The transformation undergone by NATO in the past year and a half has been nothing short of astonishing. This week’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania demonstrated that both intentionally and unintentionally, both positively and through a bit of unnecessary blundering.
Over the course of the two-day summit, NATO took steps to continue the rapid strengthening that began with its unified and potent response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in Feb. 2022.
Each would have been considered hard to imagine just a couple of years ago. The path for Sweden to join NATO was cleared. With the recent accession of Finland to the alliance, two major sophisticated militaries have been added to its ranks.
ADVERTISEMENT
NATO also adopted what its Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called “the most comprehensive defense plans since the end of the Cold War.” Further, crucial commitments were made to work together to address challenges elsewhere, including that posed by a “coercive” China in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
In addition, NATO made it clear that Ukraine was on a path to membership. It announced new commitments to support Ukraine. U.S. President Joe Biden, who has been the leader of alliance efforts to support Kyiv, said the U.S. would support that besieged and courageous country for “as long as that takes.”
NATO removed the requirement that Ukraine complete a Membership Action Plan (MAP) prior to its joining the alliance. It also created new programs to support Ukraine, as did the G7 member countries that met in parallel in Vilnius.
In short, the summit was a substantive success and should have been widely celebrated within NATO member countries and key partners, like Ukraine.
Unfortunately, NATO’s transformation—while stunning and a credit to its leaders—has not been complete. The alliance of 31 countries has often, through its history, been bogged down by its complexity and the convoluted bureaucracy required to get anything done.
This time, those old school NATO problems manifested themselves in a statement from the summit participants that Ukraine would be able to join the alliance “when members agree and when conditions were met.”
Ukraine was hoping for a stronger statement and frankly, with the removal of the MAP requirement, there was real progress to celebrate. But the statement was so conditional it was seen initially as a disappointment by Ukraine’s president. And you can hardly blame him.
If a couple had been dating and then one member proposed marriage “when our families agree and when conditions are met” it is highly unlikely an engagement party would follow. Zelensky responded as a man leading a nation at war naturally would, frustrated at the lack of a concrete road map toward accession. He called the absence of one “absurd.”
It did not have to turn out as it did. Zelensky knew that membership was impossible prior to the end of the war. NATO knew Zelensky—viewing membership as an existential issue for his country—would like more clarity. The statement could easily have simply said Ukraine was on the path to membership and that the members would work with Ukraine to bring it to fruition. But they didn’t, and so much of the last 24 hours of the event—including Zelensky’s meetings with both Stoltenberg and Biden, were devoted to saying. “it’s not a question of if but when.”
Even that process was complicated by NATO member states’ representatives—like U.K. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace—caviling that Ukraine should be more grateful. Later, Wallace’s own prime minister stepped back from the statement, but honestly, he shouldn’t have had to. It should never have been made. Because the reality is that while NATO has done much for Ukraine, what Ukraine has sacrificed on behalf of Europe has been unspeakably greater.
Further, Ukraine has done much heavy lifting on NATO’s behalf with the weapons systems and support provided by the alliance—as evidenced by recent estimates that Russia has lost as much as half of its overall combat capability in the course of this war with its neighbor (thus far).
The kerfuffle regarding the language was an own goal. It should not have happened. It did not advance the interests of NATO or Ukraine. It was easily avoided.
But it also could not overshadow the fact that the world’s most powerful alliance is more powerful than ever, that it is more united than ever, that it has a clearer vision of its role going forward than ever—and that, right now, its principal objective is to provide the support Ukraine needs to successful defeat Russia.
In the future, it is also crystal clear that thanks to the strategic ineptitude and boundless brutality of Vladimir Putin, there can be no lasting peace in Ukraine—nor any real stability in Europe—without Ukraine a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (which is now promised).
But Putin should not get all the credit for NATO’s renaissance. That required strong leadership from Biden, Stoltenberg, and leaders across Europe (notably those who share a border with Russia or are geographically close to that menacing, wounded giant).
It also required Ukraine to outperform expectations and to demonstrate equal parts of extraordinary courage and military mastery in its own defense. It is a pity to see those stories were diminished even a trifle by something as minor as communique language. One hopes that, as NATO continues to develop and reinvent itself, it might do a little better on that front moving forward.
After all, the future of democracy and peace in the West (and beyond) depends on this alliance as much now as at any time since its founding in 1949. That’s a fact that should make all Americans and our allies rest easier at the conclusion of this important and productive week for this three quarters of a century-old collaboration.
