Sweden, Ukraine and China Key issues at NATO Summit

NATO has concluded its most important summit in decades, and the implications for the future of both the organization itself as well as for the world in general are of exceptional significance.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that “We have just concluded an historic NATO Summit. Over the past two days, we took major decisions to adapt our Alliance for the future. We agreed NATO’s most detailed and robust defence plans since the Cold War. We strengthened our commitment to defence investment. We agreed to bring Ukraine closer to the Alliance, and step up support for the long haul. And we deepened our partnerships around the world even more. I have just chaired the inaugural meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council. From now on, NATO and Ukraine will meet in the Council to discuss and decide as equals. This is a significant step to move Ukraine closer to NATO.”

Earlier this year, Finland became the 31st member of the alliance. At the meetings just held in Vilnius, Lithuania, it was announced that Sweden would be admitted as well, probably by October. This adds an enormous new geographical advantage, both because of the proximity of the two nations to the Russian border, as well as giving NATO a more advantageous position in the Arctic, which Moscow has been militarizing, placing the U.S. and its allies at a severe disadvantage. Both Finland and Sweden had maintained a neutral stance since the end of the Second World War, but reacted with deep concern over Putin’s expansionist plans and actions. It became apparent to both that the former KGB official sought to both rebuild the Soviet Union and to resume that Empire’s threats to all bordering nations.

The Nordic nation’s bid had been delayed by Turkiye’s demands that Stockholm first take steps to address what Ankara maintained was a tolerance for a group President Erdogan considered to be prone to terrorism. In return, his request for American F-16 fighter jets was approved by Washington.

The organization, which will officially grow to 32 nations once Sweden’s admission becomes official, reaffirmed its commitment to assisting Ukraine, ending Putin’s hope that the west would eventually tire of the ongoing war. Ukraine’s President Zelensky had hoped to gain a specific timetable for his nation to also join, but it was decided that the war must first be won before that could occur.

Equally as important as the admission of Sweden and Finland and the growing assistance to Ukraine was the attention turned to broader threats to the free world. In addition to the North American and European nations, leaders from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea attended. Stoltenberg stated that “NATO is a regional Alliance, but we face global challenges. What happens in Europe matters to the Indo-Pacific, and what happens in the Indo-Pacific matters to North America and Europe. Beijing’s global assertiveness and Moscow’s war against Ukraine require even closer coordination between NATO, the EU and our Indo-Pacific partners. We condemn North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes, including its latest missile launch: These violate multiple UN Security Council Resolutions and pose a threat to regional and global security. NATO is reinforcing our ties with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea with tailored partnership programs, including joint work on issues like maritime security, new technologies, cyber, climate change, and resilience. We will work even more closely together, standing strong for the rules-based international order.”

The growing and already intense military, political and economic relationship between China and Russia makes the concern over Beijing’s vast nuclear and naval strength a major worry for the alliance. Moscow and Beijing have already engaged in joint military maneuvers in the Mediterranean, directly threatening NATO members.

Photo: NATO Sec. Gen. Jens Stoltenberg and Ukrainian President Zelensky (NATO)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.