Washington Wants to Avoid a Repeat of Last Year’s NATO Summit

In this week's edition of The World Unpacked podcast, host Sophia Besch chats with Eric Ciaramella, an expert in the Russia and Eurasia Program, about Ukraine and the upcoming NATO summit in Washington. A shortened version of their discussion, modified to make it easier to understand, can be found below.

Sophia Besch: This summit is happening with the memories of last year's summit still fresh in our minds. There was a heated discussion about Ukraine last year. What did you learn the most from that experience?

Eric Ciaramella: When speaking with officials from Europe and America, the common message I've heard regarding Washington is "we don't want a repeat of Vilnius." What they are referring to is the tense situation that arose between Ukrainian leaders and NATO members over the issue of a membership invitation. Ukraine was eager for membership and continued to push for it right up until the Vilnius summit ended.

However, the allies were not in agreement about including Ukraine in the invitation. This led to a unique situation where the details of the communiqué were being decided on the spot at the last minute. Usually, important issues are settled well before big summits like this one. The fact that key decisions were being made at the eleventh hour, along with hurt feelings and public tweets, created a tense atmosphere.

With that said, the Vilnius summit made some important progress for Ukraine. The allies agreed to two key policy decisions: firstly, upgrading the NATO Ukraine Commission to a NATO Ukraine Council. This promotes the body as the primary forum for consultation between Ukraine and the allies, where Ukraine can seek advice, discuss perceived threats, or address any issues in the Euro-Atlantic security realm. This was a significant victory for Ukraine.

The second change involved eliminating the need for a membership action plan, which was usually seen as the final step before receiving a formal invitation. The allies believed that by doing this, they were telling Ukraine that even though they couldn't invite them at that moment, they were working to eliminate any barriers so that if the circumstances were right, they could potentially move quickly without any bureaucratic hindrances.

Sophia Besch is asking for assistance in comprehending Ukraine's perspective on the imminent summit.

Eric Ciaramella: In my opinion, Ukrainian leaders are being more practical this time by prioritizing capabilities over expectations. They are not setting the same high expectations as they did before the Vilnius summit.

Sophia Besch: We have already been informed about the potential support the alliance is willing to provide to Ukraine - seen as a step towards membership. What exactly does this entail?

Eric Ciaramella: I believe the specifics of that are still being figured out. From my understanding, it means establishing, through NATO, some of the long-term assistance mechanisms for Ukraine that were quickly put in place by Ukraine's allies, primarily the United States, after Russia's full-scale invasion.

The United States has been leading a group called the Ramstein Group, also known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. This group includes NATO allies and several other countries, all working together to provide military support to Ukraine. This has been an important way to help Ukraine receive the necessary resources.

In the last half year to year, there has been a change in mindset regarding future planning. Allies have begun conversations on transitioning from spontaneous planning to more long-term strategies, with NATO taking on a more central role in organization. This shift is aimed at ensuring that aid is placed within a stable and sustainable policy framework, reducing vulnerability to political fluctuations and uncertainties in Western nations.

The process of integrating Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic space is not like crossing a bridge with a clear destination in mind. It's about creating connections between Ukraine and NATO, gradually moving towards closer integration without committing to formal membership just yet.

Sophia Besch: The Republican National Convention is scheduled to start on July 15, shortly after the summit ends. There has been a lot of disagreement within the Republican Party about providing aid to Ukraine, and many people are wondering what the U.S. and its allies gain from supporting Ukraine. How do you think these political tensions will affect how Washington handles the summit?

Eric Ciaramella: One of the difficulties since the beginning of the full-scale attack is that achievements and triumphs have mainly been judged in public discussions, particularly in Washington, based on the progress made on a map and the situation at the front lines. This was especially evident before the Ukrainian counterattack last year, where the plan was for Ukraine to launch a large-scale offensive, penetrate the Russian defenses, and ultimately change the course of the war, forcing the Russians to negotiate on Ukrainian terms.

Sophia Besch: This story is very tempting.

Eric explained that Congress supported the funding because they found the proposal to be intriguing, especially after Ukraine experienced success in the fall of 2022. However, the anticipated outcome did not materialize. The Biden administration has faced challenges in trying to change the direction of the discussion.

When examining criticisms from the Republican party about the Biden administration, a common thread is the belief that Biden lacks a clear plan and is only perpetuating a stagnant situation with endless funding. They argue that they are not willing to provide unlimited financial support without a solid strategy in place.

When you look at it more closely, you can see that there are two different groups that stand out. On one hand, there are the traditional hawks within the Republican Party who believe that Biden is causing a standstill by not providing important weapons and implementing policy restrictions. They argue that the current situation is due to Biden's cautious approach and that we should be giving more assistance to Ukraine quickly. This viewpoint is supported by figures like Mitch McConnell and Mike McCaul. On the other hand, some Republicans believe that no amount of aid will help Ukraine defeat the Russian army. They think it's better to minimize our support, push for peace talks, and accept our losses.

The problem with both of these strategies for winning is that they are not very realistic. The first strategy involves using limited supplies of important weapons like ATACMS. Even if Germany decided to give all of its Taurus missiles to Ukraine tomorrow and Biden removed all restrictions on the use of ATACMS, it wouldn't make a big difference. The fact remains that Russia has a huge number of troops stationed in Ukraine who are well-prepared for battle. This makes it very difficult for Ukraine to achieve a quick victory on the battlefield, so the idea of a fast victory for Ukraine is not very believable.

The idea from the second group is that by simply washing our hands, a negotiation will miraculously occur, leading to a lasting agreement that brings stability to Europe and allows us to shift our attention back to China. However, this approach is also wishful thinking. The focus for the Biden administration should be to rethink and redefine this challenge.

Sophia Besch: Which book or article would you suggest for a deeper understanding of the topic?

Eric Ciaramello: Resisting Change by M.E. Sarotte.

This blog offers a fascinating look at the discussions and choices made, especially during the Clinton administration, regarding the expansion of NATO. What stands out is the extensive focus on Ukraine in the early to mid-1990s and the acknowledgment of the security challenges in the region. Mary did an excellent job utilizing declassified meeting notes and recordings of Clinton's phone conversations (which she had requested from archives over the years) to craft a compelling story about the importance of Ukraine in NATO enlargement post-Cold War.

To hear the entire episode, simply click on the player below or access it through your preferred podcast platform.