For Moscow, that NATO summit must have been very unsettling – POLITICO

Ivo Daalder, a former US ambassador to NATO, is chair of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder”.

Last week’s NATO summit was overshadowed by an angry tweet posted by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a meeting of alliance leaders in Vilnius. “It is unprecedented and absurd when no time frames are set for neither the invitation nor Ukraine’s membership,” Zelensky wrote on Twitter. “Uncertainty is weakness,” he added.

The tweet caused an uproar and dominated headlines and commentary throughout the two-day meeting in Lithuania. that’s unfortunate. For the turmoil surrounding the tweet and Ukraine’s disappointment, this is a bigger and more enduring story.

From the Kremlin’s perspective, the NATO meeting could not have been reassuring – once again confirming how Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch an all-out invasion of Ukraine actually turned out.

Let’s start with the case that bothered Zelensky. Kiev’s invitation to join NATO was never on the table. As the Ukrainian president admitted, bringing a country at war into an alliance whose primary goal is to defend every inch of its members’ territory will not happen. For weeks, NATO countries have made it clear that they will help Ukraine defend itself, but will not become direct parties to the war.

But, having received an invitation, the NATO leaders in Vilnius made it clear that “the future of Ukraine is in NATO.” As US President Joe Biden declared, Ukraine’s membership was not a matter of if or not, but of when.

NATO also agreed to dispense with the normal requirement that Kiev first join its Membership Action Plan, which would delay Ukrainian membership once the war ended.

From Moscow, none of this is reassuring. Putin told Russian television that Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO was one of the reasons for launching the invasion. He even noted that it “would not increase Ukraine’s security” — as if somehow his brutal invasion had not already done so. If anything, Putin’s decision to attack made Ukraine’s membership in NATO inevitable — if not immediately, then as soon as the fighting subsided. Biden said that Ukraine would “join NATO”.

Of course, it wasn’t just Ukraine’s pending NATO membership that was so troubling to the Kremlin. NATO countries also came to Vilnius with significant commitments to provide new military aid to Ukraine.

France has promised to deliver long-range missiles, joining Britain in doing so (and potentially leading the US to finally send long-range ATACMS systems to Ukraine as well). Germany promised to send another 25 tanks. The Netherlands and Denmark agreed to coordinate the training of Ukrainian pilots to fly the F-16s. Washington committed to filling the gap in the Ukrainian artillery stockpile by sending hundreds of thousands of cluster munitions. All of this will enhance Kiev’s ability to launch a successful counteroffensive against the Russian forces.

And if Putin believed that the Western determination to help Ukraine militarily would subside, the G7 leaders met in Vilnius to dissuade him from this hope. The seven largest industrial democracies issued a declaration assuring Ukraine that it was committed to preserving its ability to defend itself over the long term – including after the war ended.

The message to the Kremlin was clear: We stand with Ukraine now and for years to come.

The NATO meeting, of course, was about more than just Ukraine — and none of that was good news for Moscow, either. In Vilnius, Finland sat at the table as the 31st member of the coalition. Its accession more than doubled the area of ​​NATO bordering Russia. It was also a result of Putin’s invasion, which, although ostensibly launched to keep NATO further from its borders, has brought the alliance a lot closer.

With Turkey raising its objections on the eve of the summit, Sweden will soon be the 32nd member of the alliance. This will turn the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake – in effect mobilizing the Russian Baltic Fleet in its home ports. and the Arctic will become a NATO-controlled area; With the exception of Russia, each of the eight Arctic countries will be members of NATO.

Finally, the least amount of public attention has been paid to what will ultimately be Russia’s biggest headache: a collective commitment to greatly enhance NATO’s planning and its ability to defend every inch of the alliance’s territory—including its eastern flank. Germany announced that it would station 4,000 troops in Lithuania, and Canada would double its presence in Latvia. And NATO committed to be able in the future to deploy 300 thousand troops within 30 days.

The leaders also adopted three regional defense plans drawn up by NATO’s top general, dealing with the defense of the northern, eastern and southern flanks.

Such plans existed during the Cold War, but this is the first time in 30 years that NATO has drawn up detailed plans for its own defense, including outlining force requirements for each NATO country – how many tanks, troops, missiles, ships, aircraft and hundreds of military capabilities other that each member needs.

To pay for it all, NATO leaders agreed to make the 2 percent directive of military spending of GDP a floor rather than a ceiling. In fact, NATO will add twice as much to its annual defense spending as Russia spends on defense each year.

It all adds up to two great days of work. From Moscow’s point of view, NATO’s commitment to Ukraine is stronger and more realistic than before, its unity is strengthened and more secure, and its defense capacity is strengthened and expanded.