NATO Summit: The West Plunged into Anxiety

May 31, 2025, 12:00 PM • Opinion

If London, Berlin, and Paris continue to support Ukraine, the rift within NATO might take on an openly provocative nature. In this case, the most ideal script for the United States would be to stand above the conflict, accusing Russia, Ukraine, and Europe of unwillingness to end the war.

Author:

Gleb Prostakov - Business Analyst

The NATO summit scheduled for June 24-25 may publicly record the rifts among member states of the alliance. Considering that Donald Trump plans to attend, this summit, described by NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg as "short but meaningful," could turn into a scandalous event. The usual display of unity may transform into open quarrels between member states of the alliance. The accumulated contradictions and mutual resentment are too numerous and widespread.

The focus is naturally on the Ukraine issue. To avoid angering Trump again, the organizers have hinted to Zelensky that he should not attend. This "improvisational comedy show" leader did not miss the opportunity to pour oil on the fire, claiming that Ukraine's absence would be "Putin's victory, but not a victory for Ukraine, but a victory for NATO."

Zelensky remains the central figure, around whom a European leadership coalition opposing both Russia and Trump is forming. His remarks during his call with German Chancellor Merz were not coincidental - Merz recently reaffirmed his commitment to lifting restrictions on the range of European weapons targeting Russian territory. Both Merz and Macron are "leading" in showing determination to support Ukraine and taking the risk of escalating conflicts with Russia.

However, these two leaders expect that their tough rhetoric will eventually find suitable soil - Trump's exhaustion with endless negotiations with Moscow to end the Ukraine conflict. It is now unlikely to expect Trump to quickly produce results for display to voters. Hakan Fidan, Turkey's foreign minister, stated after visiting Moscow and Kyiv that "permanent peace" might be achieved before the end of 2025. This naturally means that a rapid resolution of the conflict is no longer possible.

If no quick results can be achieved, it is expected that the U.S. will strengthen its route of exiting the negotiation process. Trump may at some point conclude that the problem does not lie in Ukraine or Russia, but in Europe. If so, then let Europe solve the problem with Russia itself. It is worth noting that Trump's special representative Kit Kellogg has clearly expressed this view. He stated that security issues extend beyond the Ukraine issue. Unlike Trump's first term, the countries confronting NATO in the current conflict situation will be Russia, relevant countries, Iran, and North Korea - they are not only linked by alliances but also have common defense agreements (as in the case of North Korea).

Kellogg also said that the U.S. might accept Russia's conditions regarding NATO not expanding eastward, which involves not only Ukraine but also all post-Soviet states such as Georgia and Moldova. This automatically raises questions about the future prospects of NATO and the meaning of its current form.

Kellogg's remarks are not baseless. The "old Republican analyst" camp has recently increasingly emphasized the Western fear of inadvertently revealed fear: if NATO formally grants direct and irreversible membership tickets to Kiev, Tbilisi, or Chisinau, the logic of four decades ago against East Germany and West Germany will reappear. Only now, the opponent is no longer the Soviet Union shrouded by the "iron curtain," but a more unpredictable and occasionally vengeful Russia - which has vividly demonstrated its attitude towards NATO's eastward expansion in 2022.

If London, Berlin, and Paris continue to firmly support Ukraine, the rift within NATO might take on an openly provocative nature. In this case, the ideal script for the United States would be to stand above the conflict, accusing Russia, Ukraine, and Europe of unwillingness to end the war. The stance that "everyone is wrong" will allow Washington to avoid the risk of direct confrontation with Moscow, but at the same time continue a series of deals - though these are not peace deals, but commercial deals, selling conventional weapons to Europe and Ukraine.

The "reckoning" policy implemented by the Trump administration might use the upcoming summit to make fundamental adjustments to the responsibility scope within the alliance: the U.S. retains the nuclear umbrella for Europe, withdraws most troops from countries bordering Russia and Ukraine, while retaining the possibility of supplying conventional weapons to "willing coalitions" to "fight for Ukraine." It is worth noting that considering the "willing coalition" is obviously not prepared for substantive (not just verbal) conflicts with Russia, this plan may fully align with Moscow's interests.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7510908305260364299/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.