The 2024 NATO Summit hosted all 32 international allies in Washington this week, from Tuesday to Thursday.
Former U.S. Ambassador Kurt Volker spoke with VOA regarding the summit, noting that while he found it to be predictable, with no major decisions being made, it was useful. He also spoke about Ukraine’s bid to become a NATO ally and how nothing is yet solidified.
The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
VOA: Overall, what do you think about the summit results for Ukraine?
Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador: The outlines of the summit were set several months ago, really. No invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, some fresh language, but it’s still not an invitation. No major new alliance role in helping Ukraine defeat Russia, no clear commitment to victory, but some additional support. So, we heard about the new Patriot systems that are coming in, some other air defense systems. All that’s good. Coordinating assistance to Ukraine through NATO as opposed to only through the U.S., that’s also good. But it’s not the game changer that a lot of people would have wanted to see.
VOA: We had several items here. First, how important is the formulation in the communiqué that the path to NATO is “irreversible”?
Volker: There is either a decision that we are inviting Ukraine to join NATO, or there’s not. And in this case, it’s still not there. So, to say that it’s irreversible, all you have to do is have the next communiqué not say that. It doesn’t do anything unless it’s actually an invitation. I understand the hesitation that people have as the war is still ongoing. They don’t want to imply that NATO countries are going to send forces to fight on the ground in Ukraine. OK, but we should be thinking strategically about how we get Ukraine what it needs to win the war. And how as part of that we bring them into NATO in order to end the war successfully, so we deter the next war.
VOA: Part of this bridge is creating the Command and Logistics Center in Wiesbaden. Is it a good outcome? Would it be substantial in helping Ukraine?
Volker: What we’re doing is we’re taking something that we’re already doing, and we’re putting a NATO flag on it. I think that is good. I think it should be NATO. I don’t think it should be the U.S. alone. And I think when we talk about burden-sharing, it’s good for the U.S. to see that this is an alliance activity with lots of allies taking part. Even though that was already the case, the optics of it are better I think for it to be a NATO activity. But it’s what we’re already doing. It’s not a substantial change.
VOA: What about the civil representative of NATO in Kyiv?
Volker: We used to have one of those, and we pulled it out after Russia’s full-scale invasion. It’s good to put it back. We should not hesitate to have U.S. and allied personnel present in Ukraine. I would argue we should do more. We should lift the ban on uniformed military personnel being present in Ukraine, embedding with Ukrainian forces. We need to do that to learn from Ukraine and adapt our systems as best we can. We also ought to have military contractors authorized to be in Ukraine. Because they need to see what’s happening to the equipment and supplies that they’re providing and provide real-time support and service in the country.
VOA: I talked to the ministers of Norway and Sweden, and both were very enthusiastic about this part of putting NATO in charge of coordinating assistance to Ukraine, saying that there’s a lot of benefits. Would you agree with that?
Volker: Well, I would. And I think for Sweden in particular. They’re the newest member of the alliance, and it gives them an immediate pathway to visibility and participation if it’s made as a NATO activity.
VOA: One of the biggest items on the agenda for the Ukrainian delegations was to convince allies to remove all red lines on striking inside Russian territory, and we are kind of receiving conflicting messages, even from within the Biden administration. Do you think there is some sort of progress on that?
Volker: Just like everything else, you get a little bit of progress, but not enough. And in this case, I think the Biden administration has gone from saying “Don’t hit inside Russia with our equipment” to “OK, go ahead. But only if it’s around Kharkiv.” To then saying, “OK, go ahead. But only if it is an ongoing attack or an imminent attack.” And then they relax that a little bit, but they’re still sending a signal “but don’t go far. Don’t go deep inside Russia, taking out military targets.” So, there’s still a restriction in place, and it seems like they have not yet come to grips with lifting that.
VOA: We had very strong statements from the Scandinavians saying that it has to be allowed.
Volker: It has to. Yes, we have to lift all restrictions. Russia is not restricted in any way. They are firing at Ukraine from anywhere, and they’re firing at everything — illegal, you know, war crime targets. And Ukraine should, at least within the constraints of international law, be able to hit military targets inside Russia as a means of defending itself and fending off that attacker.
VOA: Is there anything else you want to highlight in terms of the summit results for Ukraine?
Volker: The most important thing, other than a strategy for victory, is the future of U.S. leadership. And every conversation I’ve had around the summit, and this is with a number of prime ministers, of foreign ministers, is about the future of U.S. leadership. Is it going to be President [Joe] Biden? Is he capable right now of leading the alliance in the face of the ongoing threats? Will he be the nominee? Will it be someone else? Who? What are their views? And does this mean that it’s almost certain that former president [Donald] Trump will get reelected and what does that mean? That’s what’s on everybody’s mind.
VOA: I had this interview with the Norwegian foreign minister yesterday, and he told me that invoking Article 5 [NATO’s collective security guarantee] doesn’t have to be troops crossing the border. We discussed it can be invoked in response to hybrid attacks like an attack on infrastructure. Did you also notice these conversations?
Volker: There are a couple of pieces to what he’s talking about. What he’s immediately getting at is the idea of having Article 4 consultations. Not Article 5, but Article 4 consultations under the NATO treaty, as allies need to compare notes about ongoing security threats. I think this is something that will happen eventually. Several Central and East European countries have brought this up — Estonia, Lithuania — because they are already facing these kinds of hybrid attacks, and they suggested there should be consultations in NATO about it. This is something that the U.S. and Germany have resisted, but I think they will eventually go along with it. The other issue that the Norwegian foreign minister is getting at is what does Article 5 mean? Does Article 5 immediately require NATO countries to send ground troops to go fight? No, it doesn’t. Article 5 says there is a collective response to an attack on a member, but it doesn’t specify what that response is. Some argue, I believe this, we should be sitting down with Ukraine right now talking about what does Article 5, for Ukraine, require. What do you need? And we’re doing some of it already. We’re providing training. We’re providing equipment. We’re providing ammunition. There’s more we can do and should do, and this would be participating in air defense for Ukraine, participation in freedom of navigation operations, maritime demining, maybe embedding personnel inside Ukraine. These are things that we could do that are not ground troops fighting in Ukraine, but nonetheless would be substantially helpful to Ukraine and could be presented as this is how under Article 5 we are responding to the attacks on Ukraine. So, we’ve got to start this conversation and not just treat it as some you know, black and white “we’re either sending ground troops, or we can’t do anything.”
