In Conversation with Amb. Vershbow: Understanding the US Role in NATO

The following conversation has been edited for clarity. You can listen to the conversation here.  Rick Landgraf: With me today is Alexander Vershbow who served as the Deputy Secretary General of NATO from 2012 to 2016, the US Ambassador to Russia from 2001 to 2005, and the US Ambassador to NATO from 1997 to 2001. Sandy, welcome to the show. First, I'd like to ask you a little bit about your background and how you became interested in public service, foreign policy, and international security issues. Alexander Vershbow: That's one of these classic cases of one thing leading to another without any master plan. I was always interested in international affairs growing up. I remember my parents putting on the TV at dinnertime during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But I think it was my interest in foreign languages that was the most important thing. I took Russian in high school and put Russian Studies as my intended college major at Yale, and I actually did that. So I learned a lot about Russia during the late part of the Cold War and kind of got a sense of how interesting it would be to work abroad and to be part of the foreign policy machinery of the United States. So I took the foreign service exam after getting my degree, a Master's degree at Columbia, joined the service six months later, and the rest is history. RL: You have a unique perspective because you've served in a variety of roles, diplomatic roles, ambassador to NATO, later ambassador to Russia, and then ultimately the Deputy NATO Secretary General. But on a more fundamental level and how you see it, why is NATO so important for US national security? AV: Well, I think the short answer is NATO is important because Europe is still very important to our security and our interests. NATO is indispensable to maintaining the security and stability and freedom of our allies. We've been hearing a lot this year when NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary, how it's the most successful alliance in human history. But there have also been skeptical voices who've been asking whether it's time for NATO to take a dignified retirement. I think my time serving at NATO, I was the Deputy Chief of Mission, then the ambassador in the late nineties, and back as the Deputy Secretary General, including the time of the first Russian aggression against Ukraine. I've come to be convinced that NATO is really the indispensable alliance for the United States and for its other members. And it is so important because it works. People always say you have too many members to ever reach consensus on on anything, but in fact, because NATO is of such existential importance to to member states, they have a kind of  first imperative always in the back of their minds that there has to be a consensus of NATO, it’s too important to fail. NATO's original mission, of course, deterring Russian aggression during the Cold War, was fulfilled. But now we're facing an aggressive Russia yet again. NATO has been adaptable in other ways, adopting crisis management as a mission and putting out the civil wars in the Balkans in Bosnia and Kosovo. It took on the War on Terror after 9/11. And of course, the United States was the first beneficiary of NATO's Article 5, when it was the one and only time that our allies invoked Article 5 to counter the attacks of 9/11. So NATO is important in many different ways. I think that even though it's 75 years, you would think it's time for the gold watch. I think it shows its flexibility and adaptability in many ways, and of course the number one crisis of the day is Russia's war in Ukraine. Here, too, I think we've seen—after some hesitation and even some denial at just how serious the threat was—I think NATO is now more unified than ever, recognizing that if Russia gets away with annexing somebody else's territory by force and continues to seek to overturn the results of the Cold War, it will create a much more dangerous world for all of us.  And that's why I think that NATO has surprised Mr. Putin in its unity and its resolve in helping Ukraine to resist Russian aggression and adopted the US line that we're going to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. At the summit, there'll be a lot of attention to the Ukraine fight and what's the next step that we should be taking. I think what's been missing in the US and NATO approach thus far has been the lack of a coherent strategy for victory by Ukraine in this war. And I'm hoping that the summit in Washington NATO will agree on some additional measures of military support to Ukraine. At the same time, we'll take steps to put Ukraine on a clearer path to NATO membership so that we can send the signal to Putin that we're in this for the long haul. We're not gonna lose patience or abandon Ukraine. On the contrary, if we give Ukraine sufficient support, it will be able to regain the initiative on the ground and defeat Russia. So sooner or later, Putin will have to accept the reality and he will need to pursue a fair negotiated solution rather than the kind that he's been offering since the invasion began in 2022. RL: Y ou mentioned why NATO is important for US national security. And one of the cornerstones, of course, of the NATO charter is Article 5, the mutual defense pledge: If one ally is attacked, all other allies will respond in defense of that ally. But on a more basic level, in light of the presidential election in a few months, why should your average American voter, whether they're in Philadelphia or Phoenix, care about Europe and care about small countries in Europe? For example, the Baltic states, which a lot of the observers have said over the years are indefensible: Why should the average American voter care about security in far-flung places such as the Baltic States or other smaller NATO allies? AV: Well, first of all, Article 5 is indeed kind of the linchpin of NATO, the most solemn fundamental commitment that Allies accept when they become members of the Alliance. The commitment to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. I think this, together with the strong capabilities that Allies deploy, creates a strong deterrent against aggression by Russia or any other state. If we want to prevent war and not have to face the same disintegration of the European security system that we saw after World War I, then it's important for the US to stay engaged and remember the lessons of history. That's why keeping NATO strong is in our interest in avoiding a much more costly direct intervention down the road if Russia were to attack.  And at the same time we are protecting our political and economic interests because Europe is our biggest trading partner.Security is the key to keeping investments and trade flows going. Without security in Europe our economy would be damaged too. So I think that's a very important reason to continue to support NATO and continue to provide the military capabilities to keep it strong and keep the deterrence credible. And of course, what happened in Ukraine made clear that what we were hoping after the end of the Cold War—that we would be able to develop a Europe whole and free with Russia as a partner, which was something we'd made a lot of progress on actually in the ‘90s—but after Mr. Putin came to power, he revealed his true colors after a few years that he was interested in rolling back a lot of the changes at the end of the Cold War and reestablishing a new version of the Russian Empire. Soviet Union light, I sometimes like to call it.