NATO Shifts Its Focus to Ukraine

• NATO held a summit in Washington, D.C. to celebrate the 75th anniversary of its founding

• Present were all 32 heads of state and government, along with non-NATO allies

• Ukrainian President Zelensky attended, receiving promises of aid and future membership

The story

Leaders of the 32 member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) recently held a summit in Washington, DC. The cause was ostensibly NATO’s 75 anniversary; its founding treaty was signed in Washington in 1949. But the deeper intent was to make an argument for its existence.

The alliance was founded to oppose the Soviet bloc. When the USSR fell in 1991, NATO had no enemy to defend against. Its interventions in the Balkans and Afghanistan bolstered its approval rating, but the alliance seemed to exist without cause. That status changed when Russia launched a full-scale invasion into Ukraine; NATO sprang into action, overseeing aid flowing into Ukraine and strengthening ties.

The new relationship was on display at the 2024 summit. Though not yet a NATO member, Ukraine was mentioned 59 times in the official summit declaration. Leaders announced that NATO would provide Ukraine with a “minimum baseline” of €40 billion ($43.6 billion) for weapons procurement, military training, operations costs, and various measures to deter Russia’s advance.

While NATO stopped short of offering Ukraine membership, allies confirmed its "irreversible path" to joining. NATO members signed individual security deals with Ukraine, serving as a "bridge to NATO." And to further support Ukraine, NATO agreed on a program providing consistent military aid and training, ensuring the country’s preparedness for future membership.

The politics

Polling shows that Americans are generally supportive of NATO, with a recent poll indicating 60 percent favorability. When broken down by party, only 43 percent of Republicans view NATO favorably (with 55 percent unfavorably), while 75 percent of Democrats are in favor.

That view is reflected in statements made by major party leaders. President Biden has repeatedly referred to America’s NATO membership as “sacred”; in his remarks at the summit, he did so twice — the second time saying Americans “understand this is a sacred obligation.”

Former president Donald Trump has been less supportive. As president, he hesitated to commit to NATO’s Article V, which articulates that an armed attack against one or more NATO members is an attack against all members.

Reporting indicates that Trump plans to drastically scale back America’s NATO involvement should he win a second term. While in office, Trump complained that member states “rip us off on trade (they pay only a fraction of the cost—and laugh!)”

Beyond the headlines

In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron said NATO was experiencing “brain death.” And while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seemed to give it a new lease on life, in reality, it swept serious problems under the rug.

First, it is likely that China — not Russia — will be the West’s primary antagonist in the 21st century. China’s economy is ten times larger than Russia’s, and its military is bigger. After the Russia-Ukraine war resolves, it may become apparent that a military organization centered around Western Europe is not in the best geographic position to challenge an Eastern power.

Since NATO no longer serves America’s national interest, a future president — Trump or otherwise — will likely expose the chink in NATO’s armor: it cannot compel member states to undertake military action.

Article V is commonly regarded as the end-all-be-all; if invoked, member states must act to defend the country invoking it. The treaty states, “An armed attack against one or more … shall be considered an attack against them all.” Each member will take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

The inclusion of those four words — “as it deems necessary”— means that a member state could choose to do nothing, if that’s what it deems necessary. A future U.S. president, for instance, could send well-wishes in response to invocation of Article V.

Why it matters

NATO’s recent meeting in Washington D.C. underscored its commitment to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. In NATO’s view, Russia must be stopped from taking all of Ukraine lest it invades further into Eastern Europe, potentially threatening the continent.

Overall, the post-World War II order was largely shaped by NATO. But as America reorients itself to prepare for potential decades of struggle against China, NATO may require fundamental changes. As it evolves to remain relevant, the entire world order will likely change as well.