Projecting a strong alliance isn’t easy, especially when American politics are so uncertain.
This week’s NATO 75th anniversary summit in Washington was an opportunity for the 32 members of the alliance to declare, “We stand in unity and solidarity in the face of a brutal war of aggression on the European continent and at a critical time for our security.”
That unity was designed to impress upon adversaries that NATO wasn’t going anywhere, and that Russian President Vladimir Putin should not expect the West to crumble in the face of his continuing onslaught against Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Putin used the occasion to send NATO a signal of his own, with Russian missiles striking a children’s hospital in Kyiv and other targets across Ukraine to start the week.
The Russian president also got a big hug from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who visited Moscow just before the NATO summit got underway, reminding allies that the Kremlin is not as isolated globally as the West would like.
Among the key takeaways from this major event in Washington was the continued tension between NATO’s efforts to demonstrate strength at the same time that U.S. President Joe Biden, leader of the most important member of the alliance, is showing political weakness. NATO leaders also papered over their differences regarding Ukraine’s ultimate future in NATO. Alliance members continue to struggle to articulate an endgame strategy for this horrific war carried out by Russia. And the alliance also continued the ongoing effort to strengthen ties between NATO and key democracies in the Indo-Pacific.
The alliance is robust – but for how long?
NATO has doubled in size since the end of the Cold War, going from 16 to 32 members. In celebrating Sweden’s joining the alliance earlier this year, NATO projected an image of strength as a community determined to collectively defend itself against a variety of threats, most acutely from Russia.
But hanging over the summit was the shadow of uncertainty created by the questions raised about Biden’s health following his June 27 debate with Donald Trump, and the increasing calls by prominent Democrats for him to drop out of the race.
A Trump return to the White House would have a profound effect on NATO given his negative attitudes toward America’s allies. Putin presumably thinks he can outlast NATO, and that the West will tire of supporting Ukraine. The alliance is trying to demonstrate he is wrong, but these efforts could be undone quickly by a Trump victory in November.
Will Ukraine join NATO?
The summit declaration did try to create a sense of forward momentum on Ukraine’s future membership in NATO. As expected, allies neither issued an invitation to Kyiv nor announced they would start accession talks. At last year’s summit, NATO heads of state and government stated that they would be in a position to invite Ukraine to join “when allies agree and conditions are met.” That vague language led to an outburst by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the 2023 Vilnius summit, who wanted more concrete steps taken.
This year, NATO sought to project that it was moving forward to respond to Ukraine’s aspirations. The alliance established the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany. And NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will appoint a NATO senior representative in Ukraine to help strengthen ties.
NATO says that these activities demonstrate that the alliance is providing a “bridge” for Ukrainian membership, but there is still no consensus regarding when Ukraine would receive a formal invitation to join, adding to the uncertainty that swirls around NATO. This year’s summit declaration said Ukraine’s path to membership is “irreversible,” but Biden is known to be hesitant, casting doubt over the path forward.
How will this war end?
To date, the West is supporting Ukraine enough to keep the country from losing more territory. While some allies wanted NATO to make a multiyear commitment for military assistance, the NATO declaration said only that “Allies intend to provide a minimum baseline funding of €40 billion within the next year, and to provide sustainable levels of security assistance for Ukraine to prevail.”
But what does “prevail” mean? Putin still seeks to defeat Ukraine through a war of attrition. It’s unrealistic to expect Ukraine to be able to liberate much of the territory Russia occupies, and Russia hasn’t demonstrated an interest in negotiations. This war could continue for a long time to come, at tremendous cost to the Ukrainian people, who have no choice for the foreseeable future but to fight to survive.
There was some good news coming out of the summit regarding military assistance. Denmark and the Netherlands have begun sending F-16s to Ukraine, and Norway is set to do so as well. These highly maneuverable fighter planes will help Ukraine defend itself against Russian attacks. In addition, allies are preparing to send more air-defense systems before the end of the year. These are important steps, but again they are helping Ukraine stave off the Russians while not creating sufficient capacity for Ukrainian troops to liberate more occupied territory.
Connecting Europe and Asia
Some in Washington have argued that the United States should turn away from supporting Ukraine to focus on the threat China poses to Taiwan. The presence of the leaders of the Indo-Pacific 4 (IP4) group – Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea – at the NATO summit for the third year in a row is a reminder that America’s key allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific see the importance of combating authoritarian threats across regional theaters as central to their security.
The alliance explicitly called out China as a “decisive enabler” of Putin’s war in its summit declaration. This statement reveals the rising concern that technical cooperation between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea continues to grow. With NATO’s authoritarian adversaries working together, summit attendees were clear that the democracies need to do so as well – and in multiple regions.
Projection of strength, against ripples of uncertainty
NATO sounded strong in its summit declaration, and it took a number of important steps to increase alliance defense capacity and to support Ukraine. Nevertheless, the huge shadow of Trump hung over everything. He made clear in his first term how little he thinks of allies – and those views don’t sit well with NATO. For all the talk about “Trump-proofing” the alliance, as Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute, has noted, “There’s no practical way to shield the alliance from a recalcitrant U.S., given our centrality.”
James Goldgeier is a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a professor of international relations at American University.
The post Key takeaways from the 2024 NATO summit appeared first on Good Authority.