Stoltenberg did not reply directly to this request, but repeated, in a tweet, the usual NATO line about supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. The Biden administration on the other hand, is essentially trying to shelve the issue. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the administration has been discussing Ukraine's membership aspirations with Kiev however, "we are strong supporters of them, we are engaged with them… but that is a decision for NATO to make."
Shelving the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) is good. Abandoning it would be even better. For what after all do Zelensky’s words about the Donbas really mean? He is suggesting that NATO, with Ukraine as a member, would threaten to go to war with Russia in order to force Russia to abandon the Donbas. And not just that: NATO would have to try to force Russia to give up the annexation of Crimea and abandon its naval base at Sevastopol and its entire strategic position in the Black Sea.
Not likely.
If NATO, with Ukraine as a member, really adopted such a strategy, this would mean planning for war with Russia. The whole of U.S. global strategy, military deployment and military spending would have to be redirected to this end. The containment of China would be abandoned. The U.S. Navy would be drastically downgraded, and the Army would be recreated as the massive armored force of the Cold War. NATO’s European members would have to vastly increase their military spending and reintroduce conscription. Western publics would have to be told to accept the risk of nuclear war, and the certainty of massive military casualties, for a Ukrainian Donbas and Crimea.
Of course, none of this is going to happen — and Moscow knows it perfectly well. The only result of threatening Russia in this way would be to make NATO look ridiculous.
Instead of thinking about such hard military realities, NATO since the 1990s has befuddled itself with warm and woolly mantras about “spreading democracy” and “enhancing security,” and “supporting this or that country’s European Vocation.” NATO secretaries-general have been retired politicians from countries that have not thought seriously about war for a century or more, and are culturally allergic to thinking about it. But if NATO takes in Ukraine as a member, then NATO is going to have to think seriously about war.
Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London.
Volodymyr Zelensky. Photo credit: Mykhaylo Markiv / The Presidential Administration of Ukraine via WikiMedia Commons
On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support the U.S.-negotiated ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine under certain conditions.
Putin said that the Russians certainly support "the idea of a ceasefire," but "there are issues that we need to discuss, and I think that we need to talk about it with our American colleagues and partners and, perhaps, have a call with President Trump and discuss it with him.”
He added that the Russians “proceed from the assumption that the ceasefire should lead to lasting peace and remove the root causes of the crisis.”
The key conditions Putin outlined in a news conference late Thursday included a demand that foreign weapons assistance would not continue to flow to Ukraine during any 30 day ceasefire, that Russia would not let remaining Ukrainian soldiers to peacefully withdraw from Kursk but force them to surrender, and that Moscow must know who would be monitoring the ceasefire.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky retorted by saying, "Putin, of course, is afraid to tell President Trump directly that he wants to continue this war, wants to kill Ukrainians,” adding that Putin had set so many preconditions “that nothing will work out at all, or that it will not work out for as long as possible.”
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, was expected to conduct talks with Russian leadership later on Thursday. In a statement, President Trump was cautiously optimistic, saying that there were “good signals” coming out of Moscow. Later at a Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, he said there were "very serious discussions going on" and “we’d like to see a cease-fire from Russia.” He also said the U.S. had been discussing territorial issues with Ukraine.
“We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost, and all of the other elements of a final agreement,” he said, adding: “A lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.”
Putin’s statements come after Ukrainian leadership endorsed the Trump administration’s proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. This support, as well as the resumption of military assistance and intelligence sharing to Kyiv, were secured during meetings between the American and Ukrainian leaders in Saudi Arabia earlier in the week.
The recent breakthrough comes after a public spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump and Vice President Vance at the White House last month. Following that breakdown in negotiations, President Trump paused military aid from the United States to Ukraine. That pause has since been lifted.
Ukrainian leadership previously said that a ceasefire would only be agreed upon if security guarantees were attached, but none were mentioned in a joint statement. Indeed, Zelenskyy said in a late-night address that guarantees would be agreed to at a later time.
Russia still holds roughly 20% of Ukraine and insists that it maintain control of a significant portion following a ceasefire. Additionally, Ukraine has lost much of its leverage via its partial occupation of Kursk, which began in August of 2024.
Reutersreports that Ukraine launched its most significant drone attack on Moscow yet. The attack on Tuesday killed at least three civilians and wounded 17 others. Due to the attack, Moscow had to shut down all four of its airports.
A poll released by The Economist this week indicates that the Ukrainian public still trusts Zelenskyy and rejects most of Russia’s demands despite Mr. Zelenskyy’s recent spat with American leaders at the White House.
According to the poll, 72% of Ukrainians strongly support or somewhat approve of President Zelenskyy’s performance. The poll also indicated that the president would likely win a hypothetical election. Additionally, 74% of respondents agree that “Ukraine should continue fighting even if the United States withdraws all support.”
There were no State Department briefings this week
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: JSOU SOF Q4 Forum 2021 - Panel 6: SOF/IC Partnership in the Compound Security Environment (YouTube/Screenshot)
President Donald Trump continues to pepper his new government with weapons industry mainstays.
Most recently, Trump has nominated Michael Obadal, a U.S. military veteran and current senior director of defense tech star Anduril Industries, to become the Under Secretary of the Army — the no. 2 civilian official in the organization.
If confirmed, Obadal would essentially act as the Army’s chief management officer, where he would help manage an $185 billion budget. Here, Obadal’s decades-long military career, where he’s commanded units and task forces in both the Army and Joint Special Operations, may serve his new role well. Considering Anduril’s manymilitary contracts and prominent lobbying presence in Washington alike, however, Obadal’s prominent weapons start up job also precipitates a direct conflict of interest.
And Obadal would be working under Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who has argued that America’s defense industrial base must be revamped — in close collaboration with the weapons industry — to remain competitive with America’s adversaries.
“[W]e must reinvigorate our industrial base and revolutionize our procurement processes. We are not ready for large-scale conflict with a peer adversary. But we must be,” Driscoll wrote after being confirmed as Army Secretary. “Together, we will forge stronger partnerships with the defense industry to ensure you have the firepower to dominate our enemies.”
Critically, defense tech executives, like Anduril’s own Christian Brose and Palmer Luckey, have repeatedly made similar arguments in pushes for military contracts.
Trump is truly leaning on New Tech to populate prominent government roles. He selected Palantir’s former head of Intelligence and Investigations, Gregory Barbaccia, to be the new federal chief information officer, and tapped PayPal Mafia member David Sacks to be the new “White House AI and crypto-czar.” Stephen Feinberg, a billionaire investor sporting significant defense industry ties, was nominated for the position of Deputy Secretary for Defense.
And prominent entrepreneur Elon Musk, now a close confidant to the President through his DOGE role (he also previously threw $200 million at Trump’s successful campaign), is himself a prominent weapons contractor through SpaceX.
The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.
Here we go, again
The Pentagon merry-go-round is forever spinning, and eventually — if you’re paying attention — you begin seeing the same things over and over. The Bunker is flashing back 40 years when, as a reporter-tyke, he covered President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to stuff the Defense Department like a goose being force fed for foie gras. Reagan’s effort was foie cash. Two of his key goals were to develop a “Strategic Defense Initiative” to protect the U.S. from a Soviet nuclear-missile attack, and to build a 600-ship Navy.
The Pentagon spent billions on what came to be called Star Wars before the effort was abandoned in 1991. Today, its progeny is a leaky 44-interceptor missile-defense system that provides more defense-industry jobs for American workers than protection for U.S. citizens. The Navy also spent billions on a fleet that peaked at 594 ships in 1987, double today’s force. It bought far more bang for the buck than Star Wars’ sci-fi ever did.
President Trump declared in his March 4 congressional address that he will seek “a state-of-the-art golden dome missile defense shield to protect our homeland” from all kinds of attacks. He also said he’s bolstering U.S. Navy shipbuilding through a newly created “office of shipbuilding in the White House.” There’s both bad and good news here. The first goal is physically, and fiscally, impossible. The second is a worthy investment. Here’s hoping that those now force-feeding the Pentagon can tell the difference.
Beware another pig in a poke
Generally, the Pentagon and defense contractors are allies when it comes to their pipe dreams. But that doesn’t seem to be happening when it comes to Trump’s decision to develop a “Golden Dome for America” (PDF). That’s a missile-defense shield to protect the U.S. from an array of airborne threats, including ballistic, hypersonic, and advanced cruise missiles (it was originally dubbed “Iron Dome” by Trump, apparently until someone realized that’s a trademark held by Rafael, the defense contractor who built the much more modest “Iron Dome” system defending Israel).
Trump wants an outline of such a system, including warning satellites, space-based sensors, and orbiting interceptors, to detect, track, and destroy any incoming aerial threats by, um, April 1.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know such a multi-layered system is beyond the reach of mere mortals. Even if the Pentagon could get its Missile Defense Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, U.S. Space Command and the military services to cooperate, its cost would be prohibitive. Beyond that, the shield would simply push adversaries to figure out ways around it (how quickly we forget the lessons of 9/11).
Air Force Lieutenant General Philip A. Garrant, in charge of buying weapons for the U.S. Space Force, says he’s busy determining “what might be feasible from a physics perspective.” The challenge is “no joke of a physics problem,” adds Air Force Lieutenant General Shawn W. Bratton, the Space Force’s strategy chief.
While such humility is welcome, it’s not shared by the nation’s largest defense contractor, who would undoubtedly play a major role in such dome-building. “A Golden Dome can shield our nation from aerial threats, hypersonic missiles, drone swarms, and more,” Lockheed says. “It can detect, track, and defeat threats with unprecedented speed and precision, using artificial intelligence and real-time data to outmaneuver and outpace even the most sophisticated adversaries.”
This is um, rich coming from the builder of the Air Force’s F-35 fighter, which was mission capable only 51.5% of the time last year.
At least you get something for the money
Trump’s push for more U.S. shipbuilding can only benefit the U.S. Navy. Cost overruns, schedule delays, a shrinking workforce are all hampering the Navy’s ability to produce warships. The gray hulls are the most important weapon in the Pentagon arsenal to grapple with China’s growing military might in the vast Pacific Ocean. China now has the capability to build 200 times more ship tonnage than the U.S., Navy intelligence claims.
“We used to make so many ships,” Trump told Congress. “We don’t make them anymore very much, but we’re going to make them very fast, very soon.” Typical of Trump, there are no details about how this would happen, beyond a vague reference to tax incentives.
The Navy wants to increase its fleet of crewed ships from 295 today to 390 in 2054. That’s going to take more money, and lots of it. The Navy needs about $40 billion annually for the next 30 years to build that armada, 46% more than it has spent over the past five years, the Congressional Budget Office says.
Both missile shields and a blue-water Navy are costly investments. But only one of them can play offense.
Disappearing history
The Defense Department has slated more than 26,000 images on its execrable defense.gov website for deletion because they violate the Pentagon’s DEI-seeking missive banning such content, the Associated Gulf-of-Mexico Press reported March 7. The most ridiculous excision may be to disappear references concerning the Enola Gay, the bomber that dropped the first atomic bomb (the B-29 was named for the pilot’s mother, Enola Gay Tibbets). The Pentagon has acknowledged that such bone-headed moves will likely be reversed.
But not all. A March 6 Facebook post attributed to Bobbie Scholley, a Navy diver for 22 years, said she was researching a fellow pioneer when she ran into a brick wall. “I was saddened, then angered, and finally just heartbroken when I realized that almost all the information and photos of this amazing naval officer have been erased from any official miliary or government site,” it said. “I don’t understand how this falls under DEI. All I know is that as one of the first women to become a navy diver, I and so many other women, had to work very hard to prove that we could handle what was expected of us just so that we were accepted into the community. … I don’t know why we would erase this history.”
The U.S. military’s edge over China is jeopardized by “a self-perpetuating cycle of budgetary and appropriations dysfunction,” the Ronald Reagan Institute said March 6.
U.S. B-52s have dropped live bombs for the first time in new NATO member Finland’s Lapland region, about 60 miles from the Russian border, the Barents Observer reported March 7.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.