Ukraine, NATO and Europe´s Security Gamble

The Kremlin has leveraged its strengths, forcing NATO allies into a strategic dilemma: sustaining Ukraine's military advantage while managing the risks of escalation. Undeniably, greater NATO involvement in Ukraine would dramatically alter the dynamics of the war. The deployment of NATO-led troops, an idea championed by French President Macron, is viewed in Ukraine as an essential enhancement to its defensive capabilities, potentially cornering Russian forces into a strategic retreat and shifting the broader power balance in favor of Ukraine on the battlefield. Advanced defenses and direct NATO support could provide Ukraine with a critical boost against Russia's overstretched forces while bolstering NATO's role in European security and its long-term global power projection. But here lies the real question: How far could NATO go without sparking the lingering fear of escalation and Russian retaliation? How much is too much? Moscow’s recent rhetoric makes it clear — any NATO boots on the ground will be viewed as crossing the Rubicon, a provocation Russia won’t ignore.

Patriot missile defence system is seen at Sliac Airport, in Sliac, near Zvolen, Slovakia, May 6, 2022 — Radovan Stoklasa/REUTERS

A 'middle ground' approach has been NATO's policy up to date. A limited, yet ever-increasing, provision of air defense assets, targeted intelligence support for the facilitation of Ukrainian precision strikes, and supply of advanced technologies has been the pursued path by multiple components of the alliance. Increasing air defenses, for example, has already proven effective in helping Ukraine withstand neverending Russian missile and drone attacks, but even that has become a stretch for NATO's ill-fated military industrial base and stockpiles. An internal NATO assessment highlighted the stark reality: European countries currently possess only about 5% of the air defenses needed to fully cover Eastern Europe. This deficiency creates significant vulnerabilities in regional security, making it susceptible to potential Russian missile and aerial threats. Germany and the Netherlands have been working to improve these defenses, but reinforcing Europe's security will take years, not months, while resources available to Ukraine become increasingly scarce. In the meantime, NATO and its allies have little choice but to remain strategically cautious.

Aid Packages and Broken Promises

The 2024 NATO Summit in Washington and the 2023 Summit in Vilnius highlighted the ongoing challenge of strengthening collective and Ukrainian defensive capabilities. Despite additional aid pledges, including more Patriot batteries and air defense systems, European governments remain hesitant to fully deplete their own stockpiles or send significant assets like the German Taurus cruise missile, while also showing reluctance to approve Ukraine's request for long-range strikes on Russian territory using Western-made assets. This notably highlights the indecisive and ambiguous policies from both German and U.S. leadership, seemingly conditioned by Russian threats of escalation and broader politico-economic interests. Nonetheless, a coalition approach is emerging to pool resources — notable examples remain the Czech 155mm shell initiative or the Dutch Patriot initiative — but coordination and logistical issues mean that the availability of these defenses continues to fall short of Ukraine’s actual battlefield needs.

President Biden shakes hands with President-elect Donald Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office on Nov. 13, 2024. — Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

The current ‘lackluster’ military support is soon to be further complicated by the U.S. election cycle, which already has had a noticeable impact on aid delivery rates and new aid announcements. European partners and Ukraine alike are increasingly concerned about the uncertainty that could arise if U.S. political dynamics change. Future support will largely depend on U.S. internal politics, and any change in leadership — especially a potential and expected shift toward isolationism under a second Trump term — could significantly weaken NATO's leverage and support for Ukraine.

NATO’s ongoing strategic approach consistently considers how Moscow has responded to Western escalation in the past. Despite repeated threats, Russia has so far refrained from nuclear deployment and, as per many experts, remains unlikely to take such a step. But is Russian nuclear saber-rattling something we should consider as a mere bluff? Its reliance on conscripts and poorly trained troops suggests that a conventional conflict with a robust NATO force could stretch Russian capabilities to the breaking point. However, risks associated with misjudging Moscow’s nuclear red lines are immense, Russia has periodically conducted military exercises that simulate a nuclear response — to varying degrees of success — and has kept its strategic nuclear forces on high alert, reminding NATO that the threat remains present, even if the likelihood appears low.

NATO’s Internal Divide: Ukraine’s Membership and Alliance Rifts

The Biden administration’s highly anticipated backing of Ukraine’s NATO membership has exposed significant rifts within the alliance. While Eastern European countries and the U.S. support Ukraine’s membership, Germany and Hungary have pulled back, each for its own reasons. For Germany, it’s a balancing act — diplomacy and economic stability with Russia remain central concerns. For Hungary, on the other hand, it aligns more closely with Russia’s interests under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, making NATO unity anything but a given.

The hesitation from key NATO members like Germany reflects a fear of overcommitting. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has repeatedly emphasized the need for diplomatic solutions alongside military assistance, pointing out that Germany’s economic ties to Russia — including energy imports and historical partnerships — complicated its position. Scholz has pushed back against what he sees as an overly hawkish stance from some NATO members, particularly from Eastern Europe. This caution has been driven partly by the fear of provoking a wider war that could engulf the continent and threaten Germany’s own security interests. Hungary’s alignment with Russia is even more explicit. Viktor Orbán has consistently used his position within the European Union and NATO to soften and bar collective actions against Moscow, frequently calling for a more conciliatory approach. Hungary’s reliance on Russian energy, particularly natural gas, and Orbán’s broader anti-EU rhetoric have both played into his reluctance to support stronger measures against Russia or endorse Ukraine’s bid for NATO and EU memberships. Thus, cultivating close political ties with Moscow, framing Hungary's position as one of pragmatic diplomacy, aimed at ensuring energy security and economic stability. As NATO edges closer to a defining moment in its history, the differing perspectives of its members highlight just how challenging it will be to maintain cohesion in the face of escalating Russian aggression.

Moving ahead with Ukraine’s membership as terms stand would leave Germany and Hungary further isolated within NATO. Germany's hesitation, particularly from Chancellor Scholz, will limit its influence and dependency within the alliance as other members push for a more assertive response. Washington's pressure to keep Ukraine aligned with the West demonstrates a long-term strategic commitment (though a clear commitment to achieving a Ukrainian victory has been inconsistent at best), even if full NATO membership is unlikely until the conflict is resolved. In the interim, a 'bridge to membership' concept has been proposed to address a key requirement of Zelenskyi's Five Point Peace Plan, offering security commitments without formal Article 5 protections. However, the effectiveness of this arrangement remains deeply uncertain.

Europe’s Security Crossroads: NATO’s Defining Decision

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy following the first day of the meetings of NATO Defence Ministers — NATO, 2024.

NATO finds itself at a crossroads, deciding how far to go in supporting Ukraine's fight for its sovereignty without sparking a broader, potentially catastrophic conflict. Increased involvement could boost Ukraine’s defense and bolster Europe’s security, but the risks of Russian nuclear escalation have consistently kept all options in check and subsequently delayed or limited critical aid to Ukraine's detriment. Meanwhile, concessions to Russia might seem like a quick way to end the fighting, paving the way for the 'diplomatic' solution some Western leaders, such as to be U.S. President Trump, have been perceived to advocate. However, many proponents of this path overlook Moscow’s track record, which indicates that it would interpret concessions and diplomacy as a sign of Western weakness, thereby inviting further aggression in the near future.

As NATO debates Ukraine’s path to membership, Germany and Hungary’s hesitation highlights the alliance’s broader internal challenges. NATO’s cohesion has always been one of its greatest strengths, but diverging national interests accompanied by Russian interference and propaganda now threaten that unity. The alliance’s expansion into Eastern Europe was intended to secure the region against future Russian aggression, but the reality of maintaining a credible deterrence while avoiding direct confrontation with Russia has proven to be far more challenging than initially anticipated. Ukraine’s nuclear frustrations also highlight the limitations of past security assurances, offering other allied nations like Taiwan a stark reminder of the risks inherent in relying on Western security guarantees. NATO’s next steps — whether further bolstering Ukrainian defenses via military aid concessions or reshaping its own structure to accommodate Ukraine — will likely define Europe’s stability for the foreseeable future.

Balancing unity, strategic deterrence, and member interests will be central to NATO’s ongoing role in European security. The stakes are indeed higher than ever, with NATO and other Ukrainian allies preparing for the highly anticipated Ramstein. President Biden, leading the U.S. in one of his administration’s final decisions before the transition of power to President Trump in January, will weigh choices that extend far beyond the current conflict. These decisions will test the alliance’s ability to uphold its credibility as a force for collective defense in an increasingly multipolar world.