As the NATO Summit unfolded in Washington, the stakes were never higher for reinforcing America’s ties with European allies and the future direction of this transatlantic alliance.
The summit, marking the 75th anniversary of NATO, was intended to showcase the unity of the Western alliance. Yet its success hung by a thread, contingent on finding common ground among allies regarding the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.
These aren’t typical times. Under normal circumstances, such an event would have been a celebration, but the current global security situation cast a shadow over the proceedings. While NATO had much to celebrate, Europe’s security landscape remains grim.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, now in its third year, remained an area of concern. This conflict, the largest in Europe since NATO’s inception in 1949, demands the alliance’s undivided attention and strategic response. Matters continue to be further complicated by ongoing political upheavals in key NATO countries, adding to the uncertainty. Keir Starmer’s recent accession as UK prime minister and the increase in support for France’s far-right underscore the shifting political dynamics.
Further complicating matters, President Biden’s political future injected uncertainty into the summit. Allies watched closely to gauge his viability against former President Donald Trump, whose anti-NATO rhetoric continues to stir concern.
Earlier this year, Congress delayed passing a supplemental spending package, crucial for replenishing Ukraine’s dwindling supply of artillery shells, air defense missiles and other essential military resources. This delay allowed Russia to fortify its territorial gains and target Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, particularly power stations.
Ukrainian counterattacks have so far been unable to dislodge entrenched Russian forces. Germany’s reluctance to supply long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine is another friction point and likely to persist after the summit.
Additionally, French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to establish a European coalition of military instructors in Ukraine likely presented another source of discord. Biden has yet to endorse this initiative, though some European nations might back Macron if it means avoiding the deployment of European troops on Ukrainian soil.
Ukraine’s admission to NATO was not a focal point of the Washington summit. Both the U.S. and Europe are cautious about directly involving NATO in Ukraine’s defense, as the alliance’s collective security mandate requires a unified military response to any attack on a member nation. Despite pressure from France, Poland, and the Baltic states for a formal invitation to Kyiv, the U.S. remains opposed.
The recent 10-year bilateral security agreement between President Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, signed during the G7 Summit in Italy, appears to be a significant factor in the decision to defer Ukraine’s full NATO membership. This agreement aims to bolster Ukraine’s military capabilities without extending full NATO protections.
Expectations were high for Ukraine’s NATO membership before last year’s summit in Vilnius, but hopes were dashed without a formal invitation. This year, NATO leaders, including Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, tempered expectations for the Washington summit’s outcome on Ukraine.
Zelensky has also repeatedly acknowledged that Ukraine will not join NATO while at war. However, he argues that NATO could still extend an invitation, with membership activation deferred until the conflict ends. Such an invitation would symbolize NATO’s commitment without immediate membership implications.
As per Zelensky, this approach may balance the alliance’s solidarity with the practical realities of ongoing conflict, offering a symbolic commitment that Ukraine rightly deserves. Russia’s conflict with Ukraine has entered its third year with no clear resolution in sight. Vladimir Putin seems to be biding his time, hoping for a Trump victory in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, which could mean U.S. recognition of Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory.
Even if Biden wins, the complete liberation of Ukraine appears increasingly unlikely. Yet without NATO’s assistance, Ukraine’s situation would be far worse. This summit only saw incremental progress on Ukraine’s NATO membership. These measures, while not full membership, are positive steps forward. NATO’s support has been crucial for Ukraine.
Although Zelensky does not anticipate immediate membership, he continues to seek substantial commitments of financial and military support. The initiatives mark positive strides toward Ukraine’s future within NATO, albeit with cautious optimism.
Imran Khalid, a physician with a master’s degree in international relations, is a geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.