Weekend Update #139: The NATO "Daddy" Summit And The Martyrdom Of Ukraine

Ukraine Needs Air Defense Now; Is The Russian Summer Offensive “Failing”?

Hello All,

First off, some apologies. Mykola Bielieskov and I were set to record a podcast on Friday, but we were unable to do so because of the intense Russian air attacks on Ukraine Thursday night/Friday morning. We very much hope to do so this week. Mykola was more gutted than I was, as he has a very important story to relate about the state of the war. So we hopefully will do this soon.

At the same time that Ukrainians were getting relentlessly bombarded at night, NATO leaders, at their annual summit in The Hague, were involved in an festival of self-congratulation and massage giving. They signed a deal (which will not have to be fulfilled by those in power except in exceptional circumstances), they saw Trump make some meaningless (and quickly forgotten) statements about possibly/maybe/perhaps helping Ukraine, and they went about their business like little has changed. Their collective statement on Ukraine was actually a significant step back from what has been said before—representing a defeat for Europe. Oh, and the NATO Secretary General called Trump “Daddy”, which has caused widespread glee in Trump supporters. You can even buy this T-Shirt now if you want.

On the ground the Ukrainians claimed to have stopped the Russian summer offensive—which is probably a little dramatic, but shows how limited the Russian advances have been so far.

The NATO "Daddy" Summit And The Martyrdom Of Ukraine

NATO has become a vehicle for European states to try and woo/pledge loyalty to Donald Trump. NATO is, sadly, now a vehicle to slow down serious progress towards any European strategic autonomy. European states, through NATO, seem to think if Trump smiles and says nice things, that he will have the USA fight for them (which remains decidedly unsure) and as such they could downgrade public support for Ukraine.

Obviously a great deal of attention was paid to the extremely unctuous language that NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte used when speaking to and about Donald Trump. He wrote Trump a cringeworthy message before the start of the conference (using an all-caps like Trump-language) which slathered Trump in praise for the as of yet unknown results of the US president’s decision to attack Iran.

“Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.”

At the summit itself, Rutte got stuck into Trump-praising with even more gusto, referring to the US president as a “daddy” who has to keep unruly children in line. Trump himself loved the line, remarking on it with pride. “He (Rutte) did it very affectionately. ‘Daddy, you’re my daddy.’”

I won’t go into this in much detail now, but I believe this language is disastrous in two ways. In the first place, it actually will embolden Trump to do what he wants, it will not get concessions from him, and, second it is damaging to Europe’s view of itself. Europe is 20 percent of the world economy, half a billion people, etc—it needs to have more self respect than this. Trump, btw, used all the praise to demean Rutte (and through that the Europeans) when he got back, as the White House actually released a “Daddy’s Home” homage. What Europeans don’t seem to get is that this is Trump ridiculing them for being subservient.

Trump repaid all the flattery as he usually does—by throwing the Europeans some compliments which he then quickly forgets/doesnt follow up. People got all excited because Trump seemed to consider restarting US military aid for Ukraine. When asked about the matter he said: “We’ll see what happens,”.

When asked specifically if he would make more desperately needed Patriot batteries/missiles available, he said: “We’re going to see if we can make some available”.

And guess, what he has returned to US three days ago, and there has been no more about this. Maybe we will have to wait for two weeks….

However, perhaps the most depressing thing was how the Europeans actually downgraded Ukraine in the official NATO communique—a true sign that they are dancing to Trump’s tune. There was absolutely no mention of Ukraine ever joining NATO, and indeed no mention of NATO itself helping Ukraine. Instead, the statement was very clear that NATO would have nothing formally to do to help Ukraine, but would leave any aid up to the individual sovereign states.

Here was the one sentence on Ukraine—which basically says Ukraine is not a NATO issue, its up to the sovereign states if they want to help.

Allies reaffirm their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine, whose security contributes to ours, and, to this end, will include direct contributions towards Ukraine’s defence and its defence industry when calculating Allies’ defence spending.

That was it. Even the mealy mouthed phrase about how Ukraine’s security “contributes” to others was an extraordinary row-back from the 2024 summit. Instead of the two mentions of Ukraine in the 2025 communique (both in the quote above) there were 67 in the 2024 statement—and they were more robust and future directed. Just a few examples from 2024 include:

We reaffirm our unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine in the heroic defence of their nation, their land, and our shared values. A strong, independent, and democratic Ukraine is vital for the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area. Ukraine’s fight for its independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders directly contributes to Euro-Atlantic security.

and

Ukraine’s future is in NATO. Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance. We welcome the concrete progress Ukraine has made since the Vilnius Summit on its required democratic, economic, and security reforms. As Ukraine continues this vital work, we will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.

In other words—as Ukrainian success in this war is becoming more and more vital to Europe (as the US is withdrawing), European leaders are agreeing to walk back their NATO commitments to Ukraine. For this reason alone, the summit was a failure.

And guess what—Trump did not say that the US would actually fight for Europe in case of war with Russia. His statements about this issue show how easy it is for him to say nothing specific, and people will read into it what they want. At his most pro-NATO, his final press conference, he was pressed on whether the US would fight for Europeans in case of Russian invasion, etc. His specific words were that he might “help”. Though it was all wrapped up in typical waffle.

“They want to protect their country, and they need the United States, and without the United States, it’s not going to be the same…I left there saying that these people really love their countries. It’s not a rip off. And we’re here to help them protect their country,”

And going into the summit he was even clearer about how little he really cares about defending Europe from Russia. When asked about Article 5 on the plane flight to The Hague, he basically said it had no meaning but he wanted to be “friends” (with or without benefits its hard to say).

“There’s numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right?” “But I’m committed to being their friends, you know, I’ve become friends with many of those leaders, and I’m committed to helping them.”

So this summit shows that Europeans now are still desperately currying favor with the USA (in a self-defeating way) instead of looking after their own interests and prioritizing Ukraine. And this lack of awareness of what really matters means that the immediacy to help Ukraine in the vital area of air defense is not being met.

And the sad thing is that instead of playing the weak child—Europe has some very strong cards to play with Trump. In particular, the US is keen for Europeans to continue buying US weapons (they seem to have panicked a little when they realized that in pressing for more European defense spending they might encourage the Europeans to develop their own defense industries more). Europeans could easily make offers to buy US weapons on the pledge that the US will also sell Patriots to Ukraine. It could be a very effective strategy—but it means that they would have to use some pressure on the USA. Little children do not do that.

In desperately trying to appease Trump, Europe has lost focus, and the results will be more Ukrainian dead.

Ukraine Needs Air Defense Now

One thing that actually made Trump’s statements about “considering” more Patriots for Ukraine so pernicious, is that Ukraine is running out—and the Russians know it and are counting on the US and Europe not to do too much about it. Trump certainly does not seem to be following up his pledge to think about this issue very quickly, but almost every night Ukrainian cities are getting hit by Russian missiles and swarms of Shahed drones. The attacks are going on, in mass, for hours at a time—and more and more of the attacking systems are getting through.

Last night was typical. There was another mass Russian UAV/Missile attack, this time targeting cities other than Kyiv—from Lviv in the far west to Zaporizhzhia near to the Front.

Its indicative of how Russian attacks have gone up in numbers significantly (and killed more Ukrainians before) in May and June. And this is only to be predicted to rise as Russian production of missiles and UAVs continues.

If Ukraine’s partners really cared about Ukraine, they would be straining every sinew to help in the Ukrainian bolster their air defense—not slapping Trump on the back while he continues to deny Ukraine aid in this area.

And, things are going to get worse soon, one imagines, as Ukraine’s stocks of Patriots continue to dwindle. It reveals the hollowness behind much of Europe’s support for Ukraine. Trump is avowedly pro-Putin in his outlook, but Europeans claim Ukrainians are their fellows, people with a European identity and European future.

Its just a shame that more is not being done to keep them from dying as they protect the rest of the continent.

Is The Russian Summer Offensive “Failing”?

This week General Syrskyi made an interesting comment about the state of the Russian Summer Offensive—which has been going on for approximately two months now. He said that the offensive was overall “failing” and that the Ukrainians had stopped, for instance, the Russian invasion just over the border into Sumy Oblast. Indeed, he went even further there, and claimed that the Russian advances into Sumy were collapsing.

The defense of Sumy region is currently one of our key priorities. Based on May–June developments, it’s clear that this year’s wave of attempted Russian offensive actions from across the border is collapsing, just like last year’s failed assault on Kharkiv region.

That is quite a bold claim (and I am sure there are linguistic nuances in translation that are being missed). It certainly is rather early in the summer to say that the offensives have been defeated.

Its worth noting that two days later, Syrskyi also claimed that the Russians have built up a force of 110,000 soldiers around Pokrovsk—which if true would be a very sizable force indeed.

It would also represent something remarkable—as Pokrovsk was pronounced practically doomed by the analytical community almost 11 months ago. If the Russians still need to mass 110,000 troops to take a city that they were supposed to take more than a year ago, it would represent one of the most futile military endeavors in modern history.

So what seems to be happening? Well, actually little has changed. The Russians are still attacking a great deal, but their advances seem to have slowed (and in some places stopped) for now. In Sumy, for instance, the only change this week was a small Ukrainian counterattack that retook a small piece of land (the blue spot in the middle/left of the map).

Around Pokrovsk there was no change at all.

And yet I feel distinctly queasy when discussing the idea of failure with the present tempo of operations. As former Ukrainian defense minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk said in an interview with me this week—the Russian summer offensive is ongoing, its just difficult to see any sort of significant change.

We do not expect the Russians to be able to make any strategic breakthroughs. The Russian summer offensive is ongoing in our estimation and they are able to make “slight” gains in places such as Sumy and Donbas. However, we do not assess that the Russians have the ability to substantially change the situation.

Where the Russians have made some of their small advances, we generally believe it was down to finding a place where we did not have enough drones. As we scale up UAV production, this will hopefully happen less and less.

Btw, I would really urge you to read the whole interview—its a well expressed and level-headed analysis of where the war is at present.

An Interview With Andriy Zagorodnyuk

I certainly would not use the words “failure” or “culminate” in terms of the Russian offensive. It will keep going, probably for months, because of the disparate and drip-feeding way the attacks need to me to have any chance in an environment with such effective defensive firepower. In some ways, Russia has been on one continuous offensive over the last year and a half, with regular attacks that hardly stop.

It actually is not a recipe for success on the battlefield—though it is one for high losses. Its another reason the way Ukraine is now being prepared to have a horrible time in air defense is so stupid. If Ukrainian cities were better protected, it would actually free up the Ukrainians to take advantage of these losses.

Have a good rest of the weekend everyone.