What if Trump wins: how NATO’s Washington Summit prepared Ukraine for a new US administration
On Friday night, the leaders of the allied states departed from Washington, where the NATO summit had come to a close.
Most of them were already in the air or heading to the airport as summit host Joe Biden addressed a press conference at the Washington conference centre.
The US president did not hide the fact that the summit was part of his "pre-election" campaign. He was seeking to prove to American voters that he, Biden, remains the leader of the free world; that he had been capable of withstanding the pressures of the summit and therefore has the strength to lead the country for another four years.
His interaction with the press after the summit was not particularly successful. At one point, he found it physically difficult to speak. He occasionally got confused, calling Vice President Kamala Harris "Trump" and Volodymyr Zelenskyy "Putin". In short, doubts about Joe Biden's fitness to continue in office have only intensified.
The NATO leaders' meeting itself went off without any breakthroughs or controversies, just as the US had wanted. The summit confirmed that the US remains the Alliance’s driving force. Biden is still an authority for other leaders and a figure of stability – yet his presidency may soon come to an end.
The summit's primary objective was to ensure stability if there is a change of US president.
This objective was fairly well achieved in terms of NATO-Ukraine relations at least.
Although there was no fundamental breakthrough in Ukraine-NATO relations, the Washington summit achieved the maximum possible in terms of cementing and developing achievements and creating safeguards against their being revoked in a new political climate.
This isn’t just a matter of the wording as regards membership, but practical tools as well – although how effectively they are used will depend primarily on Ukraine itself.
A summit overshadowed by Trump
What will happen to NATO if Donald Trump returns to power in the US?
That’s the question that kept coming up in Washington. Everyone had to try to answer it, including the current leader in the White House, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and European leaders – and their answers varied.
Biden publicly argued both before and during the summit that his defeat and Trump's victory in the presidential race would be a disaster for the Alliance and for the world as a whole. During the summit, he said media speculation that Trump would weaken NATO and force Ukraine to cede territories to Russia was "correct". He had already reminded everyone how Trump threatened to withdraw the US from NATO during his last presidency.
Was Biden being sincere? It is highly likely that he was, and that this is not just pre-election rhetoric.
In the US, there is pretty much a consensus among Democrats, and especially politicians from Biden's team, that Trump would be a guaranteed catastrophe for the US, for the world, and especially for NATO.
There are also concerns in Europe about a Trump election victory, although the level of despair is significantly lower. Key European countries have begun preparing for a change of power in the US, considering it highly likely, and European officials have been upfront about this in informal conversations with journalists. Publicly, however, they do not comment on this topic to avoid accusations of interference in the American elections.
Within NATO, the "level of acceptance" regarding a possible change of power in the White House has risen even higher. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg even took it upon himself during the summit to try to persuade journalists that fears of a US exit from the Alliance are exaggerated.
Stoltenberg gave three reasons for his confidence and outlined them in detail. First, leaving NATO would be bad for the US and the Trump administration. Second, Congress would not allow Trump to do this. Third, the Alliance itself has changed so much [in terms of European allies increasing their defence spending – ed.] that Trump himself would no longer seek to leave it.
But the Alliance also has members like Hungary whose leaders not only do not fear a Trump election victory – they actually hope it happens.
An antidote to Trump and Orbán
Since 2017, we’ve got used to hearing news about Hungary once again blocking a NATO decision on Ukraine or a bilateral event involving Ukraine. However, recently Hungary has abandoned this policy.
Only its outward bravado remains. The NATO Washington summit proved this once again.
NATO leaders adopted new wording for relations with Ukraine, declaring that Ukraine is on an "irreversible path" towards membership.
While this approach was being adopted behind closed doors, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán had no objections. But when NATO’s decision had already been agreed upon and had reached the ceremonial meeting with Zelenskyy at the NATO-Ukraine Council, Orbán started his public game-playing.
Bloomberg quoted him as saying that "Ukraine shouldn’t join NATO." European Pravda’s sources have confirmed this and added that Orbán was trying to convince everyone that Ukraine's membership would constitute "escalation". The main point is that despite his show of aggressive rhetoric, Orbán said that although he didn’t like the decision on Ukraine, he would not veto it.
Orbán’s government still conducts aggressive policies towards Ukraine, holds meetings with representatives of the Russian Federation, and makes irritating and outrageous statements, but for the time being
it has stopped blocking Ukraine’s path towards NATO and EU membership.
No one knows for sure, though, how long this will last. The most popular opinion is that Orbán is waiting for the new certainty that will dawn when Donald Trump comes to power in the US. After all, Trump's policy towards Ukraine is impossible to predict. That encompasses uncertainty about the future relationship between Ukraine and NATO.
In essence, all the main decisions that the NATO summit took on Ukraine were aimed at precisely this problem.
NATO sought to cement the achievements in bilateral relations and make it as difficult as possible to reverse them.
This was also one of the reasons that convinced the Alliance to change its official policy towards Ukraine. European Pravda has already reported that the summit introduced official NATO wording that has not been used for any other candidate state. Now all NATO decisions on Ukraine should contain a reminder that "Ukraine's path to NATO is irreversible."
The main consequence of this change is that it is now extremely difficult to refuse Ukraine membership of the Alliance. There would have to be a reason that all the pro-Ukrainian members – from the UK to Lithuania, from Romania to Finland – agree on.
For example, the option "Let's try to appease Putin and announce that Ukraine doesn’t meet NATO's security priorities and can’t join" is now impossible. It won't fly in the Alliance. And even if Trump decided to negotiate a deal, promising the Kremlin that he would convince other Alliance members, his decision would have no force, as it would not change NATO's official position. Once Trump had left office, it would be easy for the Alliance and the US to return to their previous policies and goals in relations with Kyiv. Such a short-term deal is unlikely to interest Putin.
The summit's decision is rather like the inclusion of the clause in Ukraine’s Constitution concerning EU and NATO accession.
It can be argued that those constitutional amendments did not move Ukraine any further forward on its path to membership. They did not remove any reform requirements, and the principle of consensus in NATO remained unchanged. But the amendments have been a political safeguard that make it very difficult or even impossible to reverse Ukraine’s course, both after the change of power in 2019 and after the start of the full-scale invasion.
NATO's decision on Ukraine is expected to have a similar effect.
The NATO mission for Ukraine and other cementing measures
The change in the political wording on bilateral relations was not the only decision that the NATO summit made as a "safeguard against Trump".
This section of the Declaration also includes a promise of long-term funding for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, with €40 billion budgeted for 2025. This decision is not without flaws. There will still be disputes about its implementation within the Alliance. However, the fact that leaders are thinking about the stability of security assistance is undoubtedly a good thing.
Equally important in the context of NATO's preparation for the Trump era is the establishment of the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine Initiative (NSATU), a mechanism for coordinating assistance to Ukraine which will complement and, if necessary, completely replace the Ramstein format implemented by the Americans.
What will that change?
First of all, this NATO body will now have information about all the security packages that Alliance member states have promised and actually provided to Ukraine. Up to now, no one has had this information. Even the US, which coordinates the Ramstein Group, had limited tools in this regard.
In simple terms, NATO bodies will now see where the biggest gaps are in meeting the needs declared by Kyiv: where the allies need to step up their work, where best to direct funds from countries that provide financial assistance for weapons procurement rather than material assistance, and so on.
This new NATO command will be located in Wiesbaden, Germany. It is expected to be led by General Christopher Cavoli, a US military officer, currently the commander-in-chief of NATO's Allied Forces in Europe, who coordinates aid to the Armed Forces of Ukraine within the Ramstein Group. This will ensure the smoothest possible transition to the new coordination system, even if the new US administration loses interest in it.
Another relatively new initiative, announced some time ago but nevertheless presented in the Summit Declaration as a recent achievement, is the Joint Analysis, Training and Education Centre (JATEC) in Poland. This is a joint Ukraine-NATO body that aims to enhance Ukraine's operational compatibility with the Alliance. Ukraine is "selling" the establishment of this body to the allies as its contribution to NATO's resilience and readiness to counter Russian threats. JATEC will be responsible not only for training Ukrainian military personnel, but also for sharing the Ukrainian Armed Forces' experience of fighting against Russian forces.
Finally, the Alliance has approved a decision to strengthen its presence in Ukraine.
NATO has been discussing the idea of establishing a body in Kyiv called the "NATO Mission" to replace the Alliance's representative office that has been here for many years. They decided against changing the name for a rather curious reason: many officials associated it with NATO's mission in Afghanistan, which, despite being powerful and well-funded, ultimately failed, like every other Afghan programme.
You could call it superstition, but these were the considerations that led to the name change being abandoned. Functionally, however, almost everything is going to change.
Firstly, there will be a change of head at the NATO diplomatic mission, and the new official will have a high status in the Alliance's hierarchy as a special representative of the Secretary General. For a large Western bureaucracy like NATO, this is significant.
Several sources have told European Pravda that European allies do not want an American in the position, in order to balance out US influence.
Additionally, NATO's presence in Kyiv is going to fundamentally change in terms of both personnel numbers and level. There will be a large number of seconded officers from the allied states responsible for the key areas. In short, work with Ukraine is being taken seriously. And this is probably the key change brought about by the Washington summit.
Moreover, the new body has been tasked with ensuring Ukraine's readiness for membership, including implementing security and defence sector reforms.
This is probably the main positive news. Because if the bureaucratic machinery starts working towards making Ukraine a NATO member, it means that that intention is no longer just at the level of politicians and they genuinely plan to implement it. Of course, this depends on whether Ukraine itself continues to follow this path.
Sergiy Sydorenko,
Editor, European Pravda
Washington – Kyiv
Translated by Daria Meshcheriakova