Missed opportunities of NATO’s anniversary summit

Unsurprisingly, Russia’s war on Ukraine —  the greatest threat to Europe’s security since the Second World War — dominated much of last week’s 75th anniversary NATO summit in Washington, but other geopolitical challenges were addressed too.

On China, the alliance tried walking a tightrope. The summit’s final declaration said China “continues to pose systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security” and Beijing was a “decisive enabler” of Russia’s war against Ukraine. However, the alliance also said it remained “open to constructive engagement” with China. The declaration also included tough language about Iran and North Korea, especially their military support for Russia.

First the good news. After years of lagging behind, Europe is stepping up on defense spending. In 2014, when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula, only three NATO members spent the required 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Ten years later, 23 out of 32 now do so.

The disappointing news was on Ukraine. Many were hoping that NATO would extend an invitation to Ukraine to join, but the US and Germany blocked it. The two headlines were that more air defense systems would be supplied to Kyiv and that F-16s were being transferred to the Ukrainian air force. Neither was noteworthy enough for a major NATO summit. In the final declaration, the alliance repeated from last year that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO” and said for the first time that Ukraine was on an “irreversible path” to join — but these words fall short of an invitation.

Finally, two outcomes with geopolitical significance deserve more attention. The first is the breakdown in relations between NATO and Georgia. For the first time since 2008, there was a complete omission of Georgia’s NATO aspirations in the summit declaration.

Work should begin immediately to ensure that the 2025 summit delivers bolder and more creative outcomes.

Luke Coffey

The Georgian government has shifted away from aligning with Europe on major policy issues and has instead taken positions sympathetic to Russia: the best example is over Ukraine.  That there was no mention of Georgia joining NATO is a major shift in policy, and undeniable proof that the Georgian government has derailed the country’s Euro-Atlantic path.

Another noteworthy issue is with relations between NATO and the MENA region. This year is not only the 75th anniversary of the formation of NATO, but also the 20th anniversary of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and the 30th anniversary of the Mediterranean Dialogue, which are the main platform for NATO's engagement with the MENA region. Any cooperation between NATO and MENA is positive.  There are many overlapping security issues, including counterterrorism and the proliferation of Iranian drones and missiles.

At the summit, NATO that a Special Representative would be appointed to bolster the alliance’s engagement with the region, and a liaison office will be opened in Jordan. At the request of the Iraqi government, the alliance will also increase the size of its training mission there. It would be a good idea for NATO to explore the possibility of adding new members to both the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and the Mediterranean Dialogue.

Overall, the summit gets a passing grade. It was not a disaster, but it accomplished the bare minimum. On Ukraine, the most pressing issue in the transatlantic community, the summit was a missed opportunity. The 75th anniversary of the alliance is a big deal, but NATO’s leaders failed to appreciate and recognize the historic times in which they are living. Instead of making history at the summit, all they did was celebrate it.

Next year NATO’s leaders meet again in the Netherlands. Work should begin immediately to ensure that the 2025 summit delivers bolder and more creative outcomes. The clock is already ticking.

• Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.