And the Russian dictator, leader of the nuclear-armed kleptocracy, has only himself to blame.

NATO General-Secretary Jens Stoltenberg even said so himself — sort of. The former Norwegian prime minister is too buttoned-down diplomatic and professional to put it in those exact words.

But still the truth comes out as Stoltenberg talked about the stationing of troops in Eastern Europe, part of the largest NATO build-up since the end of the Cold War.

Response to Ukraine

“And I think it’s obvious that what we do is a response on the Russian behavior in Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said on May 20. “Before that happened we didn’t have any kind of the same-force presence in the eastern part of the alliance as we are planning to have now and the assurance measures, the increased military presence is something that came after the annexation of Crimea.”

So Ukraine, which is far from joining NATO and paying for its corrupt leaders’ dithering between East and West for 25 years, deserves credit for pumping new life into the old organization that gets pilloried as obsolete and ossified yet demonized by Russia as aggressive and expansionist.

And that leaves Stoltenberg trying to reassure NATO members nervous about Russia’s belligerence while calming down the Kremlin.

Projecting stability

NATO, founded in 1949, is indeed bureaucractic but also vital through its intertwining of democratic values and military might.

If Putin were crazy enough to attack any NATO members, the alliance could crush him. That’s why I don’t worry so much about the Baltics or other NATO nations. I worry about Ukraine, which doesn’t have the NATO umbrella.

One of the themes of a May 18-20 NATO foreign ministers meeting was “projecting stability” to NATO’s neighbors, including Ukraine. On that score, NATO is coming up short, in finances and in flexibility to respond to less than all-out military assaults.

Trust funds

NATO raised 5 million euros in trust fund money for Ukraine, in contrast to Afghanistan, which has $1.3 billion euros.

Russia’s takeover of Crimea and war have triggered a seismic shift in public opinion that NATO should capitalize on. Now, a majority of Ukrainians want to join NATO as well as the European Union.

Another theme of the NATO meeting is to work more closely with the EU, which is also based in Brussels, since 22 nations have membership in both institutions. Whether this unity would make NATO and EU doubly effective or just doubly divided remains to be seen.

Neither the EU nor NATO are rushing to tighten sanctions or impose deadines on Russia. It’s too bad, because I think that Russia has shown itself to be a rogue that will respond only to greater pressure.

It may not even be worth talking with Russia anymore, considering its duplicity and the conflict in values between NATO and Putin.

NATO stopped its cooperation with Russia after the Kremlin attack on Ukraine in 2014, but continues to talk in the NATO-Russia Council. The most recent meeting, on April 20 in Brussels, did not go well.

Pointless talks?

“During the meeting it was reconfirmed that we disagree both when it comes to the facts, the narratives and the responsibilities for the crisis in and around Ukraine,” Stoltenberg said. “And many allies also conveyed a very strong message that we disagree when Russia tries to portray this as a civil war. This is Russia destabilizing eastern Ukraine, providing support for separatists, ammunition, funding, equipment and also command and control.”

Nothing has changed since then. Russia this month condemned Montenegro’s accession to NATO as an act of aggression. Coupled with NATO’s increased military presence in the Baltics and in Poland, Stoltenberg said on May 20 that it may be a good time to talk with Russia again to reassure its leaders that he means no harm.

Or it could be just another waste of time.