Q&A with Steven Pifer
Last week, over 30 world leaders made their way to Washington, D.C. for the 75th anniversary summit of NATO. We asked Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, about the outcomes of the summit and the future of the alliance.
Ukraine has been central to NATO’s agenda since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. What were the alliance’s main policy decisions with regards to supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and Kyiv’s potential future membership in the alliance?
The Ukrainians hoped for, but seemed to understand that they would not receive, an invitation to join NATO at the Washington summit. While a growing number of allies believe Ukraine should receive an invitation to join, others, notably the United States and Germany, remain reluctant. The Washington summit declaration termed Ukraine’s path to membership "irreversible," stronger language than in the 2023 summit communique, but Kyiv will continue to press for more.
The summit declaration and other documents issued in Washington catalogued NATO member commitments to bolster Ukraine’s military, including a "minimum" of 40 billion euros ($43 billion) in the next year for security assistance, one SAMP-T and four Patriot air defense batteries, the coming arrival of the first F-16 fighters, establishment of a Joint NATO-Ukraine Analysis, Training and Education Center in Poland, and creation of the NATO Security and Assistance for Ukraine program. NATO seeks to persuade Moscow that it will sustain its commitment to support Kyiv.
By the final day of the summit, NATO and Ukraine also could point to bilateral security agreements that Kyiv had concluded with 23 countries and the European Union since 2023. These contain commitments to help Ukraine strengthen its defense capabilities and support Kyiv, both in its current fight and in any future conflict with Russia. They have been described as part of the "bridge" that will carry Ukraine ultimately to NATO membership.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump has long called U.S. commitment to European allies into question over what he sees as insufficient defense spending, and some have speculated he would withdraw from NATO in a second term. Is there a way to "Trump-proof" the alliance?
European leaders worry about what a possible return by Trump to the White House would mean for the U.S. commitment to NATO. Alliance members have boosted defense spending, and 23 of 32 allies now meet NATO’s target of 2% of gross domestic product for defense, up from nine when Trump left office. It is unclear if this would satisfy the former president, who remains skeptical about the alliance, has a hard time criticizing Vladimir Putin and Russian actions, and is critical of U.S. aid for Ukraine. Trump's choice for vice president, JD Vance, has criticized European allies for not spending more though has not sounded as skeptical about NATO as Trump. That said, nothing suggests that he would challenge Trump's position on the alliance.
Some, including his third national security advisor, believe Trump would withdraw from NATO. However, even if he did not withdraw, he could easily undermine the U.S. commitment to the alliance. Were he to be president in 2025, how would the Kremlin read his February comment that the Russians could do "whatever they hell they want" to allies who did not meet the 2% goal?
"Trump-proofing" NATO would not be simple. It would require a significant increase in defense spending by European members to strengthen their conventional forces, including replacing U.S. capabilities such as air-to-air refueling and precision-guided conventional strike missiles; some kind of agreed nuclear structure to substitute for U.S. strategic and non-strategic nuclear forces that now provide the alliance’s ultimate security guarantee; and the emergence of a country or countries to take on the U.S. leadership role.
The summit declaration called China "a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine." What does the tougher language on China this year indicate for U.S-European cooperation on policy towards China going forward?
The summit declaration’s tougher language regarding China suggests that differences between how European members of NATO and the United States view the challenge posed by a rising China are narrowing. A big factor behind this is China’s support for Russia as the Kremlin wages war on Ukraine. While the "no limits" partnership clearly has limits—China is not sending Russia weapons—allies are unhappy about Beijing’s support for the Russian defense industrial base, which undercuts the impact of Western sanctions on Russia. The summit declaration hints at consequences if China continues such support.
Beyond backing for Russia’s war on Ukraine, allies also expressed concern about Chinese cyber and disinformation operations in the Euro-Atlantic region, and they criticized Beijing’s irresponsible nuclear behavior—it is rapidly building up its nuclear arsenal while refusing to engage in discussions on strategic risk reduction.
