Five challenges facing the military alliance at the NATO summit.

This week’s NATO summit in Madrid occurs at a crucial point in the 73-year history of the alliance. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been hailed as the greatest geopolitical shock to the West since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The only military alliance capable of defending Europe against further Russian aggression is NATO, but does it have a strategy?

Less than three years ago, President Macron of France declared NATO “brain dead.” Nonetheless, from the moment Russian tanks crossed into Ukraine, the response of the West has been exceptional for its unity, quickness, and vigor. It has been revitalized with a new mission: fortifying borders and supplying weaponry.

On the day of the Madrid summit, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced what he termed a “fundamental shift in the alliance’s deterrence and defense” by bolstering its eastern border defenses and increasing its quick response force to over 300,000 troops.

The alliance faces various problems, including hybrid warfare, the destabilization of the Balkans, cyber strikes, the militarization of space, and the question of how to respond to China’s rising military dominance. Mr. Stoltenberg stated that for the first time, this NATO summit would address “the risks that Beijing poses to our security, interests, and values.” Here are some of the most critical problems that will likely be discussed this week.

Avoiding escalation in the Ukraine conflict
NATO must perform a balancing act. The world’s most powerful military alliance, consisting of thirty members, three of which possess nuclear weapons (the United States, the United Kingdom, and France), does not wish to go to war with Russia. President Putin has often reminded the West that he possesses vast nuclear weapons and that even a minor cross-border conflict could rapidly escalate out of control.

For the past four months, the greatest difficulty has been determining how to assist Ukraine in defending itself against an unprovoked invasion without becoming embroiled in the fighting.

As horrible details of alleged Russian war crimes and massacres, supported by satellite data, have emerged, the West’s initial reluctance to deliver heavy weapons to Kyiv for fear of upsetting Moscow has been swept aside.

The Madrid meeting will need to specify how much and for how long NATO nations can give military assistance.

For the time being, Moscow is prevailing in the Donbas, a predominantly Russian-speaking region of eastern Ukraine, albeit at an enormous human and material cost. It is anticipated that Russia would attempt to retain these geographical gains, maybe by annexing them as it did with Crimea in 2014.

Without a peace treaty, NATO will face a new challenge in the future. Does it continue arming the Ukrainians, who are attempting to reclaim territory that Moscow now deems to be legally part of the Russian Federation? The Kremlin has suggested that the use of Western weapons against Russian soil would cross a red line, so drastically increasing the likelihood of escalation.

Maintaining Ukraine’s cohesion
If Russia had simply attacked the Donbas and not invaded Ukraine on three sides, probably, the West would not have responded with such exceptional unity. Six rounds of EU sanctions are having a significant impact on Russia’s economy, and Germany has canceled for the time being the multi-billion dollar Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would have transported Russian gas to northern Germany.

However, the Western alliance is divided about how severely to punish Russia and how much hardship Western businesses can withstand. These will most likely surface in Madrid. Germany has been accused of dragging its feet on promised arms delivery, while Hungary, under the leadership of a prime minister with close ties to President Putin, has refused to stop purchasing Russian oil. On the opposite end of the spectrum, those nations that feel the greatest threat from Moscow, namely Poland and the Baltic states, advocate for the hardest possible stance and additional NATO deployments along their borders.

Securing the Baltic States
This region could become a significant flashpoint between NATO and Russia. This month, Russia warned of “real countermeasures” in response to Lithuania’s blocking of EU-sanctioned items en route to Russia’s Baltic exclave Kaliningrad.

The outspoken prime minister of Estonia, Kaja Kallas, has criticized NATO for being unprepared for a Russian assault over the border. Current plans call for attempting to recapture Estonian land only after Russia has already invaded. She states, “They could wipe us off the map.”

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were formerly, and unwillingly, members of the Soviet Union. Today, they are all sovereign nations and members of NATO. As part of what is known as the Enhanced Forward Presence, there are four multinational battle units stationed in these three nations and Poland. The United Kingdom leads in Estonia, the United States in Poland, Germany in Lithuania, and Canada in Latvia.

Nonetheless, NATO planners are well aware that these battle units would serve only as a deterrent against a future Russian attack. They are insufficient to prevent a coordinated assault by a reformed Russian army. As a genuine deterrence, Baltic leaders now want at least a division of NATO forces stationed in each country. This is expected to generate heated debate in Madrid.

4. Permitting Finland and Sweden to join Finland and Sweden, shaken by Russia’s massive invasion of a sovereign nation, have opted to abandon their neutrality and join Nato. The coalition welcomes them with open arms, but things are not quite that straightforward. Turkey, a member since 1952, has opposed their admission because both of these Nordic nations harbor Kurdish separatists that Turkey considers terrorists.

However, due to the importance of Finland and Sweden to NATO, every attempt will be made to find a way over Turkey’s concerns. Once they join, the Baltic Sea will become a “Nato lake” bordered by eight member states, with coordinated air defense and integrated missile systems in the future.

Will neutral Sweden and Finland join NATO?
Looking further afield, NATO will need to decide if it ever plans to admit new members like Georgia and Moldova, despite the risks of further inflaming an already suspicious Kremlin.

5. Urgent boost in defense spending
   Currently, Nato countries are required to spend 2% of their annual GDP on defense, although not all of them do so. Recent data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) indicates that while the United States and the United Kingdom spent 3.5 and 2.2 percent, respectively, on defense, Germany spent only 1.3 percent while Italy, Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands fell far short of the 2 percent target. Russia allocated 4.1% of its GDP to defense expenditures.

When Donald Trump was president, he infamously threatened to withdraw the United States from the alliance if other members did not fulfill their responsibilities. This had some effect, but the invasion of Ukraine has had a greater impact. Just three days after it began, Germany declared it would commit an additional €100 billion to defense, ultimately increasing its proportion to exceed 2 percent. This Monday, the Nato head said that nine of the thirty member states have attained or beyond the 2 percent target, while 19 have concrete intentions to do so by 2024. According to Jens Stoltenberg, the 2 percent threshold “should be a floor, not a ceiling.”

If Russia is to be deterred from further aggression, military leaders and analysts in the West unanimously advocate for an immediate boost in the defense budget. However, NATO’s ability to stop a future Russian invasion has been called into question by a series of defense cuts over the past several decades.

Despite the recent increase in the United Kingdom’s defense budget, there has been an enormous amount of procurement waste. The current strength of the British Army, including those in training, is 82,000 soldiers, however, after reductions, this number will fall to 72,500. Even more worrisome is the fact that both Russia and China are ahead of the West in the development of hypersonic missiles, which can approach their target at more than five times the speed of sound and on an unpredictable flight path.

In the wake of the pandemic, worldwide food and fuel prices have increased dramatically, so budgets are already stretched thin. When there are so many other pressing demands on government spending, allocating additional funds for defense may be unpopular domestically.

However, military leaders warn that if NATO does not improve its defense now, the cost of potential Russian assault will be immeasurably higher.