July 11, 2024
On the 75th anniversary of NATO, defending Ukraine means not letting Russia win. This week, the leaders of NATO’s member states are gathered in Washington to decide how to best protect their nations and secure their collective bloc. At the forefront of discussion is the ongoing war in Ukraine, as Russia’s cold-blooded invasion of its neighbor served to endow NATO with a new sense of immediacy and purpose – even compelling Sweden and Finland to join the alliance for the first time. While many noteworthy developments are happening at this week’s summit, the issue of sustained military and political support for Ukraine – including an “irreversible path” to NATO membership for Ukraine, and China’s role as a Russia “enabler” are at the forefront of discussion.
Earlier in the week, even before the official start of the summit, Ukraine and Poland signed a notable bilateral security agreement that has implications for NATO members. Because of both its location and firm allegiance to the West, Poland is a prime Russian adversary that knows its own national security is tied up in the outcome of Ukraine’s defense. As such, Poland’s been a stalwart supporter of Ukraine throughout the latest war – thus far providing Ukraine with over 40 military aid packages estimated at EUR 4 billion, and most recently stating that it would consider delivering MiG-29 fighters provided it can do so without compromising its own national security.
Indeed, the latest bilateral agreement upped the ante at a critical time for Ukraine- not only due to the potential transfer of much-needed aircraft, but because it included language that implies Poland would be heavily involved “in the event of significant escalation of the current aggression.” And if Poland – as a NATO member – was ultimately compelled to participate in the battle, this would have implications for the role of other member states. As part of the agreement, Ukraine also offered to share insider battlefield lessons with Poland, which is of critical value given that nations all over the world are trying to ascertain how to best equip and position their own militaries to succeed in the modern era of warfare.
For Ukraine, which has more recently been able to stabilize the front in Kharkiv much to Russia’s dismay – thanks in part to a shift in US policy on how and where US-made weapons can be used, as well as a general increase in ammunition and the caliber of weapons being delivered – holding the line is itself a form of victory. While the coming months will remain challenging for Ukraine as it tries to gather and train more soldiers, if NATO members and Ukrainian allies are able to provide weapons at a more rapid clip, this would not only serve to motivate Ukrainian troops but to deter the Russians from developing countermeasures in the process.
Indeed, as Russia continues to launch devastating attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine, including a recent attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv, preventing Russian access to information, human capital, or equipment will be critical to Ukraine’s defense. While estimates of Russian troop deaths and injuries vary widely, with the Ukrainians estimating that over 500,000 Russians have been seriously injured or killed since the onset of the war and independent Russian media outlets putting the numbers closer to 120,000, what’s clear is that a significant number of Russians are being killed and that these figures don’t bode well for the Kremlin from either an economic or political point of view.
Russia currently owes a lot of money to the families of those who have died, and to the soldiers who have been hired to fight. And Putin is also laying a dangerous economic groundwork by becoming increasingly dependent on China for everything from vehicles to weapons components- degrading Russia’s own industrial sector in the process. It’s not surprising, then, that this week the Russian parliament approved a bill that raises income taxes for the rich, but Russia will need to continue selling sharply undervalued fossil fuel products to China and India for the duration of sanctions, and the long-term outlook isn’t promising given how Russia is restructuring its economy thus far.
Further, it will be important to see if NATO’s recent statements regarding China’s role as a Russia-enabler will come with any substantial changes in Chinese policy. While China has become increasingly close with Russia over the past several years, Beijing has its own domestic economic woes to deal with and is no doubt wary of any additional global economic restrictions on its exports. Indeed, after NATO called upon China to “to cease all material and political support to Russia’s war effort” – including the transfer of dual-use materials – China was furious and accused NATO of “malicious intent.” But it’s how Beijing responds in-practice, both in terms of diplomatic and economic next moves, that will help determine the trajectory of Russia’s ongoing offensive.
The Arkin Group is a strategic intelligence firm offering investigative research, due diligence, international risk and crisis consulting, and security & preparedness services. We can be contacted at 212-333-0280.
