Russia's War against Ukraine: Assessing the Implications for NATO and the Global Order

In this interview, we have the honor of discussing the findings of Tomas Valasek’s report on Russia’s war against Ukraine. Mr. Valasek, a member of the Slovak National Council and the General Rapporteur of the Political Committee of NATO PA has provided valuable insights into the conflict and its implications for NATO and the global order. We will explore the key points highlighted in his report and compare them to the previous year’s findings, shedding light on the evolving political landscape.

What are the key points of your report on Russia’s war against Ukraine, and how does it compare to last year’s report?

These reports serve as snapshots of the most pressing political themes and issues faced by NATO and its allies. The current report highlights the issue of Ukraine fatigue, as it has been over a year since the conflict began. While the Allies initially responded admirably and provided significant military support to Ukraine, there is a growing sense of waning resolve. Some have suggested negotiating a peace track, but the report emphasizes that now is not the time to relent in our support for Ukraine. The report argues that as long as Ukraine remains resolved and capable of fighting, we must continue supporting them. It is not only a matter of helping the victim against the aggressor, but also of setting a precedent for other countries, including Georgia, as well as ensuring our own security. So the main message of the report is to maintain our support for Ukraine and recognize that how the war ends will have significant implications for the European security order.

What tangible results can we expect for Ukraine, and what are your expectations?

Discussions regarding military support for Ukraine take place on a daily basis, with over 50 countries meeting in a Ramstein format, which extends beyond NATO. The EU is also heavily engaged and generous in providing macroeconomic aid to Ukraine. One potential game changer, which remains uncertain, is a clear signal from the Alliance in Vilnius that we have moved beyond the Bucharest Summit in terms of Ukraine’s NATO membership. Since 2008, we have been repeating the same mantra, stating that Ukraine will eventually become a member of the Alliance. However, little has been done in practice to make this a reality. This policy has sent a signal of uncertainty and vulnerability to Russia, implying that it will eventually lose Ukraine. This lack of unified action has contributed to the Russian aggression against Georgia and Ukraine. We missed an opportunity in Bucharest to send a strong message that we are committed to protecting Georgia and Ukraine. Therefore, it is crucial not to repeat the same mistake in the future. The responsibility now lies with the Allies to prevent further Russian aggression by providing Ukraine with security guarantees through NATO membership. As former opponent of NATO enlargement, Henry Kissinger himself acknowledged, there is no better security guarantee than NATO membership. Bringing Ukraine into NATO now is necessary to prevent another war and ensure lasting security. My expectation is that the Allies will move beyond Bucharest and clearly outline the path towards Ukraine’s NATO membership once the war ends.

Usually when these reports are written, or when we advocate for Ukraine’s NATO membership, it’s primarily countries from Eastern Europe that speak out. Do you think there is a need to reassure partners in Western Europe about the importance of supporting Ukraine’s membership?

The difference in perspectives is natural due to the balance of responsibilities within NATO. Western European countries, particularly the United States, are larger and play a significant role in providing security guarantees. They have the capabilities needed to back those guarantees. However, we are seeing a shift in the security landscape, with countries like Poland increasing their defense spending and becoming providers of security guarantees themselves. On the other hand, countries in Eastern Europe, including Slovakia, Lithuania, and Poland, are more vocal about supporting Ukraine’s membership because they face a more immediate risk of Russian aggression. The geographic proximity plays a role in their strong advocacy. As for Western Europe, there is ongoing dialogue and discussions to ensure that the importance of security guarantees and NATO membership is understood. The war itself serves as a powerful reminder of the need for these guarantees.

How do you assess the current situation in Georgia, considering the government’s stance on closer relations with Russia and their actions that may not align with support for NATO integration?

The main concern in Georgia is to preserve people’s right to choose their alignment. It is important to respect their decision, whether it is to align with the EU, NATO, or any other choice they make. Russia has no right to deny them that freedom. However, it is equally important for the government of Georgia to reflect the will of the people and not manipulate elections to favor their own agenda. If Georgian society is clearly set on joining the EU and NATO, the government should align with the will of the people and ensure transparent and fair elections.

When the war started, there was a realization that it is not just Ukraine’s issue, but a concern for the entire Europe. How do you think Western Europeans perceive the threat and understand the importance of supporting countries like Ukraine and other Eastern European allies?

While the impact of the conflict may differ depending on geography, no country in Europe has been spared the consequences of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Western European countries may feel a lesser immediate impact due to their distance from the conflict, but they are fully aware that without a strong response to Russian expansionism, the repercussions will be felt across the continent. Whether it is energy blackmail or the disruption of supplies, the consequences would be significant for all of us. It is crucial to recognize that relenting on our support to Ukraine would only embolden Russia and lead to further conflicts. Therefore, it is in the best interest of all NATO allies to draw a clear line and stand united against such behavior.