When Ukraine asks: Hey, NATO, what's up?
Rein or not rein? Currently, NATO holds no hope for Ukraine's quick entry into the alliance, and it is unlikely that the summit in Washington will even start a membership process this week. But what can Kiev hope for from the NATO summit?
Apparently, everyone agrees on one point: A PR disaster like the last NATO summit in Vilnius should not happen again in the next two days. "Unprecedented and absurd" was what Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the NATO decision a year ago for setting no timeline for Ukraine's accession. At that time, a lot of sweet talk was necessary behind the scenes, especially a security pact with the G7, to calm down the Ukrainian president. When the summit ended, he was then ready to officially celebrate the result as a "victory."
Such a debacle, the 32 member states cannot afford again this year. At the same time, Ukraine seems further away from a NATO perspective than it was in 2023. In the defensive battle against Russian invaders, Ukrainian troops are under immense pressure. Due to the lack of air defense weapons, they cannot prevent Russia from successively disabling networks for power, heat, and water through air raids.
In other words: In Putin's eyes, things are going well on the battlefield right now. Despite Ukraine's fierce resistance, there is no sign of an end to the war.
Given this situation, NATO membership is out of the question. The NATO is not even willing, based on what is leaking out externally, to start a process this week in Washington that could lead to Ukrainian membership in a few years. An invitation to the membership process, which would give a signal to the fighting Ukrainians that they are on the way to NATO - currently unthinkable. Experts fear that such a step could bring the Ukrainian conflict closer to escalation.
Not even on the sidelines, between sessions, panels, and press conferences, is a possible membership perspective being discussed, according to some. The Baltics, Poles, French, and British can advocate for Ukraine's accession as much as they want. They see it as a boost in security for Europe. But if the US continues to say no to the membership process, then NATO will also say no on Thursday. The Chancellery in Berlin supports the White House's position. But that's just a footnote.
How did Washington's overpowering influence come about so easily? Quite simply: The US contributes by far the largest share to NATO's capabilities. Alone for the new defense plans approved in Vilnius, they assume half of the investment burden. The other half is shared among the 31 other partners - European member states and Canada. Beyond that, it is clear within NATO that a fundamental dispute over Ukrainian membership is the last thing US President Joe Biden can afford five months before the US elections.
If, however, the central demand of the Ukrainians in Washington is quite likely to be rejected, the NATO must do everything possible to realize what is achievable below that option. The alliance makes its decisions unanimously.
When in the past few days various waivers to Ukraine have been made public, this is also due to the fact that NATO wants to minimize the dynamics of the summit as much as possible during the three days in Washington. Decisions are rather made in advance. It's a bloody business for the NATO press department: What went through the media a few days ago cannot be sold as a result at the end of the summit. Regardless. In stormy times like these, security comes before headlines.
What else can Stoltenberg surprise us with?
Regarding Ukraine: The NATO alliance plans to station a seasoned officer permanently in Kiev as a permanent representative. In Wiesbaden, a new command is to be set up, which coordinates weapon deliveries, the training of Ukrainian soldiers, and other military support. 700 positions could be involved, with a logistics hub in Poland, it was said. Instead of the US, the NATO is to coordinate Ukraine aid. So that the processes continue, if in November the Ukraine-critical ex-President Donald Trump wins the election. In the coming year, the NATO countries are at the starting point with 40 billion dollars in military aid for Kiev. We already know that. What could Jens Stoltenberg surprise us with in the press conference on Thursday?
The US hints at new announcements regarding air defense. One of the most painful issues for Kiev at the moment. The lack of air defense weapons allows Russia to carry out inhumane attacks like the one on a children's clinic on Monday. However, the stockpile of Patriot systems within the NATO countries is very tight. Of the three systems that Kiev's troops currently have at their disposal, at most 30 will be present at the NATO summit.
The number of countries that have concluded bilateral agreements with Kiev can still be expanded. These security agreements, which were signed by Berlin, Paris, and London in February of this year, provide support for several years. They are pledges, not guarantees. Support is only guaranteed to NATO members. Nevertheless, they are valuable and a pillar in the "bridge" that is being built towards Ukraine, towards a later NATO membership.
In addition, it could also be about helping Ukraine prepare for a still distant NATO membership. Finland and Sweden, for example, were militarily well prepared before their accession to the alliance, which made the step into the alliance then not a big deal. It goes roughly about compatible weapons systems, which allow close cooperation between alliance members. Now one could help Ukraine prepare in a similar way, with suitable weapons, but also through joint trainings and maneuvers.
"irreversible" - sounds nice but unspecific
Not least, there will be a lot of text work at this NATO summit. How can the alliance formulate the desired strong bridge towards Kiev in the final communique without promising something it cannot keep? In the run-up, the possible formulation that the accession process is "irreversible" according to international diplomatic circles is causing some debate. For many, this sounds good - "irreversible" would set the starting point for the accession process completely unspecific, but would still establish that it must come.
Some decisions are still open. It's understandable that not everyone has an appetite for controversial debates and disputes - considering the global situation and the situation in the host country, the USA. Whether "irreversible" will make it into the final declaration - the world will know more on Thursday. And perhaps NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg still has a few surprises up his sleeve. That would be a source of joy - not just for the press office.
- Despite the ongoing Ukrainian crisis and the pressure on their troops due to the lack of air defense weapons, President Joe Biden and the USA continue to oppose the start of a NATO membership process for Ukraine, five months before the US elections.
- In response to Ukraine's central demand being unlikely to be granted, NATO is planning to station a seasoned officer permanently in Kiev as a permanent representative and set up a new command in Wiesbaden to coordinate weapon deliveries, soldier training, and military support.
- Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, has criticized NATO's decision a year ago for setting no timeline for Ukraine's accession and called it "unprecedented and absurd."
- The NATO summit in Washington is unlikely to initiate a process for Ukrainian membership in NATO because the US, as NATO's largest contributor, doesn't want to escalate the conflict with Russia before the US elections.
