Today, Explained - NATO to Ukraine: Not yet

Episode Date: July 11, 2023

President Biden and other world leaders say it’s too dangerous to admit Ukraine into NATO while it’s at war with Russia. But, to the dismay of allies, the US will send cluster bombs to the front. This episode was produced by Avishay Artsy, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard with help from Amanda Lewellyn and Hady Mawajdeh, engineered by Patrick Boyd, and hosted by Noel King. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a photo taken a few hours ago at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, leaders of the Western world stand together on a stage. Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is not in that picture. He'd really like to be, but NATO has not invited Ukraine to join yet. Zelensky's on his way to the summit anyway. He tweeted today that it is unprecedented and absurd that Ukraine hasn't been given a timeline for when it may be able to join NATO. And he ended saying this, uncertainty is weakness, and I will openly discuss this at the summit. Even without the vow of verbal confrontation, all eyes were going to be on Zelensky. Russia's invasion of his country is forcing the NATO alliance over the next two days to confront how far it's going to go to help Ukraine. Some things,

immediate membership, are off the table. Others, including a catastrophically dangerous weapon, are suddenly in play. That's all ahead on Today Explained. BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the

next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns

about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. It's Today Explained. Felicia Schwartz is the U.S. Foreign Affairs and Defense Correspondent for the Financial Times, and I reached her in Lithuania. I am in Vilnius here to cover the NATO summit this week. What's your impression of Vilnius? Well, it's very sleepy right now because it seems like they've closed off a lot of the roads ahead of Biden's arrival. I am seeing lots of Ukrainian, NATO, and Lithuanian flags. Saw some posters with a big middle finger to Putin and the F-bomb.

I'm guessing this is a family show, so I won't curse. But there's a lot of pro-Ukrainian sentiment here. The 31 members of NATO meet once a year to discuss policy priorities, spending commitments. Typically, it's not anything that's very exciting, but... But of course, you know, since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, these summits have taken on a different tone because we've got war in Europe for the first time this century or what, insert whatever superlative you'd like here. So this year, there are two big questions hovering over this meeting. One is what kind of language will the alliance offer to Ukraine on membership, which is its aspiration, and Ukraine sees as a

critical need to deter and defend against Russia? And then separately, but relatedly, what will be the fate of Sweden's bid to enter the alliance? The fate of Sweden's bid to enter the alliance became clearer after we talked to Felicia yesterday. Turkey, which had been standing in the way, backed down at the last minute, which all but ensures Sweden's entrance into NATO. And so the focus again turns back to Ukraine. I think there's quite a big debate among the allies. No one is saying that Ukraine will join this week. It's generally NATO's policy that a country with an active conflict wouldn't join.

So the debate is really more about what kind of language, assurances, guarantees, pathway is one word that some want to use and others don't. But what can the alliance offer to Ukraine in a nod to its aspirations for membership? And the reason that a country at war generally can't join NATO is because if it did, all of the members of NATO would have to go to war alongside it. Is that right? Yeah, pretty much. Article 5 of the NATO charter stipulates that all of the members will come to the defense of each other if one is invaded. So the second you would admit a country at war like Ukraine into the alliance,

that would sort of automatically draw in all 31 other countries into this conflict. And President Biden all along has been very clear that, you know, the number one goal for the U.S. is not to draw the U.S. and NATO by extension into war with Russia. We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. Direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent. Ukraine has wanted to be part of NATO for a long time, even before this war started. So it's not just about getting allies who can help us fight.

Why does Ukraine want to be in NATO so badly? Well, basically, Ukraine, when it gave up its nuclear weapons as part of the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a Budapest memorandum where basically the U.S. and other allies agreed to protect Ukraine's security. But without nuclear weapons, they feel like they've had no deterrent from Russia. The U.S., the U.K. and Russia were at the heart of these talks, convincing Ukraine to return the nukes to Russia. And in 1994, those four countries signed what is now known as the Budapest Memorandum. They promised that none of those nations would use force or threats against Ukraine,

and they promised to respect their sovereignty and existing borders. So joining NATO means, you know, coming under the cover of the nuclear umbrella of the U.S. and its allies. They point to what happened in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea and, of course, the full-scale invasion in 2022. That, you know, just empty promises from the U.S. and other powers are not enough to fend off Russia. And Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it very clear that he doesn't think that Ukraine is a real country. I think that the best kind of analysis from the U.S. intelligence services and allied intelligence services is that Putin saw real opportunity to take advantage of what he saw as a weak landscape to go in. And he didn't think that the world would put up too much of a

fuss, that he could wait the world out. And so for Ukraine, they really feel like the kind of joint protection of this massive alliance is all that will really fend Putin off and Russia off, whoever controls Russia. We understand that while the war is ongoing, we can't become a member of NATO. However, we need to be sure that after the war, we will become a member. That's the signal we want to get, that after the war, Ukraine will become a NATO member. Let's take us back again before the war, because obviously right now there is a very good reason why NATO member states would not want to let Ukraine in. Nobody wants to join Ukraine in this war.

Before the war started, how did NATO member states feel about letting Ukraine in? So NATO has an open door policy, which means if all the members consent, then any country can join. I think that when the U.S. and its allies picked up on the fact that Russia was going to invade, the U.S. and others tried to enter talks with Russia, trying to allay some of Russia's fears about Ukraine's NATO aspirations. So this has been always a red line to Russia that the West has understood. And while there are plenty who want to see Ukraine and NATO eventually, there was some openness to talking about this. But also putting that aside, there are, when I talk to American and European officials about this and NATO officials, they say there are, and Biden actually said this in a CNN interview pretty strongly that he gave over the weekend, there are democratic and good governance standards and things that need to happen before any country

could enter NATO. And I think there's a feeling that Ukraine is not yet there. NATO is a process that takes some time to meet all the qualifications, and from democratization to a whole range of other issues. He basically said when he was asked over the weekend about does he want to see Ukraine join NATO, he pointed to basically reforms that any country, and Ukraine in particular, would need to make to enter the alliance. This is basically instituting good governance, making sure that it's a democracy that operates in accordance with kind of international standards. But basically the subtext there is that the U.S. and its allies don't want to let in another like Orban or Erdogan or a Turkey or a Hungary

that plays spoiler in the alliance and that isn't really a democracy that's functioning well. So basically they want to see Ukraine make some reforms, which Ukraine is certainly like working on doing and says they're committed to doing. We are now a country that is respected, a country that is really fighting for human values, for human rights, for freedom, for democracy. And everyone has already understood that it is exactly such a country. But I think for the U.S. and for its partners, it's hard to talk about NATO membership for a country where it's really very uncertain at this point when the war will end and what that end will look like and who will be in power. Certainly, Zelensky has a lot of support and he's a heroic and iconic figure who is really beloved by the West. But I think that there is also Biden and his partners and those in government and those that he talks to, like, understand that it's going to be probably a long road to admit a country that's under the current circumstances.

How likely is it, Felicia, that Ukraine will be admitted to NATO? I guess it depends on the time horizon. How likely is it, Felicia, that Ukraine will be admitted to NATO? I guess it depends on the time horizon. If your question is how likely is it will Ukraine be admitted this week, I would say the chance is zero. How likely is it that Ukraine will be admitted ever? I think it's not impossible. I think it will take some time. I think what we are covering this week and looking to see is what kind of agreement can the 31 members of NATO come to on some sort of language that is satisfying for Ukraine's future aspirations, but also gets at these concerns that countries like the U.S. and Germany and others have about, on the one hand, not letting in any member that's not ready, but also not creating any sort of glide path that might create Article 5 requirements for the alliance that they're not

really interested in pursuing. I cover the U.S., so I'm thinking about their view, but that's not the only view in the alliance. I think what we will see and what we've been reporting on is Biden and also Macron and others have talked about these Israeli-style security commitments for Ukraine. The United States would be ready to provide, while the process was going on, and it's going to take a while,

while that process was going on, and it's going to take a while, while that process was going on, to provide security a la the security we provide for Israel, providing the weaponry, the needs, the capacity to defend themselves if there is an agreement, if there is a ceasefire, if there is a peace agreement. I think we will see that the U.S. and its allies are working on pledging some sort of commitment for Ukraine to at least maintain sufficient military capabilities to deter and defend against Russia for the long term. There will probably be a bunch of bilateral pledges of different dollar amounts and longer term commitments that signal to Putin and to Russia and to anyone who has doubts that the West is here for the long haul and they're committed to making sure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself. That was Felicia Schwartz of the Financial Times. One of the ways in which the U.S. is making sure Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself is by sending a type of weapon called a cluster munition or a cluster bomb. The U.S. just agreed to this about a week ago, and it has horrified even some countries that are allies of both the U.S. and Ukraine.

After the break, we're going to explain why. And we're going to hear from a reporter who's seen up close what makes cluster munitions so dangerous and why so many countries have outright banned them. Thank you. They were named the number one digital photo frame by Wirecutter. Aura frames make it easy to share unlimited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame. When you give an aura frame as a gift, you can personalize it. You can preload it with a thoughtful message, maybe your favorite photos. Our colleague Andrew tried an aura frame for himself. So setup was super simple. In my case, we were celebrating my grandmother's birthday. And she's very fortunate.

She's got 10 grandkids. And so we wanted to surprise her with the AuraFrame. And because she's a little bit older, it was just easier for us to source all the images together and have them uploaded to the frame itself. And because we're all connected over text message, it was just so easy to send a link to everybody. You can save on the perfect gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carvermat frames with promo code EXPLAINED at checkout.

That's A-U-R-A-Frames.com, promo code EXPLAINED. This deal is exclusive to listeners and available just in time for the holidays. Terms and conditions do apply. The all-new FanDuel Sportsbook and Casino is bringing you more action than ever. Want more ways to follow your faves? Check out our new player prop tracking with real-time notifications. Or how about more ways to customize your casino page

with our new favorite and recently played games tabs. And to top it all off, quick and secure withdrawals. Get more everything with FanDuel Sportsbook and Casino. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600. Visit connectsontario.ca. Matt, go ahead and start by giving me your full name and tell me what you do. My name is Matthew Akins, and I'm a contributing writer at the New York Times Magazine and a fellow at Type Media Center. And I'm the author of a book called The Naked Don't Fear the Water, An Underground Journey with Afghan Refugees.

Matthew Akins covers conflict, and in the course of his coverage of conflict, he's reported from Yemen on exactly what cluster munitions do, not just to combatants on a battlefield, but also to civilians. So a cluster munition is basically a container, a casing, and it contains dozens or more than 100 little bombs inside of it. And so this is either dropped from a plane or fired from an artillery gun, and it bursts open in the air and then spreads this rain of explosives over a wide area below. So if you were targeted by one of these, you'd basically have explosives raining down on you. How long have cluster bombs been used on the battlefield? Well, they were used in World War II. They've been used in many conflicts since then. The U.S. used them during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. And although that was the last time the U.S. military used them,

weapons that the U.S. has made and transferred to allies have been used on the battlefield since then. Why did the U.S. stop using them? Well, these weapons are very controversial. And the reason is that these little bombs that rain from them don't always explode. They lie in the ground and they almost become like landmines. And as a result, they can quite easily injure or kill civilians, sometimes for years or even decades after the conflict has ended. Cluster bombs have gained a reputation for killing and injuring civilians, especially children who come across the smaller explosives or bomblets that fail to initially detonate after being dropped. Because there's so many of these little bomblets, as

they're called, within a cluster bomb, inevitably some of them are going to go off, even if you have a low failure rate. So at one point, the failure rate was about 20 percent, then it was six percent, but we understand now, according to the U.S., it's 2%, but we don't know the evidence for that. So because of the danger they pose to innocent people, these weapons are very controversial, and a lot of countries have banned them outright. How many countries have banned them? You have 123 countries that have signed up to this convention against cluster bombs, but the U.S. is not among them. So the U.S. reserves the right to use them, though they don't currently, which again is controversial because a lot of people think

these weapons should not be used. And it's a bad example for the U.S. not to be part of this treaty. And in this case, they're now transferring these weapons to Ukraine. When you were reporting in Yemen, tell me what you saw and who you talked to. I went to Yemen in 2015 when the country was being bombed by the Saudi-led coalition. And we went to northern Yemen, which had been basically declared a military free-fire zone by the Saudis. So we're here in Saada City, which is the capital of Saada governorate in northern Yemen. It's the stronghold of Ansar Allah, better known as the Houthis, and it's been a scene of intense border warfare between Ansar Allah and Saudi Arabia.

And we documented these US-made cluster bombs being used against civilian targets. Saudi Arabia declared the entire governorate to be a military zone, and that anything inside of it, you know, including the almost a million people who lived here, was now a valid military target, which I guess would include us. Because cluster bombs, they hit a wide area. They're also likely to harm civilians who are in the area. So they're not very easy to target. They're not really precision weapons in that sense.

So this is the site of a strike on a gas station. So happened was in the afternoon a bomb hit this gas station and there were obviously a bunch of cars and people queued up for gasoline. They say that 19 people were killed but only eight of them were recognizable because their bodies had been so badly burned. And so we saw schools and mosques, villages, gas stations targeted and witnessed, you know, firsthand the toll of these. We saw people, children coming in, missing limbs, dead. There were 51 people killed, 37 of them, to a list that they showed me were women and children. What happened was that there was a strike on one of these houses here in the afternoon and then as people were gathering to try to rescue and take people out of the rubble,

more bombs or rockets came in and killed the rescuers and then they were basically afraid to go in and dig people out. So these are devastatingly effective weapons. That's why Ukraine wants them. That's why the U.S. wants to give it to them. But they can cause enormous harm to civilians. There are civilians still living here, but they're mostly shepherds who have flocks to tend. And there's a Saudi jet in the sky right now that we can hear circling around.

So there's airstrikes ongoing right now. When the United States is asked, why are you sending these to Ukraine? You, the U.S., haven't used them in 20 years. When you used them in Afghanistan, there was a huge outcry. A hundred plus countries have banned them. What does the U.S. say? Well, the U.S. says that Ukraine is running out of artillery shells. So the cluster munitions that are being sent are actually artillery. And the West isn't producing artillery shells as fast as the Ukrainians are using them. This is a war relating to munitions. And they're running out of that ammunition, and we're low on it. So there is a need in this battle, which is very much a battle that's using artillery on both sides, for more arms, and that's why the U.S. says that they need to transfer this weaponry.

We recognize that cluster munitions create a risk of civilian harm from unexploded ordnance. This is why we've deferred the decision for as long as we could. But there is also a massive risk of civilian harm if Russian troops and tanks roll over Ukrainian positions and take more Ukrainian territory and subjugate more Ukrainian civilians because Ukraine does not have enough artillery. That is intolerable to us. Have they been used before in Russia's war in Ukraine? Yes, both sides have been using cluster munitions against each other. These are Soviet-era cluster munitions, and it's been in use on both sides. But this will be the first time that the U.S. is actually providing them.

Russia has been using cluster munitions since the start of this war to attack Ukraine. Russia has been using cluster munitions with high dud or failure rates of between 30 and 40 percent. In this environment, Ukraine has been requesting cluster munitions in order to defend its own sovereign territory. I'm sure there are good reasons for why the Ukrainians want them, why they're going to be useful on the battlefield. The real question is, is this worth it? Is it worth using such a controversial weapon that so many countries have banned, that we know will kill civilians for years or maybe even decades in the future because they lie there like landmines?

Is that worth it? I mean, one of Ukraine's most important weapons is the moral high ground in this war. And the question is really whether this is worth it. What's been the moral high ground in this war. And the question is really whether this is worth it. What's been the world's response? It varies. Most of Ukraine's allies who are also providing weapons have been fairly circumspect about not criticizing the United States, but it puts them in an awkward position because countries like the UK, Canada, Germany, they've all banned cluster bombs. They've all signed on to this treaty against them.

The UK, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, they've all come out against this decision, all saying that they don't believe these weapons should be used. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, he has said that Britain does not endorse this. He's one of 123 countries to ban their use. The Spanish defense minister has come out even further.

She said yes to the legitimate defense of Ukraine, no to cluster munitions. It doesn't look good that the U.S. is providing a weapon that its allies have considered to be morally reprehensible. But I think what I hear you saying is other countries can't stop Ukraine or Russia from using these. No, they can't. This is basically a bilateral transfer from the U.S. to Ukraine. So short of withdrawing support or reacting in some other careful way that is aimed at minimizing any risk to civilians.

And by the way, Ukraine, the democratically elected government of Ukraine, has every incentive to minimize risk to civilians because it's their citizens, it's Ukrainians, who they are trying to protect and defend. Matthew Akins is a reporter and author of the book The Naked Don't Fear the Water, An Underground Journey with Afghan Refugees. Today's show was produced by Avishai Artsy and edited by Matthew Collette. It was fact-checked by Hadi Muagdi, Amanda Llewellyn, and Laura Bullard. Patrick Boyd is our engineer. The rest of the team includes Halima Shah, Siona Petros, Miles Bryan, Victoria Chamberlain, John Ahrens, Michael Raphael, and my co-host, Sean Ramos-Firm. Our supervising producer is Amina El-Sadi. Our EP is Miranda Kennedy. Our music comes from

Breakmaster Cylinder and Noam Hassenfeld. I am Noelle King, and Today Explained is distributed to public radio stations across the United States by WNYC and is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Thank you. you