
The US, Europe and a Ukraine-Russia peace deal
EXPERT INTERVIEWS – As global leaders gather at the Munich Security conference this weekend, they confront profound questions about Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Trump […] More
OPINION — As the NATO Summit gets underway in Washington, experts agree on this much: Ukraine and Russia dominate the agenda, even for an alliance that marks its 75th anniversary with a broad array of new challenges, from cybersecurity to AI-driven disinformation to threats emanating far from Europe itself.
Among the experts The Cipher Brief turned to for perspective and analysis about the summit is Ambassador William Taylor, who served as America’s top diplomat in Ukraine from 2006-2009, one crucial stop in a long and distinguished diplomatic career.
In a conversation with Cipher Brief international correspondent Ia Meurmishvili, Ambassador Taylor called on the alliance to show the “political will” needed to provide Ukraine with a clear path to NATO membership – to remove “gray areas” that would embolden further Russian aggression, and demonstrate “a recognition that Ukraine as a member would make NATO stronger.”
Watch the full conversation and others by subscribing to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel.
The Cipher Brief: What are your expectations in general terms for the summit?
Taylor: The celebration of this alliance at 75 years – it’s a very successful alliance. It has defended Europe. It has defended values that we all share for 75 years. It’s never been stronger. It’s never been bigger. It’s never had a bigger challenge than the Russian aggression against Ukraine. But NATO has stepped up and in the past two years has demonstrated that it can respond, that it is up to the challenge that it faces right now. And that will be the message coming out of the summit.
Other alliances have come and gone. I served at NATO at the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, early 90s. I was at the U.S. mission to NATO when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. I was there two years later when the Soviet Union disappeared, imploded. And NATO at that time asked itself, OK, now what? What are we for, now that the Soviet Union is gone and there’s no immediate challenge to the security of NATO members? And (the alliance) thought through this question over a period of time, it got involved in some things that were difficult over the next couple of decades, including Afghanistan and Iraq and other places.
But NATO persisted and lasted because the challenge persisted – not from the Soviet Union, but from Russia. And as we see today, it is the real threat to Europe.
The Cipher Brief: Where do you see Ukraine in the NATO context? And what are your expectations from the summit as it relates to Ukraine?
Taylor: For a long time, I have seen Ukraine in NATO. It needs to be in NATO. It has been promised to be in NATO. I was in Kyiv in 2008 when President (George W.) Bush visited, before going on to Bucharest for the summit there, the NATO summit in 2008 where the promise was made that Ukraine – and Georgia, by the way – would be members of NATO. So I have been of that view since then, since before then. And I hope that here in Washington at the 75th-anniversary summit of NATO, that they will make even more concrete this promise to Ukraine that it will become a member. And by more concrete, I mean taking some actual steps that will begin the process of Ukraine joining NATO.
The Cipher Brief: What would those steps be? Because there is a hesitancy, especially from the White House, about doing something very specific.
Taylor: The White House is, together with a lot of other people, anxious about Ukraine actually joining NATO, becoming a member of NATO now during this war. That’s a source of anxiety, and that probably will not happen – actual membership, the coverage of Ukraine under Article 5 of the treaty, the full membership, it’s probably not going to happen while there is active fighting going on in Ukraine. But there are things short of that that can demonstrate to the Ukrainians in the first instance, but to the Russians in the second instance, that Ukraine is on an irreversible track toward NATO membership. The administration and broader NATO have talked about a bridge to NATO membership. And so people will be looking, the world will be looking, the alliance will be looking, the Ukrainians will be looking, for evidence that this bridge is solid and that it’s not reversible, they’re on the track to membership.
And there are other things that the NATO summit can do. If they build up the support, they could actually offer the Ukrainians an invitation to begin negotiations. This could be an invitation to begin negotiations toward membership in Brussels and at the North Atlantic Council and at NATO. That would be a concrete step. This is of course what the Ukrainians are now doing with the European Union. They’re not a member of the European Union yet, but they are negotiating seriously, concretely, in a structured manner toward that membership. That’s what NATO could do.
The Cipher Brief: Can NATO do that? In some cases, the technicalities come into play and NATO says, No, we cannot do this because it’s not in our charter.
Taylor: That’s exactly what these negotiations could address. There’s nothing stopping NATO from accepting Ukraine into the alliance. The Washington Treaty, 75 years ago, all it said was if you’re a European nation and you want to join, you can apply and then the members of NATO will say yes or no. They will determine whether or not the application is accepted. So there’s nothing that stops NATO from accepting Ukraine.
NATO has used different procedures. For a while, back in 2008, for example, we were talking about a membership action plan (for Ukraine) that some earlier members of NATO used as they applied for and began the process of joining NATO in East Europe. (For) the Poles and the Czechoslovaks and the Hungarians and others, that membership action plan was a process. But NATO could change that and did change that – Sweden and Finland, they just went straight in. There were some issues with some members, but they’re in, and the same thing and or a different process actually could apply to Ukraine. The members of NATO should be negotiating with Ukraine starting now, and those technicalities could be worked out.
The Cipher Brief: So it boils down to political will at the end of the day.
Taylor: It’s political will. That’s exactly right. And it’s a recognition that Ukraine as a member would make NATO stronger, would make Europe more secure. It would remove one of the problems, one of the gray areas.
If Ukraine is not in NATO, it’s not covered by Article 5, (and) the Russians are tempted, as they have been, to invade. They invaded in 2014 and then again in 2022. If Ukraine stays in this gray zone, the Russians will be tempted again. If it’s clear that Ukrainians will be in NATO, the Russians would not. One thing the Russians have not done is attack a NATO member. Not so far. Deterrence has worked, and I think it will continue to work. And that has been the foundation of European security.
The Cipher Brief: To talk about what’s happening in Ukraine on the front lines – how is the assistance that the United States already approved trickling down? What impact is it having?
Taylor: It has had a very strong impact. For those seven months that the Congress delayed sending that support, that ammunition, that military assistance, those seven months were very costly. It was very painful. The Russians took advantage of the fact that the Ukrainians did not have the artillery and ammunition that they needed to be able to stop the Russian offensives.
(After) that bill passed, in late April, very quickly the United States started sending that ammunition, resuming the supplies of ammunition and other weapons to Ukraine. That’s begun to arrive in the past several weeks. And we’ve seen the results. That offensive by the Russians has been stopped. The Ukrainians have stopped it cold around Kharkiv and we can see the results of those weapons there.
The other big change that was very helpful, in particular up around Kharkiv, was the decision by the United States government to relax the restrictions on the use of U.S.-supplied weapons. The Americans had said to the Ukrainians, you can’t use our weapons to fire at Russian military targets inside Russia. That was a big problem, in particular for the defense of Kharkiv, the border along Kharkiv. The Ukrainians couldn’t dig in, couldn’t build the fortifications that they needed to be able to stop, because the Russians from the Russian side of the border could fire at the Ukrainians trying to dig in, prepare defenses. So that was a big problem for the Ukrainians. We effectively were giving the Russians sanctuary, on the Russian side of the border. The administration finally changed and now allows the Ukrainians to use those weapons on Russian territory. Ukrainians are able to use those weapons to engage military targets. They’re firing against headquarters, ammunition dumps, artillery positions that are firing at Ukrainian positions inside Ukraine.
The Cipher Brief: This question persists every time a decision is changed or a decision is made from the White House towards Ukraine. There is usually a “no” to something sophisticated or really necessary and big that Ukrainians are asking for, whether it’s the F-16s or ATACMS or any other long-range weapons, then a few months later there is a response that, OK, we will provide those to you. Same thing goes for the policy that you just mentioned. We still see that first “no,” then “yes.” How do you explain it?
Taylor: It could be worse, it could stay “no.” And so it is a good thing that the administration has gotten to “yes” on each of these decisions that you talked through. And that trend continues. That is, they started off with less sophisticated weapons and then now all the way up to ATACMS. And every level in between, step by step, they have increased the sophistication and the capabilities of these weapons. So they’ve gone in the right direction. The trend is right. The problem, of course, is that it has taken so long. And when it does take long, that’s bad for the Ukrainians. That’s costly for the Ukrainians when they don’t have that capability during the time that there is this hand-wringing about why not send it. And then in the end, they decide to send it.
But the trend is right. They’ve continued to make the right decision after holding out for some period of time. And they have gotten, frankly, almost to the top (of the list). There are a couple of things that are still a problem – the Ukrainians are not yet allowed to use these ATACMS against Russian targets, airfields, deeper into Russia. And that may come. That may be the next step. There are some long-range, very sophisticated drones that the United States has not yet provided to Ukraine. And that could come.
They should come more quickly. I fully agree. There are a lot of people in the administration that fully agree. There’s a debate each time within the administration. Congress sometimes gets involved as well. They’ve got views on this. So it’s the way policy is made here in this city that causes this problem, but they eventually get there. And I am confident they will continue to get there and raise this bar.
The Cipher Brief: There is a sense of worry on the European side about what will happen in the U.S. elections. Do you think they have a reason to worry?
Taylor: Of course they have reason to worry. Americans are worried, it’s not just Europeans. Americans are worried as well. There are concerns that the strong support for Ukraine and the strong support for NATO and therefore the strong support for European security could be challenged.
However, it is also true that when you ask the American people what their view is about NATO or about supporting Ukraine, you get big majorities in support of supporting European security through NATO and supporting Ukraine through weapons deliveries and other kinds of assistance. So the American people are very strongly supportive and that’s reflected in the Congress. It’s bipartisan support.
Generally, debates are healthy, in particular when you come out stronger and more united on this thing. And we know where the American people are, so I’m confident that whatever the outcome of elections, whether they’re European elections or American elections, I am confident that there will continue to be support for Ukraine and for NATO and support European security.
The Cipher Brief: What would be the best- and worst-case scenarios for the Washington summit?
Taylor: Best-case scenario for me would be a strong invitation from NATO summit leaders to Ukraine to begin these negotiations. Also, strong commitments of support for new military capabilities and new military assistance. Air defense is a big need – Patriot missile systems, in particular the interceptors that are fired from these Patriot batteries. Best case, and I’m confident this will happen, there are going to be strong commitments from the NATO summit to providing this kind of assistance to Ukraine. So those two things – on the weapons side, as well as the commitment to NATO membership, would be the best case.
Worst case is there is disagreement among NATO allies about this, and they’re not able to come to agreement on the two things and others that the NATO leaders will address. That would send a bad signal not just to the Ukrainians, but it would be a bad signal to send to the Russians that NATO can’t get its act together, can’t unite, can’t be seen to be a strong supporter of both Ukraine and European security.
I’m confident the worst-case scenario will not obtain, and I am hopeful that the best case will.
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.
Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to [email protected] for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
Related Articles
EXPERT INTERVIEWS – As global leaders gather at the Munich Security conference this weekend, they confront profound questions about Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Trump […] More
This is part one of a 3-part series by Cipher Brief Expert and former Assistant Director of CIA for South and Central Asia Dave Pitts, who also […] More
DEEP DIVE — The war in Ukraine has veered into volatile new territory, ignited by a final push — in Washington and Kyiv – to alter […] More
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW — For the first time, the Biden Administration has authorized Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles to strike targets inside Russia, a policy […] More
DEEP DIVE — The first bulletins hit late in the evening of February 23, 2022 in the U.S., and just before dawn on the 24th in […] More
DEEP DIVE — President-elect Donald Trump’s promise of a quick end to Russia’s war on Ukraine is something that Ukrainians desperately want, as the full-scale invasion […] More
Search