Navigating the new world order? Reflection on the NATO Summit in Washington

NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary declaring to provide peace and security in Europe. However, Europe is on the brink of a war with Russia, and the Chinese-Belarusian anti-terrorism exercises, conducted not far from the border with NATO ally Poland, coincide with the Washington summit. Its Final Declaration underlines that the key threat for the allies apart from China is Russia. In addition, NATO countries committed to providing €40bn in assistance to Ukraine in 2025 and confirmed that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership is irreversible. Moreover, leaders of the allied countries signed the Ukraine Compact, a document containing commitments to support Ukraine. However, the key question that the Ukrainian expert community raises is: is it enough to have Ukraine win? Well, not exactly.

What was signed in Washington?

“First and foremost, we will demonstrate our unity. NATO was created to deter an aggressive Russia. Russia is aggressive once again. NATO won the first time, and it will win again,” stated Polish President Radoslaw Sikorski. In the spirit of solidarity and unity the Final Declaration of the NATO Washington Summit.

For Ukraine, NATO’s commitment to support its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership, remains unwavering. This support is contingent on Ukraine’s continued implementation of the necessary democratic, economic and security reforms. This is the essence of the ‘bridge to NATO’ concept, where the Alliance also reaffirmed its financial and military pledge to Ukraine. This includes the long-awaited ‘Patriots’ and F-16s, which will be instrumental in protecting Ukrainian cities and citizens.

If there are still arguments as to why it was done, the answer is very simple: Ukraine has one of the largest, most capable and innovative armies in Europe. Since 2014, the Ukrainian armed forces have exceeded expectations and successfully resisted Russian troops, and is already enhancing Europe’s security by sharing its unique combat experience and knowledge of the most advanced warfare technologies.

“This is the compromise that NATO could offer to the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian side agrees with this version of the text,” mentioned Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda.

There is truth in the words of the Lithuanian President: it is not enough in the eyes of the alliance members to invite Ukraine to join NATO nor to let it win. Therefore, the second part of the ‘bridge to NATO” is the so-called Ukraine Compact. It brings together countries that have signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine (22 countries and EU) into a “unified, coordinated, and comprehensive architecture to support Kyiv.” The signatories commit to supporting Ukraine in its defence, and in the event of a new Russian attack on Ukraine after the current war ends, these countries are obligated to quickly assemble at the highest level to determine the next steps in supporting Ukraine.

How NATO awakens the predator instincts

NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg reinforced NATO’s recent designation of China as a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s war against Ukraine. This stance was underscored in the declaration by NATO leaders just a day earlier. Well, it surely is, especially after the tweet of Dmitry Medvedev, Head of the Security Council of Russia: “The Washington Summit Declaration of July 10 mentions ‘the irreversible path of Ukraine’ to NATO. For Russia, 2 possible ways of how this path ends are acceptable: either Ukraine disappears, or NATO does. Still better, both.”

And the root of the cause of China-Russia’s temporary alignment lies in history. After the Cold War, the ruling elites in Russia and China initially found themselves on the defensive side, seeking ways to stabilise their positions and integrate into the global order dominated by Western powers. However, in recent years, they have shifted to a more aggressive stance.

Now, we are witnessing the second phase of their strategy: a bid for global supremacy. Russia and China are striving to replace the liberal-democratic order, which emerged as dominant under U.S. leadership after the Cold War, with a new system where they hold the commanding heights of the international order.

Concurrently, Russia is mobilising its economy for sustained warfare, evidenced by the appointment of economist Andrei Belousov as defence minister and the construction of new military factories in Belarus and Tajikistan. Russia shows no sign of abandoning its goal to subordinate Ukraine. It continues to adapt to a prolonged war, leveraging its superior resources to outlast Ukraine militarily and erode the political will of the West.

Globally, Russia’s strategy involves a complex hybrid threat, combining disinformation campaigns, cyber-attacks and manipulating political movements to increase its influence and weaken opponents. The operations by the SVR, FSB and GRU are integral to this strategy, utilising various actors, including anti-war, environmental and human rights activists, as well as radical political movements, pro-Russian opinion leaders and even the Russian Orthodox Church. These efforts aim to create doubts about the United States’ commitment and Europe’s ability to sustain support for Ukraine.

However, the obvious secret to overcoming both challenges is to let Ukraine win.

And some concrete steps might be taken even these days.

First, it is about sanctions. A decade of targeted international sanctions on the Russian military industry has revealed its significant reliance on Western components, particularly computer chips, semiconductors, and electronics. The sophistication of a weapons system directly correlates with its dependency on these imported parts. The ‘targeted’ and selective nature of the sanctions clearly indicates that the Western world still has a misguided understanding of the Russian regime.

Therefore, the philosophy behind the sanctions needs a fundamental shift. Instead of naively hoping that the symbolic impact of sanctions will alter Russia’s policy, there must be a recognition that sanctions are a vital component in the economic war against Russian and global neo-imperialism and totalitarianism.

Secondly, if EU and NATO member states are committed to supporting Ukraine, there must be a clear strategy to ensure Ukraine’s victory and Russia’s defeat. Supporting Ukraine’s NATO membership benefits the entire Alliance by enhancing both regional and global security.

Moreover, cooperation between NATO member states and Ukraine should be more in the military-technological sector.  Therefore, on the sidelines of the Summit, the Ministry of Strategic Industries of Ukraine opened the first foreign representative office of Ukroboronprom. This move marks a window of opportunity for defence projects with Ukraine’s allies, particularly the United States.

Thirdly, it is about leadership and the potential ‘Trump effect’. Why not unite the leadership efforts of the UK, Germany, Italy and France even more in order to lead European allies against Russian aggression? By coordinating their strategies, these key nations can provide a stronger, unified front to counter aggression and ensure a more robust defence posture for the entire Alliance.

Finally, Article 13 in the Final Declaration of the NATO Washington Summit astutely states that ‘hybrid operations’ against Allies could reach the level of an armed attack, potentially leading the North Atlantic Council to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Since at least 2014, the Russian Federation has been employing hybrid tactics against NATO allies and partners. For example, on July 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the dismantling of a Russian bot farm aimed at “disseminating disinformation to sow discord in the United States and elsewhere.”

This raises a crucial question: what are the quantitative indicators that would trigger Article 5? It’s an important point for reflection.

The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.