Interview with Audronius Ažubalis: Exploring the Significance of NATO’s Open Door Policy in Today’s Geopolitical Climate

In this interview, we sit down with Lithuanian Member of Parliament, Rapporteur of the Sub-Committee on NATO Partnerships (PCNP), Audronius Ažubalis, to discuss the NATO Open Door Policy and its significance in today’s geopolitical climate. Ažubalis shares his thoughts on the current stagnation of the policy, the need for NATO expansion, and the challenges and opportunities presented by Ukraine’s potential membership. He also addresses the situation in Georgia, the role of European leaders in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, the need for NATO reform, and the future of NATO’s economy.

Let’s start by discussing the NATO Open Door Policy and its significance in today’s geopolitical climate. What are your thoughts on this matter?

I believe the Open Door Policy is currently experiencing some stagnation due to a paradoxical situation in the world. Unfortunately, world leaders, including NATO leaders, wrongly believe that NATO expansion could provoke Russia or other countries. I think this perception is flawed and lacks wisdom.

Expanding NATO is a positive step that helps ensure regional stability and security. The hesitation and lack of leadership in this regard are concerning. For example, there is prevailing thinking about providing weaponry to Ukraine but not taking decisive action. This approach is flawed as it lacks a comprehensive political dimension and ignores the need for political correctness. We cannot simply wait and expect a peaceful resolution. We must have the courage to take necessary steps.

If we look at the situation with Finland, we know that its NATO membership would not fundamentally change the geopolitical picture with Russia. It is crucial to differentiate between countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic states. Russia views these countries as belonging to his sphere of influence, and NATO’s Open Door Policy challenges that perception. Despite this, some differences and historical memory persist among these countries.

Your recent NATO PA report is urging NATO members to accept Ukraine and make a decision on the matter. Can you provide more insight into your arguments and your feelings regarding the acceptance of Ukraine?

Yes, indeed. I am advocating for a push to prompt countries and leaders to take decisive political action by issuing an invitation to Ukraine. This would send a strong message to President Putin that Ukraine’s membership is not up for negotiation and has already been decided.

To make the process more manageable for certain member countries, we propose a gradual approach that could commence in Vilnius and gain momentum at the Washington summit. This could be followed by further steps. However, it seems that the current leadership is reluctant to accept this invitation due to concerns about provoking Russia. I often wonder how we could provoke Russia any further.

I agree with Henry Kissinger’s assessment that the West made a grave mistake by providing military assistance to Ukraine without matching it with adequate political support. The report highlights several arguments emphasizing the need for action now, considering the challenges we face.

In your report, you mention the challenge that the West needs to face regarding Ukraine. Could you elaborate on this challenge and whom it poses it for?

The challenge for the West is to rise above its comfortable position, take calculated risks, and persuade voters of the importance of the situation. I recall that when I proposed partially covering Ukrainian Special Operations Forces, some people asked if I was pushing us towards war. This reaction stemmed from a lack of understanding that our current inaction is a continuation of aggression and failure to deter further aggression.

This understanding is slowly gaining ground, although progress is gradual. Even during recent discussions and debates, I have noticed some countries no longer opposing the idea, indicating that they are starting to reconsider their positions. This was not the case six months ago. We need to challenge the prevailing perception regarding Ukraine’s integration into NATO and work diligently to change minds and promote the cause.

Russia’s actions should not hinder our progress. NATO, as an organization, moves at a disappointingly slow pace, which would be unsustainable in a business context. We have ample resources and the capability to act decisively, yet the decision-making process within NATO is slow. We lack true leadership that can provide clear direction.

Opponents argue for compromise and finding common ground, suggesting that our disagreements might weaken NATO’s eastern flank. In my opinion, such thinking only benefits Russia and China and not our collective interests. We should not confuse misunderstanding or hesitation as an effective strategy.

Can you provide a list of countries that you believe support Ukraine’s membership in NATO, aside from the Baltic states and Poland?

Yes, I believe that Poland’s leadership is supportive, as well as partially Czech Republic and Slovenia. However, it’s important to note that there are supporters of NATO enlargement in every country, but the balance of political power varies. For example, in Italy, there are supporters, but it’s uncertain where the balance of power lies. The same goes for the UK and Germany. The slowness in decision-making is detrimental to Ukraine and exhausts global public opinion. As for those leaders who are undecided, it’s unclear why they are against Ukraine’s membership, as the arguments presented are often baseless and lacking political will.

In your report, you do not recommend Georgia’s membership in NATO, but considering the pressure and aggression from Russia, how do you think Georgia can fulfill the necessary requirements?

It is true that Russia is creating tensions and pressures in order to manipulate the situation in Georgia. Certain unfriendly forces aim to push for a restoration of relations with Russia, which poses a significant challenge. Regarding Georgia’s internal affairs, it is not for me to judge, but there are concerning indications of a hostile political landscape that does not align with European values. For instance, Georgia has failed to accept numerous sanctions measures against Russia, which raises questions about its commitment. Additionally, the treatment of former President Saakashvili raises eyebrows and may be perceived as an attempt to provoke negative reactions from the EU and NATO. These actions by certain forces in Georgia are counterproductive and hinder the country’s European aspirations.

Georgian government presents arguments to justify resuming direct flights to Russia, claiming that countries like Israel and Turkey have direct flights with Russia too. How would you respond to these arguments?

It is important to acknowledge the political reality and context. While one can find various arguments, the main point is that Georgia aims to align itself with the West and become a more solid Western partner. Comparisons to Israel or Turkey are not applicable since Georgia does not possess the same geopolitical position or influence. Moreover, the concerns about provocation or potential Russian reactions should not hinder Georgia’s progress. The country has made significant strides in developing its democracy and armed forces, with substantial support from NATO. It is crucial to remember that the current military focus for Russia is in Ukraine, and launching an attack on Georgia would be irrational and counterproductive.

Some argue that imposing sanctions on Russia would have a minimal impact and could provoke further aggression. What is your response to this line of thinking?

It is important to consider the bigger picture. While it is true that Georgia’s individual sanctions may have a minimal impact, they contribute to the broader international effort to address Russia’s aggression and deter further destabilization. By joining sanctions, Georgia demonstrates solidarity with the international community and sends a clear message to Russia. The argument that imposing sanctions would provoke Russia is flawed because it implies that Russia’s aggressive behavior should go unchecked. It is crucial to stand up against aggression and defend democratic values, even if the impact of individual sanctions may be limited.

When it comes to Georgia, do you think Russia could use NATO’s hesitation to promote the idea that NATO doesn’t need Georgia, especially considering the disinformation and propaganda campaigns they’re running?

It is possible that Russia could exploit NATO’s reluctance to support Georgia’s membership as evidence that NATO is not interested. The disinformation and propaganda campaigns they are running in Georgia, such as promoting the idea that Russia will return South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgia, further complicate the situation. These campaigns may affect public opinion and create a dangerous narrative.

Could intensifying the case for Georgia and urging NATO member countries to consider its membership be a better approach rather than the current realistic and objective assessment that Georgia is not ready for NATO yet?

The report’s main goal is to provide a clear picture, even if it may not be completely objective. It aims to present an honest opinion rather than a blurred image that hinders decision-making. While the current assessment suggests that Georgia is not ready for NATO membership, intensifying the case for Georgia’s membership and pushing NATO member countries to consider it could offer a more comprehensive and informed discussion.

What are your expectations for the upcoming NATO Summit, and what do you think will be the main messages and highlights?

It will likely be challenging to achieve the 2% defense spending target. Some countries, like Luxembourg, currently contribute only 0.67% of their GDP to defense. However, there will be efforts to reach a more realistic agreement on military financing and security arrangements, given the pressure from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries. Regional defense plans will also be discussed and approved. As for enlargement, it will depend on how far supporting countries are willing to go against potential opposition from certain NATO leaders.

Do you anticipate any practical support for Ukraine and Georgia during the NATO Summit, considering the focus on offering practical assistance instead of political support?

It is difficult to make specific predictions, but it is likely that some practical support will be offered to Ukraine, such as the establishment of a NATO-Ukraine Council, granting Ukraine a seat in the North Atlantic Council, and sharing intelligence information. However, the level of support will depend on the willingness of countries like the Baltic states, Poland, and other supportive nations to push for stronger decisions.

How would you define victory for Ukraine?

The definition of victory should be determined by the Ukrainian people themselves. However, in my opinion, victory would entail securing Ukraine’s borders according to the situation that existed in 1991. The future of Ukraine and the course of events remain uncertain, but for me, true victory lies in ensuring the freedom and territorial integrity of the entire country.

Do all European leaders understand the threat posed by the conflict between Ukraine and Russia to European security?

Unfortunately, not all European leaders fully grasp the magnitude of the threat. While some countries, like the United States, demonstrate a comprehensive understanding, others remain less attuned to the interconnected nature of security challenges. It is disconcerting to encounter parliamentarians who fail to recognize the potential consequences of the conflict. They might perceive themselves as distant from the conflict, but they fail to acknowledge that the spillover effects, such as refugee flows and disruptions to trade, have far-reaching implications. It is crucial to cultivate a shared understanding among European leaders that no country can remain immune to the ripple effects of regional conflicts.

What were your expectations regarding the actions of European leaders when the conflict started? Have they met your expectations or fallen short?

Initially, I had doubts, but the overall reaction of European leaders was commendable. Some leaders, such as Mr. Borrell, surprised me with their decisive and proactive actions. Their leadership was evident, and they responded effectively to the situation. The establishment of the foundation for providing assistance was a positive step, even though it initially served different purposes. Despite facing sanctions and pressure from lobbyists, the European Union managed to unite its 27 member countries with diverse economies and interests. While there is always room for improvement, considering the circumstances, I believe they have done well thus far.

Do you think there is a need for reform within NATO? Can you elaborate on your thoughts regarding the current structure and the creation of alternative defense formats?

Yes, there is a need for reform within NATO. The current structure has its limitations and shortcomings, as demonstrated by the creation of alternative defense formats. The NATO organization should address these issues to ensure its proper functioning. For example, the emergence of the Ramstein format, which seeks to bypass certain NATO countries, indicates that something is amiss. Although any reforms would require unanimous decisions rather than vetoes, it is evident that NATO’s current approach falls short. The focus should shift from political wrangling to practical concerns such as ensuring medical supplies and humanitarian aid. It is essential to rectify these shortcomings and maintain a strong and effective NATO that can address contemporary security challenges.

What should be the future of NATO’s economy, considering Russia’s trend towards a wartime economy and the need to secure defenses?

It is crucial for NATO to reconstruct its economy with a focus on wartime needs. Russia’s shift towards a wartime economy highlights the urgency of the situation. Merely relying on financial contributions from member countries is not enough, as we cannot expect Ukraine or any other country to solely bear the burden of fighting. A common understanding and commitment to supporting the defense industry are necessary. Political signals should be sent to defense industries, assuring them of sustained support for independent armament and supply. Maintaining credible armed forces requires ongoing investment and procurement. It is essential to acknowledge that defense production cannot be halted or reduced to occasional purchases. It is a continuous process, demanding consistent investment for the long term.

There have been discussions about the future of the Open Door Policy. What are your hopes and suggestions regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership?

The Open Door Policy discussions raise important questions about the future. Ultimately, the success of Ukraine will determine the course of action. Some countries may be hesitant to take the risk of accepting new members, and even though they may publicly express support, doubts might linger beneath the surface. It is crucial for Ukraine to become an unavoidable challenge by showcasing its democratic values, adherence to the rule of law, and commitment to NATO standards. Ukraine must eliminate any factors that could be used by opponents to undermine its candidacy. The focus should be on political stability rather than economic prosperity, as opponents primarily target the political situation. Establishing order within the country is a significant challenge that must be addressed. It may sound simple, but in reality, it requires diligent efforts. Looking back, I recall a conversation with a prominent politician from a Western country in 1990. When we expressed our desire to become associated members of NATO, their response was one of ignorance. They didn’t even know what “refrain” meant. This highlights the importance of a NATO format and the need for ongoing efforts to overcome such barriers. Despite obstacles, unity has been a prevailing theme. Reaching a consensus on the need for NATO and EU integration has always been a primary goal. Regardless of the political parties in power, the focus has remained on moving in the same direction. Recent resolutions in Parliament, such as the unanimous invitation to Ukraine, demonstrate this unity and determination, despite differing opinions. We can draw inspiration from the examples set by the Baltic States and Ukraine, learning from their experiences and achievements.