Ukraine and its most ardent supporters within NATO are expressing frustration that the bloc can do more to confront Russia, even as the alliance’s summit in Washington largely focuses on Western efforts to control the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and leaders of other countries on the front lines with Russia have warned against the alliance diluting language, self-imposing red lines and delaying concrete commitments to deter and repel Russian aggression in Ukraine and in neighboring countries.
At the top of the list is getting President Biden to lift restrictions on the use of weapons supplied by the US and allies to attack military targets up to 300 miles inside Russian territory. Biden in May said Ukraine could attack inside Russia, near the Kharkiv area.
“If we have this very special weapon, some of which we have, and if we can use it on the territory of Russia, especially on these military targets, if we can do it, of course we can defend civilians, hospitals, schools, children, we can do this,” Zelensky said in a conversation at the Reagan Institute in Washington on Tuesday night.
“But we can not. Someone other than us has to say yes.”
The urgency of the demand was illustrated by a Russian attack on a children’s hospital in Kiev this week, part of a wave of attacks across the country. More than 300 people were injured, including eight children. Two adults died, including a young doctor.
Images of the aftermath showed doctors in bloody uniforms and dozens of volunteers helping clear rubble from the attack to reach those buried, and pediatric cancer patients lined up outside, hooked up to monitors and IV fluids.
Some officials from NATO allied countries said the attack was a clear signal from Russia demonstrating its impunity in attacking Ukraine.
“We see what Russia is doing – in Kiev, just last night, a children’s hospital was bombed,” said Latvian Parliament Speaker Daiga Mieriņa in Washington. “Maybe we could say it was a mistake or a coincidence, but I think it’s a definitive signal that Russia is sending: that they can talk all they want, but look at us, we can do whatever we want.”
While allies have largely agreed to new pledges of military and financial support for Kiev that took months to develop, countries bordering Russia in particular say the alliance needs to do more.
Criticizing Congress’ six-month delay in delivering aid to Ukraine, they want stronger language on commitments for Ukraine’s path to NATO, they call for a tripling of financial commitments to Kiev and they want to face head-on Russia’s sabotage on the territory of NATO.
For months, the Baltic countries have been warning that acts of sabotage allegedly sponsored by Russia are a growing threat to Europe and the alliance. These allegations include blocking GPS, removing borders, raiding hospitals and attacking political dissidents.
“Perhaps the most important question for NATO countries is: will we accept it? Are we going to accept that they now attack us every day in Europe with different missions? And I don’t think we should accept it,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.
In a sign that NATO is responding to this criticism, the text of the joint statement from this week’s summit committed the alliance to “develop” recommendations for countering Russian hybrid threats by the next summit.
NATO allies have broadly aligned on issuing weapons and financial commitments to Ukraine, to include more air defense systems and pledges to allies to contribute a total of more than $43 billion in aid to Ukraine by 2025.
The text of the joint statement described Ukraine’s path to membership as “irreversible”, with the alliance reluctant to grant immediate membership, in part for fear of provoking Putin.
Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs said it “was a very bad message” that Congress took six months to approve Biden’s additional request for more than $60 billion for Ukraine in April.
He also called for the lifting of the “red lines” that allow Ukraine to attack inside Russia.
“When we give weapons, equipment, ammunition, Ukraine must be able to use them without restrictions,” Rinkēvičs said. “This is not a NATO decision, but if we had an honest and frank discussion, and if the countries that still have restrictions lifted them, then we would probably also be closer to this type of strategic perspective… and that is winning this war. .”
It’s a restriction that the new UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has imposed supposedly raised about Britain’s Storm Shadow missiles.
And Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur is raising further alarm about the uncertainty surrounding the US elections and whether former President Trump might cease assistance to Kiev – calling on allies to raise $120 billion in aid to Ukraine in 2025.
“I would like to see what the new administration will do, because today the $61 billion is there and it will help the Ukrainians fight this year, but that is just this year,” he said. “What will happen next year? We will see in November and January when the new president will take office.”
Concerns about Trump’s resurgence, his threats to leave NATO or to invite Putin to do “whatever he wants” to allied countries that have not yet reached their internal defense spending quotas are also at the top of the summit’s concerns.
“I can’t say what he will do, whether he will be president of the United States… we need answers,” Zelensky said during a conversation at the Reagan Institute.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sought to reassure allies Wednesday, saying during a panel discussion that the U.S. is committed to the U.S.’s Article 5 mutual defense pact. NATO.
“Article 5 means exactly what it says, I make that commitment now to the United States and the United States is there to fulfill that commitment,” he said.
Still, even he was out of touch with Trump’s Ukraine plans, having repeatedly said he would end the war the day after he returned to the White House.
“At least one of the candidates said he would end the war, but never got an explanation of how that would happen,” Risch said. “But the candidate who says that usually does what he says he’s going to do. So I’ll be looking forward to seeing that.”
The Biden administration prepared Kiev and its NATO allies for months not to wait for a formal invitation to join the alliance until the end of the summit, seeking to avoid a public conflict like the one that happened at the Vilnius summit in 2023.
“There was a big difference between what Ukraine wanted and what NATO had to offer; this meant that both sides left dissatisfied and frustrated,” said Rachel Rizzo, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s European Center.
“This year, Ukraine and NATO are more aligned with the reality, which is that membership is not on the table, but there is more desire to institutionalize NATO to support Ukraine, something the alliance was still working on. fight last year.”
Many of these actions are seen as the alliance’s support of “Trump-proofing” Ukraine. The measures include transferring the US-led system of coordinating arms donations among 50 countries under the NATO banner; have the alliance take over training of Ukrainian forces; and establish a civilian NATO outpost in Kyiv.
These efforts are being described as building a “bridge” from Ukraine to NATO membership.
Still, allies are using the summit’s opportunity to speak out about the need for Ukraine to eventually become a member.
“We have already decided that Ukraine’s future lies in NATO… and now we have to take practical steps to show that it is credible, that the path to membership is getting shorter, not longer”, said the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Iceland, Thórdís Kolbrún. Reykfjord Gylfadóttir.
“They are literally fighting with their lives to get that future. And we say it’s an open door policy, we say your fight is our fight, it’s about [delivering] what we have already said, and they show every day that they are ready.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
