SUBSCRIBER+ EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW — As leaders of NATO gathered this week to mark its 75th anniversary and chart a course for the future, the alliance itself came under criticism for moving too slowly to counter Russian aggression. While NATO has won praise for a united stand that followed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – a unity that had been lacking since the end of the Cold War – critics say NATO and its members have been too timid in its response, too often letting fear of a NATO-Russian conflict hamper their support of Ukraine.
That’s the view of Nico Lange, former Chief of Staff at the German Ministry of Defense, who told The Cipher Brief's international correspondent Ia Meurmishvili that he sees little to cheer as NATO turns 75. “I’m not in the mood for a celebration,” he said, and he castigated NATO members for the slow pace of decision-making when it comes to sending military aid to Kyiv.
“When we are doing the right thing too late, it might not be enough to win,” he said. “You have to do the right thing, but you have to do it also at the right time.”
Lange was more optimistic when it came to the current situation on various battle fronts in Ukraine – which is where the interview began.
THE INTERVIEW
The excerpt of this interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. Watch the full discussion on The Cipher Brief's Digital Channel.
The Cipher Brief: What's the latest from the front lines in Ukraine? How do you assess the overall situation?
Lange: Now it's a mixed picture because the Russian attacks in the Kharkiv (region) have come to a halt and Russia could not even take the small city of Vovchansk. Russian troops are having serious trouble there. But at the same time, Ukraine had to use reserves to fight in Kharkiv.
And then there's the city of Chassiv Yar, where fighting has been going on for a couple of months now. Russia is very slowly progressing, but Chassiv Yar is a good point for the Ukrainians to defend because it's on high ground.
I think the most dire situation is not so much on the front lines. It is the energy situation and the overall living conditions and the Ukrainian economy, making people think about whether they’ll stay or leave during the next months, especially when fall and winter are coming.
The Cipher Brief: You mentioned that the reserves were called up. How bad is the manpower shortage for Ukraine?
Lange: The chief of the Military Committee of NATO, Admiral Rob Bauer, just a few days ago gave the hint to Ukraine to speed up the mobilization effort to man their units, and to have the soldiers trained. I think it's really necessary to get more Ukrainian soldiers to the battlefield.
It’s an issue because the political discussion about the new mobilization laws took too long. I think everybody, even in Ukraine, agrees on that. And now, of course, soldiers need to be trained. Also, Ukrainian soldiers are not Russian soldiers. We are talking about people coming from a self-confident civil society. They are asking questions: How will I be equipped? Is my commander a Soviet-style commander or is it somebody who makes responsible decisions? All these questions are very legitimate. They need to be answered, but it is not making mobilization faster. From a military point of view, it is a real problem.
At the same time, the new (American) equipment is now coming in. It takes some time to arrive. Also, the military logistics, two years into this war, are strained. I think we all should put an effort into improving the logistics, and the forward logistics of the armed forces of Ukraine, bringing maintenance and repair closer to the front lines, bringing contractors in. The equipment is coming, (but) logistics is more difficult.
In many areas of the front line, the artillery and ammunition situation has been steadily improving over the last weeks. There are the known deficits when it comes to air defense systems and air-defense ammunition. This is not covered by the (U.S. aid) packages yet, and it is a problem that needs to be solved very quickly. When it comes to mechanized equipment, it's good that the U.S. decided to send more Bradley infantry fighting vehicles – they seem to be even more important than the battle tanks – but having them repaired at the front lines, allowing the Ukrainians to produce spare parts on their own, I think all those things need to be decided now to make the effort on mechanized equipment more sustainable. Same is true for artillery, where barrels need to be changed. Why not have the Ukrainians produce their own barrels for the U.S.-delivered equipment and change them in Ukraine, and not wait for the spare parts to come from over the Atlantic?
The Cipher Brief: What are your expectations for the rest of this year, and even next year, if you're willing to go that far out and make a prediction?
Lange: My prediction would be that this year and next year are very likely to be years of war. Militarily, I think we are far away from decisive battles or strategic decisions. And politically, I think everybody is waiting for the result of the U.S. presidential elections.
There are also other significant milestones that need to be taken in the political sphere that can influence the course of events. The most important development, I think, for the Ukrainians, is that they were able to really hold the Russians in Kharkiv and not have Russian artillery and rocket artillery getting into the range to fire into Kharkiv city. The situation is bad enough with the glide bombs, but this would really have worsened the situation. But it seems that at the front lines in the East - Chassiv Yar, Pokrovsk, maybe also in Kreminna - Ukraine will not be able to hold the territory, where Ukraine will slowly but steadily give up small villages, towns and territory.
The big question is whether Ukraine will be able to push more on Crimea, maybe make logistics more difficult (for the Russians), take the three bridges out, or at least one or two. Crimea is a military and political pressure point at the same time. Ukraine can improve the readiness of the Russian side to go for real talks by pressuring Crimea.
But it's also not understandable from a military point of view why, for example, the ATACMS (missiles) that clearly show their value in attacking radar sites, air defense systems, command and control in Crimea, have been delivered so late. The situation would be much better if all of this would have been done much earlier.
The Cipher Brief: You hear that concern a lot, even in DC.
Lange: We have to be very clear about this. When we are doing the right thing too late, it might not be enough to win. You have to do the right thing, but you have to do it also at the right time. We have to learn from that.
The Cipher Brief: What do you think about the slight change in U.S. policy, allowing the Ukrainians to use NATO or American weapons to target [the Russian military assets] on Russian territory?
Lange: Well, it goes straight to the point we (made) before: doing the right thing, but doing it at the right time. From a military point of view, those restrictions never made any sense. It even gave the Russians the opportunity to hide behind the artificial restrictions, to exploit them, and then to attack the Ukrainians from safe ground on the other side of the border.
The restrictions are lifted now, and I think the best we all can do is to change this paradigm where we are not delivering weapons, equipment, ammunition to the Ukrainians and telling them what they can do or not do. We should just deliver, and then not make any comment on what can be done or not be done, and not tell the other side all the time where red lines are. Let the Russians guess what the rules of engagement are that we are discussing with the Ukrainians, and not bring this out in public all the time.
The Cipher Brief: What are your expectations from the NATO summit as it relates to Ukraine?
Lange: I'm personally very connected to NATO. Many years ago, I worked in a military NATO headquarters. I went on missions for NATO together with NATO partners and I worked at the [German] Ministry of Defense. Having said that, I'm not in the mood for a celebration, even if it's 75 years, even if we have new members in NATO.
I'm not in the mood for celebration because I have the feeling that we are not doing what is necessary to defend against Russia and to deter Russia in the future. That is the task we have to solve. I'm underwhelmed by what is known so far. To be frank, there is a very interesting German saying that says, We are tactically playing ourselves to death. I think it's time for bold strategic decisions about how we see the security order in Europe. It's not the time for small, tactical, minor decisions. But unfortunately, some of the major players in this are not ready for the bold, strategically important decisions. They just want to be tactical. And I think that's not what is needed to counter the threat that we are facing.
The Cipher Brief: You don't think anything tangible is coming from the summit, related to Ukraine?
Lange: I think something tangible is coming when it comes to defending NATO as it is today. With the new members, with the military plans, with more commitment by the NATO members, with more countries not only talking about 2% (of GDP for defense) but really spending 2% – there is significant progress and I don't want to diminish that.
But when it comes to being strategic about the future security order in Europe, eliminating the gray zones, bringing Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia in, giving Russia less room to play games or to threaten people or to start wars – there, we are not doing what is necessary. How many opportunities do we need – (the 2023 summit in) Vilnius, and now in Washington? I'm skeptical because I experienced the time from 2008 after the NATO summit in Bucharest, where we were trying to tell the Ukrainians, Look, European integration is possible without NATO integration. I learned that lesson. I was wrong with that story, and the Central and Eastern Europeans and the Ukrainians, they were right. The European integration of Ukraine, investments into Ukraine, peace order in Europe, I think it's not possible without a NATO membership.
The Cipher Brief: Coming from Germany, what are the perceptions of the U.S. elections in Europe? Are people concerned?
Lange: There is concern, but that is a concern that I do not like. It's the kind of concern where you are expressing every day how concerned you are. So, if you are concerned, what are you doing? There's not much time. We have to provide for our own security more, regardless of who will be president of the United States. On the other hand, I know that we need the transatlantic partnership for European and transatlantic security. I think everybody in Europe would be very smart not to comment on any public statement made by any candidate in the U.S. elections. The Americans will elect whoever they will elect, and we have to find a way to work together with the United States of America. That's in our interest from a German point of view, but I think that's true for many Europeans. So, I'm most afraid from a German point of view, of anti-Americanism coming back, and using the U.S. elections and possible result to return to anti-American sentiments, to create the impression that we have to move away from the transatlantic partnership.
We have seen that before. It's not in our interests and it's really dangerous. We will have elections in the year after that in Germany. It would be sad if we would have anti-American campaigns being part of that election.
The Cipher Brief: A term – “Trump-proofing” – came out from Europe a few weeks ago in the context of European security.
Lange: I don't know what it means. We have to be able to provide more for our own security. But it's also true that strictly militarily, there are certain capabilities that we cannot replace very quickly. They are only there in the United States. We have an interest in working together, regardless of who is president. What does “Trump-proofing” mean? Does it mean to work together with any U.S. administration, which is in our interest? Or does it mean to do something else if somebody some of us don't like become president of the United States? I do not really understand what Trump-proofing means.
But what I know is that we saw many European policymakers making big declarations about what Europe should do and what Europe can do. In the defense and the security sectors, Europe is not able to live up to those expectations. So I would be careful not to create wrong expectations about the self-sufficiency of Europe in security matters. This is a long process. It needs very significant spending.
I think our best shot at this is doing whatever is necessary to keep the transatlantic bond, to keep NATO alive, and to work with any U.S. administration that will be elected. We have worked with different administrations before. We can do it again. Let's see who the president will be and then start from there.
And, just a little provocative talk: I sometimes tell people here, there might even be countries in the world who don't like the German government or certain German candidates, and still they work together with Germany.
If we are concerned, then we should make a decision. There is a budget discussion in Germany, to not just for one year, but permanently spend more than 2 % on defense. If we are concerned, then if the U.S. is giving $60 billion in military aid for Ukraine, we should give 60 billion Euros ($65 billion). That's the way to not only be concerned, but to do practical things that will make the discussions easier with the U.S. and help our security.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief.
Not a Subscriber+Member? Let’s fix that and get you access to expert-level national security insights.
