Both within the Alliance and in Ukraine, people had high hopes placed on the NATO summit, held in Wales in early September, just after Ukraine suffered an overt Russian invasion in late August. On the one hand, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in his welcoming remarks that “we are now starting one of the most important summits in the history of our Alliance,” on the other hand, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko was quoted by his press service as saying that NATO supported bilateral decisive action by member countries in providing military and technical assistance to Ukraine, including some members supplying Ukraine with high-precision weapons. “It is what we expected,” the Ukrainian leader said.
The Day asked American and Ukrainian experts to comment on the consequences for Ukraine of the NATO Summit in Wales.
John HERBST, former US Ambassador to Ukraine (2003-06), member of Atlantic Council, Washington:
“The NATO summit was a serious failure of vision and leadership. Over the past seven months, Vladimir Putin has pursued a policy of increasing aggression in Ukraine. Initially fearful of Western sanctions, he started his aggression covertly. But as his covert operation could not withstand Ukraine’s successful response, he sent in more fighters, provided more sophisticated weapons and finally sent in whole military units. This last he did less than two weeks before the summit.
“In the days leading up to the summit, he also reminded the West that he has nuclear weapons, told European Commissioner Jose Manuel Barroso that his troops could take Kyiv in two weeks and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the state of Kazakhstan. Despite all this, the Alliance found time to declare the terrorist band ISIS a critical threat and to announce serious measures against it, but took no comparable steps against the much greater menace of a rogue Kremlin. The Alliance should have decided in Wales to provide Ukraine with substantial military supplies and to deploy major forces to its Eastern members as a hedge against Kremlin aggression there. The major sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine should also have been coordinated with the summit.
“The West has responded slowly and with too little to each step up in Kremlin aggression. The NATO summit is more of the same. That does not mean, however, that there will not be military aid in the future. If NATO as an alliance cannot make the right decision, individual NATO members can. There is growing pressure in Washington, among both Republicans and Democrats, to provide lethal equipment to Ukraine.
“Last week was a bad week for Ukraine and the West. Sugar coating Putin’s aggression will not make it go away or prevent its repetition elsewhere. But it is also true that more and more people in the West are coming to see the dangers emanating from the Kremlin. For instance, France appears to have decided not to send the Mistral to Moscow. So, the West may yet come to an adult understanding of the problem and respond accordingly.”
Steven PIFER, former US Ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000), Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, Director of Brookings’ Arms Control Initiative:
“There is some hope in the United States and Europe that the ceasefire will last and provide the basis for a political process that can settle the conflict in eastern Ukraine in a manner that maintains Ukrainian sovereignty, among other things. As was apparent from the comments of NATO leaders on Friday, there is also a significant degree of skepticism in the West about whether the ceasefire can last and about Russian intentions, with Moscow’s policy seen as key to whether there will be peace or continued fighting.
“Given doubts about the Kremlin’s intentions and continuing reports of Russian forces in Ukraine, the United States and European Union seem likely to move forward with additional sanctions against Russia, which could be imposed as early as the beginning of this week.
“As for the provision of lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, the US government has not ruled that out. As far as I understand, the US government has not made a decision to provide lethal arms, but it is a question under discussion in Washington. Should the separatists and Russians fail to observe the ceasefire, this question would get greater attention. If the administration does decide to provide lethal assistance to the Ukrainian military, that policy would receive strong support from the US Congress, where both Democrats and Republicans have called for providing weapons to Ukraine.”
Angela STENT, professor of Government at Georgetown University and director of its Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies:
“At the NATO summit, there were promises to assist Ukraine in a number of ways but not with lethal military aid. NATO stressed the need for a political solution to the crisis because NATO is not obligated to defend Ukraine militarily since it is not a member. On the other hand, there is a recognition that Russia’s goal now seems to be to turn eastern Ukraine into a ‘frozen conflict’ similar to that in Transnistria, including forcing the government of Ukraine to negotiate with insurgent leaders. So, the United States and EU have promised more economic sanctions against Russia. NATO and the EU will not abandon Ukraine but they will limit support to economic and some military assistance. So far, it is unclear whether that military assistance will include lethal weapons. Some members of the US Congress have called for lethal weapons to be sent to Ukraine and for new legislation to regulate US-Ukraine relations but Congress is about to go into recess before the November mid-term elections and it is not clear when these issues would be taken up. There are divisions within the Obama Administration over the question of lethal military assistance.
“I am just now responding to the ‘Boisto agenda.’ These are a group of self-selected people who met privately. I am not sure they have much influence on either the Russian or American governments. But they have provoked a great deal of controversy with a counter-petition signed by many well-know people.”
Oleh SHAMSHUR, former Ambassador of Ukraine to the US, Kyiv:
“Unfortunately, despite our expectations, the summit did not mark the point of no return in the West’s attitude to the Russian aggression in Ukraine. As a friend of mine who is an American expert said, ‘while saying what it will not do, the West has failed to determine which actions it is ready to take.’ We saw in the summit’s documents important statements on the Russian intervention in Ukraine, but they have not transformed into a clear plan of action against the aggressor or in adequate amounts and forms of assistance to our country.
“At this stage, it would be naive to expect a military action by NATO to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. However, delays and even unwillingness to provide arms to our nation looks obscene to me, especially when our opponent is armed to the teeth, has blood of hundreds of Ukrainians on its hands, and the West and Russia bear joint responsibility for creating the Fata Morgana of the Budapest Memorandum.
“Of course, it is important that the summit participants made statements in support of sanctions against Russia. However, the aggressor cannot be stopped by another widening or deepening of existing sanctions, it would require radical actions such as already proposed disconnecting Russia from the SWIFT or freezing its assets.
“The reasons for the inconsistent behavior of the West are known and are a combination of economic interests, political miscalculations, psychological aberrations, and results of Russian lobbying. I think the chief reason is that the top leadership of NATO member states is still clinging, contrary to the facts, to an illusory hope of the restoration of the pre-crisis status quo even as we face the urgent need to change the very paradigm of the relationship between the West and Russia, and accordingly, begin construction of a new European security system.
“In addition, the Russian government played well in the context of the summit the Minsk roadmap to peace as a bargaining chip: virtually none of the summit participants believed Vladimir Putin’s good intentions, but it has lowered the temperature of the discussion and provided arguments to allies who use all means to undermine imposition of severe sanctions against the Russian state.”
