Ukraine and NATO: Where Are We Now?

USUF
March 25, 2022

The U.S.-Ukraine Foundation hosted a live web discussion on Ukraine-NATO relationships with three distinguished panelists: Ian Brzezinski (former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO affairs), Alexander Vershbow (former U.S. ambassador to Russia and Deputy Secretary-General to NATO), and General Philip Breedlove, USAF, Ret. (former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe). The moderator was Robert McConnell, Director for External Relations of the Friends of Ukraine Network.

 

Here are our key takeaways from the analysis of those notable experts.

 1. The less the West does to help Ukraine, the more ever-increasing risks it will incur.

 2: The West has “underperformed” in supplying Ukraine and must get “laser-focused” on giving Ukrainians what they need.  

 3. Europe’s ongoing purchases of Russian gas and oil are directly financing Russia’s invasion and undermining the West’s position.  

 4. The West has “deterred itself” by articulating exactly how it plans to respond to Putin’s potential moves.

 5. It is premature to say that Ukraine is winning the war, despite visible accomplishments. We must continue intensifying pressure on Putin if we want the war to end as soon as possible.

 6. The West should consider establishing a no-conflict zone in western Ukraine, which would create a safe haven for the displaced and wounded and ensure the “territorial perpetuity” of the Ukrainian state.

  

Strategic Leadership: Lessons to Be Learned

Gen. Breedlove emphasized several points that remain highly relevant today. First, in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NATO decided to establish four additional multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, thus bolstering its forward presence in Central and Eastern Europe. This outcome is the polar opposite of what Putin originally wanted, as the Kremlin demanded in December that NATO remove its troops and weaponry from all countries that became members after 1997. Although this was the right decision, NATO’s overall strategy with respect to the Ukraine crisis has been far from perfect. First and foremost, NATO has “underperformed” in supplying Ukraine with heavy equipment, coastal defenses, air defenses, and cruise missiles. Fortunately, on April 7, following reports of atrocities perpetrated by Russian forces in Bucha, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that individual NATO countries would further provide Ukraine with Soviet-era and modern weapons systems as well as light and heavier weapons to help Ukrainians thwart a renewed Russian offensive in the Donbas. However, Gen. Breedlove noted that NATO has put itself at a disadvantage by deterring itself from the start of the war. Indeed, the U.S. and Western leaders ceded Putin the initiative by issuing “if-then” statements in the lead-up to Russia’s invasion. The West must realize the drawbacks of revealing to Putin how exactly it plans to respond to the Russian military’s potential decisions.    

 

From “Deterrence by Tripwire” to “Deterrence by Denial”

 Mr. Vershbow asserted that the NATO, G7, and EU summits held a month after the beginning of the war were convened to showcase Western unity with Ukraine. He also claimed that NATO is prepared for every contingency including Russia’s use of chemical and nuclear weapons. However, Mr. Vershbow believes that NATO’s troop presence in Eastern Europe, including the newly deployed battlegroups, is not enough to stop a Russian ground invasion. Therefore, NATO will have to develop a longer-term plan for “a much more robust presence” along its Eastern flank. In other words, NATO will have to transition  which will require much more defense spending and investments from all the allies. On April 9, Gen. Stoltenberg announced that NATO is planning to implement “a full-scale military presence” along the Russian border, although it remains unclear what exactly that will look like. In the meantime, unfortunately, NATO’s efforts to help Ukraine have been stymied by bureaucratic and supply chain delays. NATO must rectify these issues because Ukraine needs weapons as soon as possible to continue fighting effectively against Russia. The stronger Ukraine’s military position, the more likely that it’ll secure a fair deal rather than an imposed settlement at the negotiating table.

 

Add Action to Rhetoric

 Mr. Brzezinski characterized the NATO, EU, and G7 summits as a display of “rhetoric and messaging rather than action.” Although the meetings featured the world’s best fighting forces and $40 trillion of the global economy, the participants did not accomplish much beyond sanctioning Russian legislators, which will do little to halt the Russian war machine. According to Mr. Brzezinski, the West missed an enormous opportunity to impose a full embargo on Russian trade and energy. In2021, the West purchased a staggering $489 billion of Russian oil and gas. These sales are directly financing Russia’s invasion, which shows Putin that the West can’t stomach a real economic confrontation and only emboldens him to push forward. Furthermore, a perception is growing in the West that the war is almost over and Ukraine will win. However, it’s still premature to say that. Unless we intensify pressure on Putin, he’s in it for the long run. Mr. Brzezinski also proposed establishing a humanitarian no-conflict zone in western Ukraine. This would allow Western soldiers to enter western Ukraine and secure those areas, thus creating a safe haven for the displaced and wounded and ensuring the territorial perpetuity of the Ukrainian state. It would also enable the Ukrainian forces to concentrate more effectively against the Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, as they wouldn’t have to worry about a Russian attack from Transnistria since western Ukraine would be protected by international forces.  

You can watch the full recording of this event here:

This report was prepared by Leo Grunschlag for the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation