JOSEPH BOSCO
After the NATO summit concluded in Washington last week, President Biden said there was a “consensus that it was a great success.” But that was only because the summit’s goals were so limited.
The first objective was to retain the alliance’s long-term commitment to send arms to Ukraine. In furtherance of that aim, the members issued a declaration in support of Ukraine and promised additional aid.
Beyond increasing the volume of the aid, members also addressed widening its source. The U.S., which has been Ukraine’s main arms supplier, encouraged other members to develop their own capacities to build weapons systems for Ukraine’s immediate use and to provide for their own defenses against future threats.
As an indication of how Vladimir Putin’s invasion has awakened European nations to the dangers presented by an expansionist, revanchist Russia, Biden noted in his welcoming remarks, “[T]oday, all NATO members are making the pledge to expand our industrial base and our industrial capacity, like our defense-spending commitment. This is a critical step to maintaining our security.”
The development reflects Europe’s belated recognition that the threat Ukraine is now confronting is not limited in time or geography but is long-term and widespread — and includes much of Europe. Following the summit, the alliance’s members also pledged to back Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to NATO membership.
Both statements of intent fell far short of what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wanted from the NATO summit, however, and especially from the United States. “Ukraine can significantly limit Russian actions in south Ukraine and push the occupiers out,” he said in his address, “if the American leadership assists us with the necessary deep strike capabilities against Russian military and logistics in our Ukrainian Crimea.”
No comments:
Post a Comment