As NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary, internal discord and the Ukraine conflict dominate the agenda, raising questions about the alliance’s future.
The heads of state and government from all 32 NATO allies will converge in Washington from July 9-11 to celebrate the Alliance’s 75th anniversary. This summit, scheduled over a year ago, now arrives at a precarious time, with political and military tensions threatening to overshadow the event’s significance.
No one could have predicted the current concerns dominating American media and political discourse. President Joe Biden’s recent debate performance against Donald Trump on June 27 has cast a shadow over his leadership, potentially diverting attention from the summit’s critical discussions.
Publicly, the 31 non-U.S. NATO leaders will likely express confidence in Biden’s leadership and his vision for a second term. However, behind closed doors, whispers of doubt are expected to circulate among allied leaders, eager to share their concerns with the throng of journalists. Despite these reservations, there is a clear preference for Biden over Trump, who has previously shown a wavering commitment to NATO.
Holding the NATO summit now is also unfortunate due to the pressing matter of the Ukraine war. The agenda will be dominated by discussions on the level and type of support for Ukraine against Russia’s ongoing aggression. Led by the United States, NATO allies must carefully navigate the complexities of military aid, particularly the risks involved in targeting Russian territory. These sensitive discussions will likely occur in private rather than in the summit’s plenary sessions.
Not all NATO members are convinced of the need to risk their security for Ukraine. Countries like Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orbán recently met with Vladimir Putin, seem to defy the alliance’s unified stance. Concerns about potential Russian retaliation, including cyberattacks and the unlikely but feared use of nuclear weapons, further complicate the discourse.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s calls for “victory” — reclaiming all territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea — present another dilemma. While it’s politically sensitive to oppose Ukraine’s aspirations, most experts agree that such an outcome is unrealistic. Yet, the allies at the Washington summit will struggle to openly challenge this narrative without appearing disloyal to Ukraine’s cause.
Discussions about potential negotiations with Russia will be conspicuously absent from the official agenda. Any consideration of peace talks, vital though they may be, will have to occur at a different venue and time. The allies face the unavoidable reality that any end to the war must be negotiated, with the terms acceptable to Ukraine and backed by major powers, namely the United States and Russia.
This strategic impasse reflects a historical blunder made at NATO’s 2008 Bucharest summit, where the promise of NATO membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) was declared. To Russia, this pledge was a significant provocation. Instead of rectifying this mistake, NATO continues to repeat it, likely to do so again at this summit, as a gesture of support for Ukraine.
Despite the geopolitical impracticality of Ukraine’s NATO membership, the commitment persists. It provides no immediate benefit to Ukraine and is unlikely to ever be realized, given the unanimous consent required from all NATO members for any new country’s admission.
NATO’s broader military capabilities and preparedness will also be reviewed. There have been notable advancements in military efforts, organization, and readiness, with most allies now meeting the target of spending at least two percent of their GDP on defense. This metric, more symbolic than substantive, was designed to appease the U.S. Congress’s demands for European allies to share more of the defense burden. Both Biden and Trump have claimed credit for these increases.
The summit will also skirt around the future of NATO-Russia relations. Despite current hostilities, geopolitical realities dictate that Russia remains an enduring presence in Europe’s security landscape. The aspiration for a “Europe whole and free,” as articulated by President George H.W. Bush and pursued by President Bill Clinton, remains unrealized. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act aimed at cooperation, but relations soured in the early 2000s due to Putin’s territorial ambitions and U.S. policymakers’ misjudgments about Russia’s strategic significance.
As the Ukraine war continues, NATO must grapple with these long-term strategic concerns, even if they remain unresolved at this summit. The alliance’s ability to navigate these challenges will determine its future relevance and effectiveness in a rapidly changing global landscape.
In Washington, allied leaders will avoid discussing the deeper implications of Russia’s role in European security, postponing these critical conversations to an indefinite future. The NATO summit, meant to celebrate unity and strength, will instead spotlight the profound uncertainties and divisions within the alliance, making it a pivotal moment in its 75-year history.
