I'm leaning toward putting "was" instead of the bold. What does it mean to say that something "has been" consequential? Logically, consequences stretch through time and so it gets complicated when you say "has been" consequential...you're layering "has been" (which stretches through time) on top of "consequential" (which refers to consequences that stretch through time). I think that "was" might be better.
And is being consequential something that can be fixed in time? Isn't being consequential inherently a property that cannot be fixed in time?
People will sometimes say that NATO is a purely defensive alliance and that Russia had no reason to fear it—this notion isn’t consistent with the historical record. Look at the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011, which was a NATO operation—this operation was not defensive and was not gentle. This was an offensive regime-change operation that destabilized Libya and much of North Africa—that destabilization has been hugely consequential and is in the headlines today.
