimes more important than bureaucratic formalities.

Moreover, the other countries bordering Russia, especially those with territorial disputes with Putin, will be looking for reliable allies in case Moscow tries to settle these disputes by force. Is that NATO? No, the indispensable ally tomorrow increasingly looks to be Ukraine.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

A "Third Rome": How The Myth of Russian Supremacism Fuels Putin's War

Tracing the early roots of the concept of the "Russian world" that sees the Russian state as eternal and impervious to change. Its primary objective is the establishment of a robust national state, a realm of expansionism where autocracy is the only form of governance possible.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin gives a gala reception at the Grand Kremlin Palace

Russia's President Vladimir Putin gives a gala reception at the Grand Kremlin Palace

Alexei Nikolsky/TASS/ZUMA
Vazhnyye Istorii


Looking back at the start of the 16th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow had emerged victorious over its Orthodox rivals, including principalities such as Tver and the Novgorod Republic. At the time, a significant portion of the eastern Slavic lands was under Catholic Lithuania's control.

So, how did Moscow rise to prominence?

On the surface, Moscow appeared to fill the void left by the Mongolian Golden Horde. While Moscow had previously collected tributes from other principalities, it now retained these resources for itself. There was an inclination for Muscovy to expand further eastward, assimilating fragments of the Genghisid empire. However, aligning the descendants of ancient Rus’ with the heirs of Genghis Khan would necessitate a fundamental shift in the state's identity. This was particularly complex due to the prevalent ideology built around religion, with the Tatar khans, unlike the Russian princes, adhering to Islam.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

In the early 16th century, a Pskov monk named Philotheus introduced a new idea: that Moscow represented the "third Rome."

According to Philotheus, the first Rome had succumbed to Latin heresy (Catholicism), and the second, Constantinople, had fallen to Turkish conquest. He believed Moscow was now the capital of the only Orthodox state remaining in the world. Philotheus presented his worldview to Grand Duke Vasily III, advocating for the unification of all Christian kingdoms into one.

The descendants of ancient Rus’ sought to trace their lineage back to Prus, the legendary brother of the first Roman emperor Augustus Octavian, establishing a link between Russia and the first Rome. Even though historical evidence doesn't support these claims, Ivan IV, better known as Ivan the Terrible, proudly asserted his connection to Augustus Octavian. He took the concept of the third Rome very seriously and became the first Russian ruler to take on the title of the tsar.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest