There will be no invitation for Ukraine to join

“NATO defense ministers want to upgrade relations with Ukraine politically. Meanwhile, Turkey is blocking new defense plans to strengthen the eastern flank.

 

There are just under four weeks until the NATO summit in Vilnius. The defense ministers' meeting in Brussels on Friday was the last meeting at ministerial level to prepare for the upcoming decisions. In the meantime, the ambassadors in Brussels will continue to wrestle with wording. All in all, however, it is already becoming apparent what diplomats like to call the “landing zone”: what the 31 heads of state and government will agree on. As always in the Alliance, this requires consensus.

 

The most sensitive issue concerns the future of Ukraine. There will be no invitation to join, as recently demanded by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, no matter how hard the states on the alliance's eastern flank may push. A promise that the country will be included immediately after the end of the conflict cannot be made with the United States either.

 

Instead, in addition to a support package for non-lethal aid (to which the alliance is limited), there should be political signals of rapprochement. This concerns, on the one hand, the upgrading of the previous NATO-Ukraine Commission to a council in which one also wants to discuss questions of Euro-Atlantic security on an equal footing.

 

 The North Atlantic Council has now formally decided to do so after Lithuania gave up its opposition. The summit host wanted to do more for Kyiv but was isolated.

 

The two percent mark becomes the lower limit

 

On the other hand, the Ukraine should be signaled that they will not need a Membership Action Plan, or MAP for short, if they join.

 

"There are increasing signs that everyone can agree on this," said Defense Minister Boris Pistorius on Friday. North Macedonia, for example, was recently prepared for its admission with such plans, which define military and political reforms. Of course, they are not mandatory, and they were never discussed for Finland and Sweden.

 

When NATO promised Ukraine membership in 2008, Germany and France prevented the country from getting a MAP – so as not to provoke Russia. At the time, it was argued that a MAP would create some sort of moral, if not legal, obligation to alliance defense. In this respect, it should not have been difficult for US President Joe Biden to give up this requirement. Zelenskyj, on the other hand, could present it as a success. The Ukrainian President is expected to come to Vilnius and take part in a symbolic first session of the NATO-Ukraine Council. It is still unclear whether the country will also receive security promises. In any case, this is a matter for individual states, not for the Alliance.

 

Consensus is also emerging on the second hot topic – defense spending. The member states will declare the previously "desired" target of spending two percent of their economic power on this as binding - as a new lower limit ("floor"). The allies have noticed that Germany is already messing about with the new security strategy; it is sometimes commented on with raised eyebrows.

 

New defense plans for Alliance territory

 

However, the Bundeswehr will have enough money available over the next four years with the special fund to reach the two percent - that's exactly what the additional 100 billion euros were calculated for. It's just a matter of spending them quickly, too. The real problem will only arise in 2028, when the defense budget would suddenly have to increase by 20 billion euros.

 

Of course, Germany is not the problem in the NATO debate. Other states, including large ones like Canada and Turkey, spend less on their defense. Luxembourg brings up the rear with 0.6 percent, although it spends more per capita than any other country in absolute terms - the Grand Duchy is simply too rich, the economic power too great. Of course, the alliance cannot be based on the smallest member. The heads of government will probably only agree on the final formulation in Vilnius, say diplomats, but the direction is clear.

 

The new defense plans, which the military headquarters have been working on for months, are also to be adopted in Vilnius. For the first time since the Cold War, NATO will have “workable” plans for defending all of its territory, with troops assigned to specific scenarios. From this, in turn, the troop levels and military capabilities of the member states are derived.

 

Türkiye's blocking attitude causes shaking of heads

 

Stoltenberg speaks of the fact that more than 300,000 troops would be held at three different levels of readiness. People in the Member States, including Germany, don't like to hear that because it will take a lot of effort to get there. It is questionable, for example, whether the Bundeswehr can keep its promise to provide the alliance with a fully equipped armored division from 2025 and another from 2027. The army inspector has already warned internally of delays.

 

The core of the new plans, which are classified as secret, is the rapid reinforcement of the eastern flank. In the event of an escalation, the forces stationed there, currently battalion strength, are to grow to brigade level. The leading nations are responsible for this, Germany in the case of Lithuania. The government there is already pushing for a higher Bundeswehr presence. Pistorius wants to address the concerns in the Baltic States by practicing more and more often there. The defense ministers of the three Baltic states and the leading nations met on Thursday evening. Pistorius then announced that at the end of next year, beginning of 2025, all forces would hold a regional maneuver for the first time.

 

Actually, the defense plans should already be approved by the ministers in Brussels. But that failed because of Türkiye. Ankara vetoed and justified this with formal questions. For example, Cyprus is to be designated as a "Cypriot island" on maps in order to do justice to the unclear status of the Turkish-occupied north. Many ministers shook their heads uncomprehending. One reportedly vented his displeasure behind closed doors: Britain's Ben Wallace. On D-Day 1944, the Allies did not argue about what to call the English Channel, he is said to have said.

 

The Turkish blockade game is well known. In fact, Ankara is probably trying to get the US to deliver F-16 aircraft. Presidents Biden and Erdogan recently spoke about it again. This question is also – indirectly – linked to Sweden's accession. There is still hope in the alliance that 32 member states will meet in Vilnius."

 

What do security promises from individual NATO states for Ukraine mean in reality? If individual NATO states acting according to those promises will attack Russia, does all NATO step in and declare World war III? Alternatively, are these promises empty sounds from woke governments of some countries drowning in internal political troubles, and desperately seeking a distraction?