In a bold and urgent statement at the Bucharest Nine (B9) summit, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda called on NATO allies to reassess their approach towards supporting Ukraine. The summit, held in Riga, Latvia, saw leaders from nine Central and Eastern European countries discussing the pressing security challenges facing the region.
President Nausėda, known for his outspoken stance on Eastern European security, took to Twitter to emphasize the gravity of the situation. “At the #B9 summit in Riga, I stressed that our current collective effort isn’t leading to Ukraine’s victory. Enough to survive but not enough to win. Time to stop declaring what we will NOT do. We became too predictable. We must change this pattern,” Nausėda tweeted on June 8, 2024.
This call to action comes amid ongoing conflict in Ukraine, where the nation has been valiantly resisting Russian aggression since 2014. The recent intensification of hostilities has led to a renewed debate within NATO about the extent and nature of support the alliance should provide.
A Call for Change
President Nausėda’s statement reflects growing frustration among some NATO members about the alliance’s current strategy. The criticism centers on what is perceived as a reactive and overly cautious approach. Nausėda’s remarks suggest that the existing support framework, while significant, is insufficient for Ukraine to secure a decisive victory against Russian forces.
“The predictability in our responses has allowed adversaries to anticipate our moves, reducing the effectiveness of our support,” Nausėda elaborated during the summit’s discussions. He argued that NATO’s commitment should evolve from merely ensuring Ukraine’s survival to actively enabling its victory. This, according to Nausėda, requires a shift in both military aid and strategic posturing.
Implications for NATO
Nausėda’s call to action has significant implications for NATO’s future actions. The alliance, while united in its condemnation of Russian aggression, has shown varying levels of commitment to direct military support. Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have been more forthcoming with military aid, whereas others have been more reserved, focusing on economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts.
Analysts suggest that Nausėda’s statement could push NATO to reconsider its current limitations on military assistance. This might include providing more advanced weaponry, increasing intelligence sharing, and perhaps even rethinking the alliance’s stance on deploying troops in advisory and training capacities within Ukraine.
Regional Security Concerns
The B9 summit, which includes Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia, serves as a platform for these countries to coordinate their security policies. The group has been particularly vocal about the threats posed by Russia, given their geographical proximity and historical contexts.
In his remarks, Nausėda highlighted the collective security concerns of the B9 nations, noting that a stronger, more decisive support for Ukraine would also bolster the security of NATO’s eastern flank. “Our security is intrinsically linked to Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. We cannot afford to remain passive,” he stated.
Reaction from Allies
Reactions to Nausėda’s call have been mixed. Some NATO members have expressed support for a more robust approach, while others remain cautious, concerned about the potential for escalation. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, attending the summit, acknowledged the need for a strategic review but urged caution. “While we must enhance our support, we must also be mindful of the broader consequences and avoid actions that could lead to a direct confrontation with Russia,” she said.
The United States, a key NATO ally, has yet to officially respond to Nausėda’s comments. However, sources within the U.S. Department of Defense indicate that discussions are ongoing about increasing military aid to Ukraine.
The Path Forward
As the B9 summit concludes, the focus now shifts to the upcoming NATO summit, where these issues are expected to be at the forefront of discussions. President Nausėda’s emphatic plea has set the stage for a potentially pivotal debate on the future of NATO’s involvement in Ukraine.
For now, Ukraine continues to rely on the support it receives, while its allies grapple with the challenge of finding a balance between effective assistance and strategic restraint. President Nausėda’s message is clear: the time for cautious, predictable support has passed. It is now time for decisive action to ensure not just Ukraine’s survival, but its victory.