Today at 00:13
The war in Ukraine has become a transformative moment for NATO, challenging the very foundations of the Alliance. Russia’s aggression since 2022 has pushed NATO to confront long-avoided issues—chief among them, whether the requirement for unanimous decisions remains viable in times of major geopolitical crises.
Can NATO, under the principle of “collective security,” respond swiftly and flexibly to emerging threats? And is there a possible “NATO-plus” framework that could offer Ukraine meaningful support in practice, even without granting it full membership?
Read more about this in the article by Bohdan Popov, Head of Digital at the United Ukraine Think Tank, communications specialist and public figure for The Gaze.
Firstly, Popov explains that NATO’s traditional veto power was created to safeguard the sovereignty of its member states, but during wartime, it has become more of a hindrance than a help. For example, Hungary has frequently blocked measures aimed at supporting Ukraine, citing concerns such as the insufficient protection of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine, the timing of joint statements, or domestic political reasons. According to the CER, these actions reveal how the principle of member sovereignty has effectively turned into a tool for political leverage.
At the 2023 Vilnius Summit, the idea of “adaptive unanimity” was introduced for the first time—allowing security decisions to be made by a qualified majority, such as 80%, rather than requiring full consensus. While the CER notes that the chance of formally amending NATO’s Charter is currently low, the very discussion of this alternative signals the breakdown of the traditional veto system.
This contradiction is clear: the mechanism intended to protect members failed to serve its purpose when it came to prioritizing Ukraine’s defense and deterring Russia.
Secondly, specialist argues that when formal processes reach an impasse, a new form of diplomacy begins to emerge. The CER points to the rising importance of “Coalitions of the Willing” — individual NATO members that coordinate decisions outside the official Alliance framework.
The United Kingdom and Lithuania have become leading advocates of a “NATO-plus” approach. For example, the UK signed bilateral agreements with Ukraine on air defense between 2023 and 2024, significantly boosting Ukraine’s aerial defense capabilities. Lithuania plays a crucial role in the Lublin Triangle, a trilateral alliance that allows its members to make legally binding commitments to support Ukraine without requiring formal NATO membership.
Additionally, countries like Poland, Estonia, and Romania have joined the Sky Shield initiative—a collaborative European air defense system—which, amid Russian aggression, could eventually be expanded to protect Ukrainian airspace.
Thirdly, the expert emphasizes that the NATO Summit in The Hague in June 2025 is one of the Alliance’s most important political gatherings this year, occurring amid intense external and internal pressures. The summit’s compressed “single-session” format was intended less for in-depth strategic discussions and more to demonstrate unity and determination against the escalating threats from Russia.
A central focus of the summit was a joint proposal by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and US President Donald Trump to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, with a clear split: 3.5% allocated to heavy weaponry and 1.5% to cyber defense, logistics, and military mobility. This plan had already received preliminary approval from NATO ambassadors, setting the stage for its formal political endorsement.
Nevertheless, NATO faces significant internal challenges. Spain has openly rejected the 5% target, and several Western European nations, including France, Belgium, and Italy, have expressed clear dissatisfaction with what they see as an overly “militaristic” approach.
Finally, Bohdan Popov summarizes that Ukraine has emerged not only as a catalyst for NATO’s transformation but also as a key tool in putting these changes into practice. The Alliance is shifting away from an “all-or-nothing” model toward a multi-tiered system of adaptive security guarantees. In this evolving landscape, NATO is no longer a unanimous-membership club but a flexible network of partnerships, where even non-member countries can obtain tangible support.
Read the full article by Bohdan Popov on The Gaze: NATO without Consensus: How Ukraine Is Forcing the Alliance to Rethink Itself
Read also: Steel Without Silicon: Can Russia’s Defense Industry Survive Modern War?
