All NATO wants for its 75th birthday is 100 billion dollars, for Ukraine

Congratulations NATO! What would you like for your birthday? One hundred billion Euros you say? To give to Ukraine?!

Well, that’s what NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg was outlining at this week’s 75^th birthday bash in Brussels. The secretary general’s plan is to give certainty to Ukraine that it will receive military funding for five years as it seeks to defend itself against the renewed Russian assault which will come this summer. NATO would also take responsibility in coordinating weapons deliveries to Ukraine.

The idea is good, its chances of being approved less so.

With Russia outgunning Ukraine by a factor of five to one in shells fired, and American assistance stuck in Congress due to internal politics, NATO is looking for ways to ensure money and munitions keep flowing. Most of the leaders of the 32 member states recognize that defeat for Ukraine will be a defeat for NATO and will encourage Putin to embark on other “adventures”. However, that is a lofty strategic view. Lower down, national politics gets in the way.

Arms and aid to Ukraine is co-ordinated by the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) also known as the Ramstein group where it is headquartered. All 32 member states are part of it along with another 24 countries. The UDCG is led by the US whose scepticism about a replacement was only thinly veiled this week. White House national security communications advisor John Kirby said on Wednesday: “The contact group has been very, very effective,” and, in case the hard of understanding hadn’t got that, he added: “We’re going to continue to lead and convene it.  And we know that our leadership of that contact group is valued, it’s important.”

Others were similarly unconvinced. Some countries, which are enthusiastic members of the European Union, are nervous about giving NATO funds and responsibilities which might undermine EU efforts to grow its defence role. Belgium’s foreign minister, Hadja Lahbib, pointed out the potential weak spots in the idea saying, “It is dangerous to make promises that we cannot keep”.

The French and Hungarians are among other prominent sceptics, asking if the 100 billion will be new money or come out of existing pledges. Hungary, the most pro-Russian country within NATO went further. Budepatest’s foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, said, “NATO is a defence alliance. Hungary will reject any proposal that would transform it into an offensive alliance… this isn’t Hungary’s war, and it isn’t NATO’s war either.”

The discussions are likely to go on until July’s NATO summit in Washington. Then, due to radical changes in policy requiring unanimity, the idea will probably be watered down or dropped. However, something will have to be agreed in July as leading members want to unveil a package of measures which will be a “bridge” to Ukraine joining the alliance. The discussion also matters because it is part of the wider question about NATO’s role in the 21st century.

The original 12 members signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”.  After the Cold War, there were two waves of growth, in 1999 and 2004, as NATO expanded into Eastern Europe. The war in Ukraine caused Sweden and Finland to end decades of neutrality and join the alliance. Now, Ukraine, Bosnia Herzegovina, and Georgia are candidates to join.

Newest NATO members, Finland and Sweden, bring a lot to the table. Both have well-equipped and trained forces. Finland excels in artillery skills while Sweden has advanced Griffen fighter jets and modern attack submarines. Swedish membership allows Norway and Finland to be resupplied via a land route, while Finland has the longest alliance member land border with Russia (1,320 kms). Together they allow NATO to control the Baltic Sea in the event of a conflict, and give it an easier sea supply route to the Baltics if the land route is closed.

Which countries might join in the future is partially down to how literally the North Atlantic half of NATO’s title is interpreted. The alliance has been cautiously forging military links with Japan, and many have a strong relationship with Australia. NATO now says its roles include “crisis prevention and management” but doesn’t make clear where such activities might take place.

These issues are pressing if we are, as Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said last week, in a new era, “the pre-war era”. Russia’s economy went onto a war footing two years ago and its munitions factories are now pumping out arms at a rate most NATO countries cannot match. Many alliance members have severely depleted stocks, and it could take up to a decade for their defence industries to get back up to Cold War levels.

The closer to Russia a country is, usually the less it trusts Moscow. The collective memory of Russian occupation, in the guise of the Soviet Union, is why Poland spends 4 per cent of its GDP on defence, why Lithuania re-introduced conscription in 2014, Latvia followed suit last year, and Estonia never ended it. All three Baltic states spend above the 2 per cent of GDP NATO target for defence. They were not fooled by the “holiday from history” of the post-Cold War years. What they want for NATO’s birthday is a collective robustness, and way to ensure that Ukraine does not fall and leave them in Putin’s cross hairs.  

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life