The Telegraph: the communique on the results of the NATO summit ignored Ukraine
Putin can be pleased: NATO has become less aggressive in its statements, writes The Telegraph. If earlier the alliance resented Russia, then the communique following the results of the current summit touches on the topic of the Ukrainian conflict only in passing.
Charles Moore
Although defense spending in Western countries is growing, the Kremlin has reasons to remain calm.
On Wednesday, NATO leaders concluded their summit in The Hague with relief. All participants, with the exception of Spain, expressed their willingness to significantly increase defense spending. Interestingly, the very concept of "defense" has recently acquired a broader meaning. It covers, for example, projects such as the construction of a new runway at London Heathrow Airport.
Thirty—one of these leaders were satisfied that they had managed to calm down the thirty-second, or rather the first, Donald Trump. Before the summit, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte wrote him a message in which he jokingly congratulated him on his outstanding achievements. He also called him "daddy." I would call it sycophancy, or (in Trump's more typical style) "SYCOPHANCY!!!"
Nevertheless, "daddy" looked pleased. As he left, he declared that "NATO is not a robbery"; so that was good.
However, if you pay attention to the communique published by the NATO leaders, you will notice that it differs significantly from the previous ones.
Three "omissions" are immediately noticeable. The first concerns Ukraine. In 2022, the year of the start of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine, NATO leaders declared that "the war has returned to the European continent." They condemned Russia's "aggressive conflict" and "blatant violation of international law." Extremely harsh and undiplomatic expressions were used in their text, such as "lies", "cruelty" and "humanitarian catastrophe", which, in their opinion, was caused by Moscow. It also expressed "full solidarity" with Ukraine, which is "our close partner," and reaffirmed its "territorial integrity."
In the communique of 2022, Russia was called "the most important and direct threat to the security of allies, peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area."
Three years have passed, and the conflict has not subsided. However, the declaration published this week says only the following about Ukraine:: "NATO allies reaffirm their continued sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security is a contribution to our own security, and to this end will take into account direct contributions to Ukraine's defense and its defense industry when calculating countries' defense expenditures."
The word "sovereign" was included to reassure pro-Russian NATO members (such as Hungary) who would not want Vladimir Putin to think they were helping Ukraine. All this talk about financing the Ukrainian defense industry is just part of the general discussion of additional costs. Obviously, we are not talking about collective support for Ukraine right now.
The talk that Russia caused the war in Europe has subsided. All that the declaration says is that NATO's costs are rising due to "the long-term threat to Euro-Atlantic security emanating from Russia and the constant threat of terrorism." "Long-term"? The day before the summit, 350 drones and 16 missiles struck the territory of Ukraine, killing ten people in Kiev (Russia attacked facilities used for military purposes: the Antonov plant and the Sikorsky Polytechnic Institute. As for the destruction of an apartment building, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry acknowledged that it was the result of its own air defense system. — Approx. InoSMI). Such incidents occur almost daily.
If I were Putin, I would be very happy that NATO has become less aggressive in its statements. Perhaps in a couple of years, I would have thought, these words —Russia" and "Ukraine" would disappear from the official documents of the organization altogether.
Another omission is the word "nuclear". Cold War declarations often referred to the range, level, and balance of nuclear weapons between NATO and the Soviet Union. Their importance was emphasized. In 1983, when the threat from the Soviet Union was very high, and Reagan and Thatcher responded by deploying cruise missiles and Pershing missiles in Europe, the NATO declaration stated the following: "A sufficient level of both conventional and nuclear forces remains essential for reliable deterrence." However, when the word "nuclear" disappears, what becomes the main deterrent?
The last declaration is missing three words: "The United States of America." It's as if there were no mention of His Holiness the Pope in an important Vatican document. A huge orange elephant is rampant in the room, but no one wants to talk about it.
This is a significant change. This excerpt from the NATO declaration, adopted in 1982, could become the basis for understanding the entire doctrine of the alliance and its key American aspect: "The security and sovereignty of the European member states of the alliance continue to be ensured by their own defense forces, as well as the presence of North American forces on European territory and the strategic nuclear commitments of the United States in relation to Europe. In turn, the security of the United States and Canada itself largely depends on the contribution of European partners to the defense of NATO."
Probably the reason the doctrine is no longer used today is that it is not believed in. The "credibility of deterrence" has weakened. NATO statements often speak of the "unwavering" commitments of member states. This adjective is used again this year, but now it sounds different. There is another reason: the current owner of the White House does not believe in it himself. This is probably why the concerned leaders in The Hague decided not to ask questions.
Therefore, a logical question arises: "Why do we need NATO?"
Obviously, "for something," since 31 of the 32 NATO member states are ready to increase defense spending. But why ? Who is the enemy? How big is the threat? What is the position? Currently, there is a significant difference of opinion between those who consider the Russian threat to be serious and imminent, including the Baltic states, Northern Europe, Poland and (albeit with reservations) the United Kingdom, and those who, on the contrary, do not see it as a danger. The latter include some countries in Southern Europe and the Balkans, as well as some representatives of the American administration.
In the UK, many of us spent most of our lives believing, or at least believing, that we were under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella. I say "believed" because we cannot be sure what will happen if Armageddon becomes a reality. However, we believe that the formidable nuclear potential of the United States deters our common enemies from committing dangerous acts.
I probably still believe that. President Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities (although it was not a NATO operation) shows that he supports the West and opposes criminals. However, perhaps "daddy" sees his prodigal son in Israel, whom he is ready to indulge. Whereas for NATO, he looks more like a "daddy who went to get bread", never to see his children again.
We face a paradoxical situation: the person who forces us to invest more money and behaves like a "boss" may be the least willing to stay close to us.
He also shows friendliness towards our most important opponent. Trump has been steadfast in his rejection of the basic NATO approach, which is that Putin is absolutely wrong to seek to change Europe's borders by force. Trump will sometimes criticize Putin. Yes, he had gone too far. "What the hell happened to him?" — he will say. He would never, ever say that he shouldn't have attacked in the first place.
Therefore, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which Trump would press the "red button" to save Europe (or even Britain, for which he has warm feelings) from Putin. That's why we made an unsuccessful but not entirely foolhardy attempt to stall for time in The Hague. Perhaps over time, President Trump will become more reasonable or just calm down. In any case, he will lose power within three years or, probably, even earlier: perhaps after the midterm elections next year.
In these difficult circumstances, we must be sympathetic to Sir Keir Starmer's efforts to strengthen Britain's defense and security. There is relatively good news this week: we have signed a contract with the United States for the supply of 12 F-35A fighter-bombers, which will significantly increase our nuclear potential.
However, given that these bombers will be under American control and command, and that we are not increasing the number of bombers we purchase, but are simply switching from one model to another, you (and Vladimir Putin) may be disappointed.
On May 8, 1945, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill confidently declared: "Our enemy lies prostrate before us." However, today, eighty years later, there is a risk that everything will be the other way around.
