NATO de facto fueling Indo-Pacific’s re-militarization

The Indo-Pacific is being rapidly re-militarized as bilateral defense agreements spring up across much of the region.

That contrasts markedly with most of the post-Cold War period, when the region’s priority shifted toward economic prosperity and a degree of de-militarization, including in the case of the Philippines, seen in the closure of major Cold War-era American military bases.

In recent weeks and months, on the other hand, a complex web of inter-regional and intra-regional linkages has been forged or re-enforced across this vast land and maritime area.

This is happening in the context of intensifying great power rivalry between the US, its NATO allies and Western-oriented regional partners jostling for control and influence against the rising powers of China, Russia and other regional states seen variously by the West as strategic or dangerous competitors.

The latest iteration of re-militarization arises in the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the region. Although NATO does not, as yet, have a physical presence anywhere in the Indo-Pacific, the transatlantic organization is forging ties in new spheres with its principal partners there, including Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand. 

Several new initiatives were agreed at its annual summit in Washington DC involving the development of cybersecurity, tackling hybrid threats, promoting interoperability and beefing up general defense cooperation.  

It’s not just the Indo-Pacific’s most advanced economies that are forming military partnerships: The Philippines is foremost among the region’s developing economies to launch a series of new defense deals. 

The most recent and notable has been its security pact with Japan, which was symbolically signed on the eve of the NATO summit.

The agreement, which was partly driven by growing concerns over Manila’s recent clashes with China in the South China Sea, facilitates the deployment of each other’s forces on their respective territories for joint drills.

It is the first defense agreement between Japan and another Asian country since the end of World War II and the former’s brutal occupation of many regional countries, including the Philippines. Manila had earlier concluded a similar Visiting Forces Agreement with Australia, as indeed has Japan.

Perhaps the most controversial military pact launched by the Philippines has been with the US in the form of the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA).

EDCA was set up by former late-president Benigno Aquino a decade earlier. Its expansion this year by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr has elicited some disquiet among certain Filipino media and sections of the general public.

Marcos has expanded from the original five bases that have hosted “rotational” US forces to an additional four on coastal regions facing Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Their announced purpose has been to “address a range of shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific region,” according to the US Department of Defense.

Other recent notable military cooperation agreements include Japan’s ten-year mutual security arrangement with Ukraine, which was signed in June 2024. While non-binding, it provides for the supply of non-lethal assistance to Ukraine.

South Korea is considering a similar cooperation deal. However, last month, President Yoon Suk Yeol said he would reconsider supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine after declining to do so the previous month. 

Putin hits back with new defense agreements

Yoon may have reconsidered after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s defense treaty with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, agreed on his visit to Pyongyang in June 2024.

The agreement sets out mutual military assistance in the event of either state being subject to an armed invasion from a third country.

In June, in another regional trip that irked Washington, Putin traveled to Vietnam. Russia has long been Vietnam’s principal weapons supplier dating back to the Cold War. Both sides agreed to upgrade their mutual defense and security cooperation subject to a joint communique, with the caveat it is “not directed against any third country.”

Nonetheless, the big regional elephant in the room was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Moscow, his first since the Ukraine conflict began. The trip was subject to negative scrutiny in Washington given it occurred during the opening days of the NATO Summit in Washington, although the Indian government downplayed the timing.  

Aside from the notable Putin-Modi bonhomie on display during their meeting, both leaders agreed to expand their military cooperation with an emphasis on the joint production of advanced technology and systems.

These include setting up new joint ventures to produce military parts and defense equipment under the “Make in India” program to be enabled by technology transfers from Russia and subsequent exports to “friendly” third countries.

Ukraine’s weakening positions

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky heavily criticized Modi’s Moscow visit, calling it a “huge disappointment and devastating blow to peace efforts.”

Zelensky’s reaction may also be reflective of the visit coming at a sensitive time for Ukraine as its war effort flounders with diminishing prospects for ejecting Russia from its territorial gains.  

Yet NATO support for Ukraine is largely confined to rhetoric with limited military and economic support. There are no official NATO “boots on the ground”

The military weakness of the current Ukrainian position is clear. The potential manpower available for the military is substantially hindered by its paucity of available young men in their 20s; the average age of Ukraine’s frontline soldiers is 43.

Ukraine’s economy is weak, though growth has been higher than anticipated in 2023. Nonetheless, under recent scenarios, it is unlikely to recover its GDP level until the late 2020s. The damaging and relentless Russian missile attacks on Ukraine’s power grid and rail infrastructure are further debilitating the economy.

NATO and Ukrainian rhetoric about recapturing all the territory currently occupied by Russia since the invasion – and Russian occupation of Crimea that predates the invasion – is plainly unrealistic.

What is emerging from the NATO summit is more of the same rhetoric and limited commitments of further support in kind. Whether these commitments will actually be delivered will depend on the conflict’s progress on the battlefield.

Despite NATO assertions to the contrary, Russia does not appear to be weakening in military or economic terms. What is sometimes ignored is that Russia, in purchasing power parity terms, is the fourth largest economy in the world, according to the World Bank’s revised measurements this year.

The US has suggested that Ukraine should be provided with a clear “bridge to NATO membership.” What this would entail in practice is meaningless. Moreover, it cannot guarantee membership. All current members of NATO have to agree on membership. Additionally, until the conflict is resolved, entry into NATO cannot happen.

Overdue Ukraine armistice

Resolution of the conflict is most likely to occur, at some point, via an armistice. An armistice, it should be noted, allows both parties to agree to cease hostilities on current border positions – with Russia retaining the four oblasts it effectively holds, plus Crimea – without either side conceding defeat.

The conflict then becomes frozen, with a military-free zone at the border. The Korean war ended in this manner. It is to be hoped, if only to end the suffering of the Ukrainian people, that an armistice comes later this year, before another winter sets in.

Ironically, such a situation might allow the accession of Ukraine to NATO, with a guarantee that NATO troops or military installations would not be stationed within several hundred miles of the armistice border.

A similar situation exists in Norway, a long-standing member of NATO, where no NATO installations or troops are stationed north of Trondelag, which is far south of the border with Russia.

Finally, it is worth adding that any final resolution of the conflict should involve China. It is the one country that could guarantee that an armistice would hold, given its influence on Russia.

While hosting Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban, Chinese President Xi Jinping called on Russia and Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and on other major powers to create an environment conducive to talks. Only when all major powers project “positive energy rather than negative energy” can a ceasefire occur, Xi said on CCTV.