Ukraine–NATO: Defense Cooperation Instead of Membership

The main outcome of the NATO Summit for Ukraine was the establishment of a new integration format: incorporating Ukraine into Europe’s security system through the defense industry.

This topic and the broader implications of the recent “12-day war” between Israel and Iran were discussed by Volodymyr Solovian, Head of the Hybrid Warfare Analysis Group at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, on 5 Kanal.

Below is the full text version of the interview:

At the 2025 Hague NATO Summit important decisions were made regarding the increase in defense spending. In the run-up to the summit, Western media wrote that the Alliance was facing one of the deepest crises in its 75-year history. In your opinion, did this year’s summit show that NATO can overcome internal divisions?

In my view, the NATO summit did not dispel concerns about the lack of understanding among European societies regarding the spectrum of threats arising from Russian aggression. This is particularly evident in Southern Europe – most citizens in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece oppose significant increases in defense budgets, as they do not perceive Russia as a direct threat. This creates political risks for implementing the summit’s decisions

Despite strong statements made by European leaders, in some countries the initiative to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP over the next decade is viewed as a temporary measure – a way to “wait out” the Trump administration. However, the Russian threat is not just about Ukraine; it’s a challenge to the entire European continent. The recent blackouts in Spain and Portugal showed that security is the foundation for civilian development. In this context, a comprehensive approach is needed: to develop Europe’s defense industry, create joint platforms for arms production, and continuously engage with the public to explain the link between investment in security and overall prosperity.

How do these dynamics affect support for Ukraine? Can we leverage the situation to our advantage?

During the summit, President Zelenskyy emphasized the importance of further investment in Ukraine’s defense industrial base. Unfortunately, European arms producers are still not ready to scale up production significantly. This is mainly due to their dependence on non-EU technologies. Another major factor is the uncertainty about the types of weapons that will be most relevant for deterring Russia in the coming phase. The evolving tactics of the Russia-Ukraine war are shifting state priorities in defense procurement.

As a result, many European defense manufacturers are taking a “wait-and-see” approach regarding the production of high-tech and expensive weapons. Against this backdrop, it is more politically “comfortable” for some Western European governments to provide Ukraine with financial support to expand its own defense production. On the one hand, these expenditures can be counted toward their NATO commitments. On the other, this approach helps avoid electoral risks tied to narratives about the “militarization” of Europe – particularly relevant for center-left governments, where pacifist attitudes are traditionally strong. (For example, ahead of the summit, Spain’s Prime Minister publicly criticized the proposal to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP.)

Still, this is only a temporary decision. In the long run, it is essential for Ukraine’s defense industry to be integrated into European production chains. This would create interdependence and increase European countries’ interest in Ukraine’s security. So, while NATO may not be ready for Ukraine’s full membership, integration at the defense industry level could become a critical pillar of the European security architecture.

Let’s shift to another topic – the Iran-Israel conflict. How are events unfolding, and is this drawing international attention away from Ukraine?

Indeed, the Iran-Israel conflict has dominated global headlines in recent weeks, mainly due to the potential nuclear threat. However, the course of the 12-day war demonstrated that the U.S. is not interested in a prolonged confrontation. For Donald Trump, it is especially important to avoid being drawn into a long campaign, given the criticism from the isolationist wing of the MAGA movement. Ultimately, such a scenario also contradicts his personal views on America’s global role. That’s why Trump is actively promoting a diplomatic solution, although at this point, these efforts resemble diplomacy via social media.

The primary threat for Ukraine was the possibility of Russia being involved in receiving stocks of enriched Iranian uranium. This scenario had been previously discussed, given the allied ties between Tehran and Moscow and the Kremlin’s active communication with the White House. Had this option been realized, with some quantity of Iranian-origin uranium transferred to Russia, Putin would have acquired a levarage to pressure both the U.S. and Israel.

Fortunately, such steps have not occurred. On the contrary, Trump has demonstratively distanced from the Kremlin’s attempts to impose mediation. Still, one crucial question remains open – what will happen to the enriched uranium that survived the joint U.S.-Israeli operation? If those stocks remain in Iran, reliable monitoring will be essential, especially as Tehran continues to reduce cooperation with the IAEA. So, even if the active phase of the conflict subsides temporarily, in my opinion, it’s too early to speak of eliminating the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program.

Can Russia exploit this situation to influence the West?

As usual, the Kremlin positions itself as a mediator. In the Iranian case, Russian leadership clearly failed in this role. However, Moscow may still act through other channels of influence, for example, by promoting the sale of energy resources via American intermediaries. Lobbyists promoting such schemes are active on both sides of the Atlantic.

However, the EU leadership resists such scenario, understanding that implementing these business projects would amount to directly funding Russia’s war machine that targets Europe. Thus, Ukraine must intensify its informational efforts, reminding Western European societies that you don’t need to be Russia’s geographical neighbor to come under attack – whether in hybrid or even conventional form – whether through hybrid tactics or conventional warfare. It is essential to emphasize that the Russian threat is not limited to Eastern Europe; it affects the entire Euro-Atlantic community.