The speakers emphasised that defence spending has been increasing significantly in recent years, but there is still a debate about when member states should reach the agreed financial commitments. Although some states have already committed to the ambitious goal of allocating 5% of their GDP to defence, others have not yet decided on this. The uncertainty regarding the status of Ukraine in NATO documents was also mentioned – some countries are still wary of explicit references to Ukraine, fearing a possible Russian reaction.
Speakers positively assessed that a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council will be held at the Hague summit, in which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will also participate. This is considered an important sign, but at the same time, it was acknowledged that the general mood regarding Ukraine’s membership in NATO remains uncertain, and some decisions send a weak symbolic message. The coordination of allies and the role of the United States, and the participation of the US President in the summit, were identified as very important factors for the success of the entire event. Regret was also expressed that the President of Ukraine would not be admitted to the main meetings.
The significance of China and the Indo-Pacific partners (the so-called IP4) was also discussed. Although the Chinese threat will not be explicitly mentioned in NATO declarations, strengthening ties with the countries of this region shows the Alliance’s efforts to expand strategic partnerships beyond the transatlantic region. The topic of the deployment of US military forces in Europe was touched upon in the discussion. Although there is currently no official information about the changes, it was noted that Lithuania is actively expanding its infrastructure and is integrated into long-term defence plans. The assessment of Lithuania’s contribution from the US side was also highlighted.
The geopolitical situation in the Middle East and how the Israeli-Iranian conflict may affect NATO’s priorities and attention to Ukraine was considered. It was emphasised that although the crises in the region occupy a lot of media attention, strategic commitments to Ukraine should not be forgotten. It was noted that US actions in the region can also influence Russia’s behaviour.
Symbolic diplomatic gestures, such as visits to Belarus or public statements in the media, were also discussed. It was recognised that although the public narrative is important, the practical impact of such steps is often limited.
At the end of the discussion, it was emphasised that there is a certain “fatigue” from the topic of war in the public space; therefore, it is important to talk not only about principles, but also about specific commitments and action plans. Lithuania actively participates in coordinating the development of capabilities, and real indicators of defence spending and capabilities make us feel more confident. The conversation revealed both the directions of NATO strengthening and the challenges regarding the coordination of allies, strategic communication and public involvement in security issues.
