Hopes and expectations from CEE perspective for NATO’s Vilnius summit Opinion by Robert Pszczel

 

Robert Pszczel served as a diplomat in the Polish MFA for almost a decade and was Director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow.

 

Caliber.Az reprints the article.

 

We are one month away from the NATO summit meeting in Lithuania (11-12 July). No doubt we will hear words like historic, essential, and momentous prior to and during that gathering. Whether such flowery language is justified will obviously be decided by the value of agreed decisions, but it is true that a lot is at stake. Here are the reasons why.

 

NATO is and will remain the only transatlantic organisation able to ensure the genuine defence of its members, as well as shape to a large degree (if Allies so agree) the security environment favourable to international norms and values that link the democratic community in Europe and beyond.

 

Russia’s barbaric onslaught on Ukraine and a broader confrontation against the West started by Putin’s regime have confirmed this reality once again.

 

No NATO member has so far come under direct attack, even if a multitude of hybrid operations (to cite only disinformation, sabotage, malign influence, use of energy, cyber domain, and migration as tools) is being waged against us on a daily basis.

 

Thus, the summit has to take serious decisions that will guarantee that defence capabilities are strengthened for the threats which we face today and those we may face tomorrow.

 

Today, the top priority must be supporting Ukraine (which is fighting for our freedom) and beefing up collective defence posture on the eastern flank, without neglecting other challenges that are still with us, especially terrorism.

Tomorrow, the growing assertiveness, and confrontational stance of China will require even greater attention paid to Southeast Asia.

 

The good news is that the elements of organic work being done now and in the coming months and years will yield dividends on all azimuths.

 

If the Vilnius summit produces significant results upgrading collective defence capabilities of Allies, the ensuing benefits will provide the necessary foundation for defending our territory, helping partners to defend themselves, as well as for protecting the global commons.

 

In short – a classical win-win situation across the board, regardless of geography. And one should not forget about the deterrence effect, as existing and potential adversaries will take note of our political will, international solidarity, and defence capabilities.

 

Public opinion, especially in Central Eastern Europe (CEE), should hope for the following key elements of summit decisions.

 

Firstly, the implementation of concrete forward defence plans, involving the assignment of large, mobile, properly equipped, partially stationed in places where the threat is most imminent, forces from the majority of Allied states; backed up by accompanied budgetary and industrial capacity pledges to ensure long-term and credible war-effort capacity.

 

Secondly, nailing of Ukraine’s membership path today, even if actual accession talks would need to wait a bit longer on the condition that security assistance pledges and long-term support programmes are agreed upon right now.

 

This is fundamental not only because Ukraine has earned this right, but also because it will help to achieve victory against the aggressor and (even more than in the case of Finland and Sweden) NATO’s collective defence will benefit from its inclusion.

 

Thirdly, bold opening to NATO’s partners across the globe, offering them the level of political intimacy and mutual solidarity not envisaged before, but unavoidable now if we are serious about solidifying an international coalition of democracies.

 

And finally, a clear political declaration that puts to bed distracting notions of dubious alternatives to the unique value of NATO (i.e., the European Union replacing the transatlantic Alliance which combines the United States’ power with that of its European Allies), while encouraging greater effort on the part of Europeans to contribute more to collective defence and acknowledging the EU’s institutional growing input to broadly defined security.

 

Make no mistake – CEE has the most to gain from courageous decisions in Vilnius. And the most to lose from unreasonable timidity. The summit should recreate the kind of political, military, and economic solidarity which allowed NATO to defend successfully Western Germany and other vulnerable frontier states during the Cold War. Real solidarity, as always, involves costs – and most CEE states are paying them already.

 

Countries of the region must not hesitate in pushing together for a successful outcome of the summit, on which both their existential security and the credibility of the Alliance will rest in the years to come.

 

In doing so, they would be well advised to articulate their expectations in a more forceful manner – for example, by supporting a joint candidate for the post of the Secretary-General of NATO.

 

NATO with 31 members is stronger than NATO at 16, but frontier states are fully within their rights to expect the new composition to be reflected properly in the policies of the Alliance.