In 1991, some 50 years after NATO’s establishment for the defense of Western Europe against a Soviet military threat, the Warsaw Pact disbanded and the Soviet Union collapsed.  Taking office in 1993, President Bill Clinton and his administration saw an opportunity to reshape Europe and bridge the divides that had emerged after World War II. By late 1994, U.S. policy with regard to NATO envisaged a three-track approach.

The first track entailed enlargement. This was provided for by Article 10 of the NATO Treaty and was consistent with the goal of building a united and free Europe. Many former Warsaw Pact members sought NATO membership, and many in the West saw enlargement as a way to underpin the democratic and economic transitions in those countries. With uncertainties about how Russia might evolve, the Alliance provided an insurance policy.  

The second track aimed to forge a cooperative NATO-Russia relationship. Clinton hoped to build positive relations with Russia  — “an alliance with the Alliance” — in hopes that such a relationship could allay concerns in Moscow about enlargement. He asked, “What if Russia sought membership?” His staff advised that Russia should be considered if it met the Alliance’s criteria, including military, economic and political reform. However, Moscow appeared to see NATO as “the United States and everyone else”, and being one of everyone else held little appeal for the Kremlin. It instead pursued the idea of a special NATO-Russia relationship.

The third track dealt with Ukraine. A NATO-Ukraine partnership would solidify links between Kyiv, the capital city formerly known as Kiev (Kyiv), and the West. This would address Kyiv’s concerns about being left in a gray zone of insecurity between the Alliance and Russia, and encourage Ukraine’s reform efforts.

The New Strategy’s Promising Start

The tracks came together in 1997. In May, Russian President Boris Yeltsin met with NATO leaders in Paris for the signature of the “Founding Act” on NATO-Russia relations. Among other things, the document contained two key security assurances for Russia: first, NATO had “no intention, no plan, and no reason” to deploy nuclear arms in new member states, and second, NATO did not envisage “the additional permanent stationing of substantial [conventional] combat forces” in new members.

That July, in Madrid, NATO leaders invited Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to become members. The “Charter on a Distinctive Partnership” between NATO and Ukraine also was signed, strengthening links between NATO and Kyiv. They would join the Alliance in time to take part in NATO’s 50th-anniversary summit in April 1999.

The 9/11 attacks on the United States in 2001 led NATO to invoke Article 5 (an attack against one “shall be considered” an attack against all).  In addition to enlargement and stabilization operations in the Balkans, the Alliance began sending troops to support the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

The NATO-Russia relationship, which had suffered a setback in 1999 due to Russian anger over Alliance air strikes against Serbia for its ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, got a restart in May 2002. President Vladimir Putin met NATO leaders in Rome and agreed to expand on and strengthen the Founding Act, including consultations on certain issues on the basis of individual NATO member positions, not an agreed Alliance position. NATO’s then-Secretary General George Robertson recalled that Putin even asked about joining NATO, but indicated that he did not want to wait in line and go through the process required of other applicants.

Later that year, NATO leaders invited Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to join. They did so in 2004. Putin and the Kremlin expressed little objection to the 2002 membership invitations. By 2021, NATO would number 30 members, up from the 16 it comprised in 1991. Russian attitudes subsequently hardened, however, and Russia fiercely opposed requests by Ukraine and Georgia for membership action plans in 2008.

Talks Falter and Animosity Returns

In Europe, NATO members nevertheless continued the process begun in the early 1990s of reducing their nuclear and conventional force capabilities. The U.S. force presence in Europe shrank to less than one-fourth the size of its Cold War numbers. Aside from small squadrons of fighter aircraft providing a Baltic air policing mission and a missile defense site in Romania, NATO had no real military presence on the territory of new members prior to 2014.

Russia’s military seizure of Crimea and its use of so-called “separatists” to provoke a conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2014 prompted a true breakdown in NATO-Russia relations. The Alliance suspended all practical cooperation. (The suspension of all cooperation was a mistake; one rationale for a NATO-Russia relationship was to have a mechanism to jointly manage crises.)

After two decades of force reductions, NATO leaders agreed at their Wales summit in September 2014 to strengthen their defense capabilities. They pledged to boost members’ defense spending to at least 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2024. Given concerns, especially in Poland and the Baltic states, about aggressive Russian actions, NATO deployed multinational battlegroups to each of the four countries. The U.S. Army deployed an additional brigade and prepositioned equipment for a second brigade in the region.

As Russia continued its low-intensity war against Ukraine, NATO took further steps to bolster its deterrent and defense posture. Moscow ignored NATO offers in 2020 and 2021 to convene the NATO-Russia Council, and NATO-Russia relations went into a tail-spin. In October 2021, Russia announced the suspension of its mission in Brussels and effectively closed the NATO mission in Moscow.

Why NATO Must Stay Its Course

The Kremlin is unhappy with NATO enlargement, but enlargement critics in the West may well overstate how much it contributed to the decline in West-Russia relations. Russian pressure on Ukraine prior to the Maidan Revolution was intended to dissuade Kyiv from deepening integration with the European Union; the Ukrainian government then had ruled out drawing closer to NATO.

Critics also appear to downplay the impact of Russian domestic politics on Kremlin policy. In retrospect, Washington and NATO underestimated the degree of antipathy in Moscow towards the Alliance, and NATO had no way to deal with the domestic political factors driving the Kremlin policy. During Vladimir Putin’s first years as president, when a growing economy provided a strong basis for regime legitimacy, NATO enlargement did not seem to trouble him. He termed the 2002 enlargement “no tragedy.” However, as the Russian economy began to stagnate, he could no longer cite rising living standards as justification for his continued rule. He began to stress nationalism, particularly when returning to the presidency in 2011-2012. He recast Russia as a great power reestablishing its position on the global stage, and called for a more aggressive foreign policy — all themes that resonated with much of his domestic constituency. This construction increasingly depicted the United States and NATO in adversarial terms.

NATO should ensure that its readiness and capability to act in defense of member states is not in doubt, to avoid any miscalculation by the Kremlin. At the same time, the Alliance should leave the door open for dialogue, even though Moscow appears uninterested, at least for now. The possibility of a Russian military attack on a NATO member is considered low, though the prospect would have been put at zero 10 years ago. While the primary motive for enlargement was to underpin democratic transitions, new members now breathe a sigh of relief that they have the protection of Article 5. NATO has come full circle over the past 30 years; its central purpose again centers on deterrence and collective defense against a threat on its eastern border.

Originally for Divided We Fall

Senior Ukrainian officials have voiced concern that NATO has provided no clarity regarding Ukraine’s membership prospects.  Specifically, when might Kyiv receive a membership action plan, known as MAP?

Ukraine has already waited a long time. It will have to wait longer. That is unfair, but that is the reality.

Speaking in New York on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly meetings, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba complained that the MAP process “has been dragging on for an indecently long time…there can be no endless integration.  Everything must have its certainty and its clarity.”

President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed similar concerns earlier in the summer:  “If we are talking about NATO and MAP, I would really like to get specifics – yes or no.”

Kuleba and Zelensky’s frustrations are entirely understandable.  However, they will remain disappointed.

Over the past three decades, Ukraine’s interest in NATO has steadily grown.  In 1994, it was among the first to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace.  In 1997, NATO and Ukraine established a “distinctive partnership” aimed at deepening Kyiv’s relationship with the alliance.

In 2002, Ukraine announced that it would seek to join NATO, but Kyiv did little to prepare itself or follow up.  After the 2004 Orange Revolution, which led to the election of Viktor Yushchenko as president, the new Ukrainian government adopted a more serious approach. In the first half of 2006, it appeared headed for a MAP. Moscow did not express strong opposition, and many assumed that NATO leaders would approve a MAP at their November summit.  However, Yushchenko’s appointment of Victor Yanukovych as prime minister derailed things, especially in September when Yanukovych said he had no interest in a MAP.

Yushchenko asked again for a MAP in January 2008, with support from Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. This time, the Kremlin made its opposition loud and clear. President George W. Bush nevertheless supported the request.  However, Washington curiously did no lobbying with other NATO members on Kyiv’s behalf.  Only when alliance leaders gathered in Bucharest in April did Bush urge his counterparts to approve a MAP for Ukraine, but having heard nothing from Washington, positions had set against the idea in key European capitals, including Berlin and Paris. Ukraine did not get a MAP, though NATO leaders stated “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO.  We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

The language about “becoming” members seemed a concession to Bush, who failed in his MAP goal since, 13 years later, Ukraine continues to wait.

NATO has no fixed checklist of what countries must do to qualify for a MAP, that is, an aspirant for a MAP cannot present a fully checked scorecard and automatically claim one.  The decision to bestow one ultimately is a political call by alliance members. What is unfair is that Ukraine today arguably has made as much progress toward meeting the criteria for membership as had other countries when they received their MAPs, for example, Bulgaria and Romania in 1999 or Albania in 2007.  Indeed, Ukraine has probably done more.

The reason why Ukraine waits is also unfair. NATO’s 1995 enlargement study said, “No country outside the alliance should be given a veto or droit de regard over the process and decisions.”  Yet the Kremlin has, in effect, exercised such a veto. Allies appear unenthusiastic about a MAP now, particularly because there is no good answer to the question “if Ukraine joins NATO tomorrow, does the alliance then find itself at war with Russia?”

Unfortunately, life sometimes is not fair. That is the reality for Ukraine.  If the alliance could not reach a consensus on giving Kyiv a MAP in 2008, it will not do so now, when Ukraine remains mired in the low-intensity military conflict that Russia inflicted has inflicted on it since 2014.  Indeed, one reason why the Kremlin keeps that conflict simmering undoubtedly is to obstruct Ukraine’s efforts to forge stronger links with the West.

There should be candor between NATO and Ukrainian officials about the state of play with MAP, as there should be on Washington’s part.  True, corruption remains a problem that Ukrainians must deal more effectively with, but it does not block a MAP.

What should Kyiv do?  Here are three recommendations.

First, stop asking for a MAP, especially in public. In the current circumstances, the answer will either be silence or no. Neither helps NATO-Ukraine relations.

Second, load up Ukraine’s annual national program with the substance of a MAP – U.S., British, Polish, Lithuanian and Canadian diplomats at NATO can advise on this – but, critically, do not call it a MAP.  By all appearances, the negative reactions—both from Moscow and from within the alliance—are to the title, not the contents.

Third, having agreed a program with NATO, implement, implement and implement more.  Implementation has not always been Kyiv’s strong suit.  The more Ukraine does to strengthen interoperability with NATO military forces, meet alliance standards, and complete democratic, economic, military and security sector reforms, the better it will prepare itself for membership.

That should be Kyiv’s goal now.  It should seek, without a formal MAP, to do everything it can so that Ukraine is ready, when the political circumstances change, to take advantage and advance its membership bid.

Steven Pifer is a William J. Perry Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. 

Originally for Kyviv Post

Since regaining its independence in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse nearly 30 years ago, Ukraine has sought to build links with the West. This includes ties with institutions such as NATO, with which Ukraine has established a distinctive partnership. Kyiv has been keen on deepening those ties. Its interest in becoming a NATO member has continued to grow since 2014, as it views NATO as a means to protect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity from its aggressive neighbor, Russia.

Although NATO-Ukraine cooperation has intensified, and the Alliance maintains its “open door” policy, NATO members appear reluctant to put Ukraine on a membership track. Despite the fact that Russia continues a low-intensity conflict against Ukraine—and occupies Ukrainian territory—Kyiv can expand its practical cooperation with NATO. However, in the near term, Kyiv will have to keep its expectations about membership modest.

Read the rest at Turkish Policy Quarterly

Failing to renew the New START arms control treaty with Russia “is not a wise direction of travel,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a former Deputy Secretary General of NATO who ranked as one of President Barack Obama’s top nuclear security experts. 

She knows better than most. Gottemoeller was the chief US negotiator at the Moscow and Geneva talks where details of the treaty were hammered out between 2009 and 2010. Officially ratified a year later, New START limited both the United States and Russia to seven hundred delivery vehicles and just over double that count in total warheads, and was reinforced with a stringent verification process to closely monitor each country’s compliance. 

Read the rest at National Interest

On May 15, the U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw, Georgette Mosbacher, suggested relocating U.S. nuclear weapons based in Germany to Poland. One hopes this was just a mistake by a political appointee unfamiliar with NATO nuclear weapons issues, not a reflection of official U.S. government thinking. Moving nuclear weapons to Poland would prove very problematic.

The U.S. Air Force maintains 20 B61 nuclear gravity bombs at Buchel Air Base in Germany (as well as B61 bombs on the territory of four other NATO members). Kept under U.S. custody, the bombs could, with proper authorization in a conflict, be made available for delivery by German Tornado fighter-bombers. This is part of NATO’s “nuclear sharing” arrangements.

The Tornados are aging, and the German Ministry of Defense is considering purchasing F-18 aircraft to continue the German Air Force’s nuclear delivery capability. That has reopened debate within Germany about the presence of U.S. nuclear arms there, with Social Democratic Party (SPD) parliamentary leader Rolf Mützenich calling for their removal.

On May 14, U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell wrote an op-ed expressing concern about not “eroding the solidarity that undergirds NATO’s nuclear deterrent” and calling for the SPD to affirm Germany’s commitment to nuclear sharing. The next day, Ambassador Mosbacher entered the fray, with a tweet suggesting that U.S. nuclear weapons could be relocated to and housed in Poland.

If Germany wants to diminish nuclear capability and weaken NATO, perhaps Poland - which pays its fair share, understands the risks, and is on NATO's eastern flank - could house the capabilities here: https://t.co/VIzpHIgoUN

— Georgette Mosbacher (@USAmbPoland) May 15, 2020

This is a truly bad idea.

First, moving U.S. nuclear weapons to Poland would be expensive. Relocation would require constructing special infrastructure, such as WS3 underground storage vaults, and other equipment to ensure their security. The vaults normally are located within specially hardened aircraft shelters. While not a budget-buster, U.S. and NATO militaries have far more pressing needs to shore up the alliance’s deterrence and defense posture.

Second, deploying the B61 bombs in Poland would make them more vulnerable to Russian preemptive attack in a crisis or conflict. Russia has deployed Iskandr-M ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad. With a range of up to 500 kilometers, these missiles could strike targets in almost all of Poland within a matter of minutes and with very little warning.

Buchel, by contrast, would have longer warning time of an attack, and aircraft flying from there at least begin their flights out of range of Russian air defenses. The two major Polish air bases — which host Polish F-16s that are not, in any case, nuclear capable — are located within range of Russian S400 anti-aircraft missiles deployed in Kaliningrad and their radars.

Third, placing nuclear weapons in Poland would be hugely provocative to Russia. This is not an argument against provoking Russia in general — given its provocative behavior, including a military build-up, bellicose rhetoric, and use of military force against Ukraine. (Indeed, I called in 2014 for Washington to provide lethal military assistance to Ukraine and for U.S. and NATO forces to deploy to the Baltic states, steps that Moscow deemed “provocative.”)

But there is provocative and there is provocative. Putting U.S. nuclear arms so close to Russia would be the latter. Recall the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons 90 miles from American shores. President John F. Kennedy imposed a naval blockade, which allowed time to work out a settlement with Moscow. In doing so, however, he set aside the recommendation of many of his advisers for air strikes and a full-scale invasion of Cuba.

Fourth, a U.S. proposal to relocate its nuclear weapons to Poland would prove very divisive within NATO. The members of the alliance stated in 1997 that “they have no intention, no plan, and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new [NATO] members.” They incorporated that into the “Founding Act” that established relations between NATO and Russia.

The security circumstances in Europe have changed dramatically and, unfortunately, for the worse over the past 23 years. Despite that, many NATO members still support the “three no’s” regarding nuclear weapons that the alliance adopted in 1997. A U.S. proposal to move the bombs to Poland would divide allies, cause some to question U.S. judgment, and prompt a broader nuclear debate within the alliance at a time when NATO should strive to show a firm and united stance toward Russia.

Relocating U.S. nuclear weapons to Poland would be expensive, militarily unwise because it would make the weapons more vulnerable to preemptive attack, unduly provocative, and divisive within NATO. This was a tweet best not sent. The one thing it does do, however, is give Mr. Mützenich a new talking point for removing the bombs from Germany; citing Ambassador Mosbacher, he can claim: “We can send them to Poland.”

Originally for Brookings