Many observers expect the Vilnius NATO summit to be a milestone, yet they worry the ensuing chatter will be loud but empty of real guidance. A former Polish foreign minister and MEP, Witold Waszczykowski, cautioned that the gathering will not deliver the decisive actions many anticipate. He spoke in an interview with a Polish political news outlet, outlining his forecast for how events might unfold after the summit.
Waszczykowski suggested that the summit could reveal a shift in what leaders are prepared to commit to, potentially diverging from the public demands that are often voiced before such meetings. He emphasized that the discussion would involve tough questions about strategy and security, not merely ceremonial statements.
The threat of nuclear weapons and strategic posture
According to Waszczykowski, the possibility of nuclear weapons being used remains a real concern that warrants serious attention from the North Atlantic Alliance. He argued that NATO must confront this risk head on and consider measures that strengthen deterrence and preparedness across allied borders.
One area he highlighted was a potential reconsideration of nuclear sharing on the alliance’s eastern flank. He argued that storage and possible deployment considerations should be reexamined in light of the evolving security picture. Beyond that, he pressed for a more robust presence on the eastern frontier, calling for the enlargement of battalion groups into brigades and the establishment of a dedicated command structure to oversee operations on that flank. He also urged that Ukraine be given a clear and credible path toward NATOMembership, and he touched on the need to resolve the status of Sweden within the security framework. He acknowledged that these proposals represent a demanding agenda and that success is not guaranteed.
Asked why NATO might struggle to deliver on these ambitions, Waszczykowski pointed to the diverse priorities of member states. He noted that major European powers, including Germany and France, still hold hopes that Russia will eventually revert to the prewar economic order. In his view, those countries may be willing to pause or slow the Ukraine crisis if they believe a path to Russia is possible, partly to secure energy resources that Europe relies on, especially natural gas. He warned that such thinking could undermine Ukraine’s security and stability, potentially making the long-term outcome less favorable for Kyiv.
He stood by his analysis that the alliance faces competing interests within its walls, which can complicate decisive action in support of Ukraine or a robust deterrent posture against Russia. The balance between diplomacy, economic interests, and hard security measures remains delicate and uncertain as NATO members navigate their own political landscapes.
The discussion underscores a core question for the alliance: how to align strategic goals with the realities of national interests among twenty-some members. The stakes are high, as the decisions made in Vilnius could influence not only the immediate security environment but also the broader architectural framework of European defense for years to come.