WHITHER NATO?

Once upon a time, we made fun of that headline. Used to be, boring American editorials about international diplomacy used words like “whither,” and some of us snickered. Who talks like that? Whither good writing?

Besides, at the end of the Cold War, editorials about NATO could be kept in type. Headlines, too. In case of a slow news day. And all of it could be rolled out every few months to fill space. It wasn’t urgent. Nothing about NATO was urgent.

Then, it turns out, history wasn’t at an end after all. And the North Atlantic Treaty Organization became in vogue again. Valuable again. Urgent again.

There were those in the West who thought when Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin took to the podium, and his country’s airwaves, during his recent Victory Day speech, that he would either declare war on the West or declare victory in Ukraine, and thus his war would be over.

He did neither. Here’s part of what he did say about his war in Ukraine:

“The danger was growing day by day, so Russia gave a preemptive response to the aggression. It was a forced, timely and only correct decision, a decision made by the sovereign, strong and independent country. We saw how the military infrastructure was being developed, how hundreds of foreign advisers began to work, regular deliveries of the most modern weapons from NATO countries were occurring.”

So he attacked. He told his military that “you are fighting for our motherland, its future, so that nobody forgets the lesson of World War II, so that there is no place in the world for torturers, death squads and Nazis.” There’s a lot to unpack there. First, Ukrainian Nazis? Considering their hero president is Jewish, Mr. Putin’s continued Nazi references are proving risible.

A preemptive response to the aggression? That’s how he wants to play it to his country. Some in the former Soviet Union might even believe him. There is a military theory that holds a country sometimes has to strike first to prevent disaster on its end, but the world watched for months as Russia amassed troops on the border of Ukraine before launching the attack.

But who are you going to believe? Comrade Putin or your lyin’ eyes?

It was “only” a “correct decision” made by the “strong and independent” country? That reminds us of what Margaret Thatcher once said: Being a powerful nation is like being a lady; if you have to announce that you are, you aren’t.

As far as NATO, for the last 15 years Vladimir Putin’s whole raison d’etre has been to weaken NATO. Instead … .

On Wednesday last week, Finland and Sweden submitted formal applications to join NATO.

For years, that would have been unheard of. Polls showed large majorities of both countries opposed to any such idea. Finland and Sweden enjoyed being non-aligned — not neutral, just not in the line of fire.

But after Russia invaded Ukraine, public sentiment shifted dramatically. If Moscow could launch an invasion of Ukraine, which didn’t have NATO protections, which country was next? Almost single-handedly, Vladimir Putin made NATO appealing to more countries. If this is weakening NATO, what would fortifying it almost overnight look like?

Vlad the Impaler said the world should never forget the lessons of World War II. Such as, we suppose, threatening neighbors for territorial gains, launching military attacks anyway, and blaming the war on the other side, which was surely aggressing first before we aggressed next. And then the slaughter comes.

Vladimir Putin’s “only correct decision” seems to be just the opposite. For him. For his country. And for Europe.

Whither NATO? Vladimir Putin gives the rest of the world an only correct answer.