Get free NATO updates
We will send you a file myFT Daily Digest Rounding email to the latest NATO News every morning.
The writer is the former US Special Envoy to Ukraine and former US Ambassador to NATO
It is sometimes difficult to appreciate the significance of major global changes as they occur. Our analyses, instincts, and actions are rooted in what we already know, and we don’t fully appreciate the new environment in which we find ourselves. We focus on the past when what we really ought to be doing is focusing urgently on the future.
This is perhaps the best explanation for what happened this week at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The Coalition has done well in what it already knows how to do. It reiterated its “firm” commitment to defending every inch of its territory, reaffirmed NATO’s nuclear strategy, adopted defense plans for all of the alliance’s regions, and once again committed that every member state would spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. wide range of security challenges.
Finland is welcomed as a new member; The Swedish certification process should be completed soon. NATO members also pledged to strengthen their eastern flank in response to Russian aggression.
Perhaps the most positive development reported last week was Turkey’s re-alignment with the rest of its allies on some critical issues. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has bowed to his objections to ratifying Sweden’s NATO membership, has spoken in favor of accepting Ukraine, approved deliveries of Bayraktar drones to Ukraine, and struck a deal with the United States over the purchase of F-16s for Turkey. .
All of these developments show that NATO is more united and able to stand up for its member states than it has been in years. These are the positive results. But as much as the members criticized Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and continued to supply weapons to Kiev to defend itself, they did not seem to grasp what Moscow’s invasion meant for European security. In fact, it changed everything.
Until now, NATO could keep aspiring members in a waiting pattern for years at a time, insisting on reforms and weighing the geopolitical ramifications of every enlargement decision. With relative peace in Europe, it was safe to assume that the same security strategy used in the past would work in the future.
Under Vladimir Putin, however, the Kremlin has openly embraced a policy of territorial expansion aimed at remaking a Russian empire. It unleashed a major war in Europe that affected every country on the continent – and many countries beyond. The war has already forced millions of Ukrainian refugees to migrate to neighboring European countries, caused hyperinflation (in part due to energy disruptions), disrupted global food supplies and shipping across the Black Sea, and caused further economic disruption due to sanctions policies and the need for Ukrainian state support. Exhausted budget, European defense resources.
If Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, it will only get worse. In seeking to rebuild the empire, he would then turn his sights to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and even Finland—all EU and NATO member states formerly part of the Russian Empire, which the Alliance is to protect. If the war in Ukraine stops, Russia will regroup and prepare to attack again. With an imperialist authoritarian Russia on its doorstep, no one in Europe is safe. This is what convinced Finland and Sweden to seek NATO membership last year.
However, at the summit, NATO gave no guarantees other than what it said in 2008 when it confirmed that Ukraine would one day become a member. There is no actual process to achieve this goal. In fact, the language of Vilnius could be seen as weaker, emphasizing that an invitation would only be made when “all allies agree” (meaning they do not currently agree), and when “conditions are met” (meaning there are conditions that are not met). it after). The exact nature of these circumstances remains obscure.
This is not just a missed opportunity. It reflects a failure to understand that the nature of European security has changed. Ukraine is currently doing NATO’s job for it – fighting to defend the borders of a free Europe. It is more capable militarily than most allies, standing up for the values on which NATO was founded. Russia attacks Ukraine because it seeks to defeat those values: that Kiev remains stuck in the NATO waiting room is a green light for Putin to attack it again.
As for Ukraine, it must, of course, win the war first, which it does gradually. It should also continue to push for NATO membership and accelerate its adoption of the European Union acquired necessary to join. There is no future for Ukraine outside these blocs.
There is now a fundamental contradiction between NATO’s commitment to the security of the alliance and its refusal to give Ukraine a clear path to membership. With a nuclear-armed imperialist Russia laying claim to pieces of territory that belong to other countries – and waging a proxy war over the entire continent – it is hard to see how NATO could accomplish its mission of defending Europe without accepting Ukraine as a member. . It is this contradiction that must be addressed urgently, so that a firm call can be made when the Allies meet again next year.