Why NATO’s ‘Escalation Management Ladder’ Needs a New Directive

During the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO has backed the latter in the defense of their homeland politically, economically, and militarily. With the full-scale invasion entering its second year in a ten-year overall conflict, Russia continues to escalate, hoping to have a favorable treaty in its favor.

In the meantime, NATO continues to lag, as it took seven months of political gridlock inside America to bring military aid at the expense of Russian advances finally, and Czechia’s shell initiative bailed out Europe, which lagged in artillery allocations. While Russia and its allies are all in, NATO must show a new and concrete directive, as foreign adversaries will not slow down anytime soon.

Current Global Tensions

Along with the ongoing war in Ukraine, several flashpoints across the world intertwine with at least one or more NATO members.

In Africa, a ‘coup belt’ has formed with Russian information and hybrid warfare. Countries that were former French colonies, such as Mali, Burkina Faso, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Niger, and the Central African Republic, are all currently ruled by military juntas, who have a disdain for France and the West in general.

Against the backdrop of the coup belt, especially in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, French forces have been expelled—ending the decades-long counterinsurgency operations against ISIS and al-Qaeda. US forces also face potential expulsion, with Russian troops entering the American-built airbase as the junta in Niger calls for the complete end of the Western coalition.

In the Middle East, the Israel-Hamas War nearly went regional after the April events. Here, Israel targeted and eliminated several top-level commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) next to their embassy in Damascus.

Wanting revenge for the attack, the Mullahs and IRGC launched several hundred ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, with the overwhelming majority being shot down by the latter, America, Britain, France, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Israel responded to the attack with a limited but decisive strike against a radar battery near Iran’s nuclear facility in Isfahan—ending the exchange for now.

Not only did the United States stop a wider regional war through diplomatic means and a show of strength through defense, but it also showed that Washington was very much a player in world policing without sending boots on the ground.

NATO has a Coalition of the Willing, But Is It Willing?

During the shootdown of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones by France, the UK, and the US, NATO’s top members showed they’re willing to intervene in certain conflicts without engaging in a direct war—but here lies the problem.

The top global players of the West have shown they are willing to come to the defense of an ally under duress but, to this day, remain indecisive over Ukraine—a nation NATO has stated is protecting Europe while fighting for their freedom.

Ukraine is growing concerned with the lack of air defense systems as Russians look to adapt and overwhelm their batteries to enact air superiority. Akin to Iran launching ballistic missiles through Iraqi, Jordanian, and Saudi airspace to strike Israel, Russia, likewise, fires missiles and drones over Polish and Romanian airspace, respectively, to attack Ukraine.

In the sense of a geopolitical problem, Poland and Romania, both of whom have been threatened by Russia, have not shot down any missiles or drones over their airspace, nor have American forces stationed inside both nations. The Kremlin could see such policies as acts of weakness and use them to their advantage.

The Kremlin, seeing NATO‘s weakness in shooting down projectiles, could continue shooting missiles and drones over NATO airspace to hit key targets in Ukraine. This would then force Ukraine to conduct interceptions over Polish and Romanian airspace with a chance of debris hitting civilians—something Russia would hope causes further discourse.

Deterrence Prevents Escalation; Appeasement Accelerates it

NATO, as a mutually collective defensive alliance, has made sure no member states have been attacked by a conventional army for 75 years and kept threats, such as Russia and Serbia, away. However, tyrants like Vladimir Putin will continue to escalate if they see signs of weakness.

Regarding the war in Ukraine, NATO can use a ‘peace through strength’ doctrine without direct military intervention. NATO members, as they did with Israel, should use their air defenses to shoot down Russian missiles if the alliance is afraid of escalation. This policy would be a show to forces and a red line to Russia that shows we are willing to protect a future prospective member.

Akin to deter Iran from further direct provocations without having to conduct a full-scale war, NATO can do the same with Russia and any other global adversaries. Having the tools needed to end the war in Ukraine and keep international peace, the question remains: does NATO have a coalition of the willing?