AMB. SMITH: Well, let’s start with some basic facts here. Russia started this war over two years ago, and at every turn–this started at the very beginning–we saw cases where Russia was instigating attacks, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, whether it’s in hospitals or schools or apartment buildings. The Ukrainians, in defending their territory with assistance provided by the United States and others, are targeting military installations, military troops, military equipment. They are not attacking civilians. That is the claim falsely made by Russia.
And in terms of the way forward, Russia started this war two years ago. Russia could end this war today if they so desired. So I just want to keep in mind here who the aggressor is–Russia–and who’s responsible for these awful, horrific civilian deaths inside Ukraine. It is President Putin at the end of the day, and his accusations against the United States and the West are obviously blatantly false.
MR. CAPEHART: So in terms of the status of the war, Ambassador, is it at a stalemate? Is there a stalemate on the battlefield, or do you believe one side has an advantage over the other?
AMB. SMITH: Well, we have seen instances in recent months where one side or the other is able to move, say, a few kilometers, a few miles, but we haven’t seen any major developments in this war in recent months.
There was a situation outside of Kharkiv, as you well know, where the Russians were able to make some inroads, but we’re talking fairly short distances.
In terms of who has the advantage, there’s no question that Russia has thousands of troops that it can continue to use to pursue this war of aggression, but what Ukraine brings to this fight is, first and foremost, incredible amount of innovation. The way in which they are pairing modern technology with, in some cases, Soviet legacy equipment has been nothing short of remarkable. But they also have a fighting spirit. They continue to have high morale, and they’re much better trained than the Russian troops that are showing up on the battlefield. And that is why Russia has been unable to fundamentally achieve its strategic objectives from day one.
You’ll remember President Putin had the goal to roll into Kyiv and take over the country in a matter of weeks. He has failed to achieve that objective, and it’s thanks to the skill and the will and the innovation of those Ukrainian troops that they’ve been able to have so many success stories on the battlefield. We want to see that continue. We want the assistance to keep flowing, and here at NATO, we’re thrilled that the supplemental was able to get through Congress just a few months ago.
MR. CAPEHART: Well, I will bring in an audience question to pick up on what you were just saying. This is a question from Nora Mason from California, and Nora asks, “Why is there such a long lag between Ukraine’s need of arms to the response?”
AMB. SMITH: Well, a couple things on that front. So first and foremost, let’s talk about the question of what type of equipment they actually need. The United States runs a process whereby the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, sits at a table every single month with 50 different nations around the world and listens to our Ukrainian friends, listens to what their real requirements are on the battlefield. Those 50 countries then move as quickly as possible to get the assistance that the Ukrainians need into their hands.
We obviously had a delay with the supplemental where six months went by. There were continued debates on the Hill about whether or not the U.S. would move forward with the supplemental. The good news there is that the Europeans were able to keep the assistance flowing while Congress was still debating the supplemental.
But there is a bigger question that I think this particular individual might be getting at, and that is the question of defense production. We have seen situations where we have tried tirelessly to move equipment to Ukraine, but we’ve been exposing in these efforts kind of the brittleness of the transatlantic defense industry. And by that, I mean that we have faced situations where industry has struggled to turn back on production lines that were shut down many years ago. There are also labor shortages where some countries are struggling to find the people with the know-how and the skill to return to those production lines. There are questions of global supply chains and how quickly you can move equipment across oceans and across territory.
Things are getting better on defense production. I will say defense production in Europe is up by above 40 percent. In the United States, we’ve made major strides forward. We were, before the war, producing about 14,000 rounds of 155s per month, and now we’re facing a situation where the U.S. is producing close to 80,000 rounds of 155s per month, so increases on both sides of the Atlantic. We have more work to do.
This is a debate and a question that NATO is taking head on. We’re working hand in glove with defense industry partners to see how we can aggregate demand and move more quickly to get Ukraine the capabilities that it needs but also NATO allies. Thanks to their generous support, it’s no secret that NATO allies do have some shortfalls of their own, and that is one of the things we’ll be addressing at the NATO summit in Washington on July 9th through the 11th.
MR. CAPEHART: Ambassador, The New York Times is reporting this morning that at the upcoming NATO summit in Washington next month, Ukraine will be offered–and I’m quoting here–“a new headquarters to manage its military assistance based at an American facility in Germany.” Can you confirm that?
AMB. SMITH: Yes. What we’ve been working on here at NATO headquarters is some sort of new initiative that would allow the NATO alliance to coordinate all of the assistance that’s flowing into Ukraine and also to coordinate the training that many individual NATO allies have been undertaking in recent months and years. What we’re trying to do is, in essence, build a bridge to membership. Ukraine will not be receiving an invitation to join the alliance this July, but we are moving them ever closer to the alliance by focusing on questions of interoperability and modernization, and also bringing that much needed coordination that you just mentioned.
So there will be a new effort, a new initiative rolled out at the summit in about a week and a half, and that is something that we expect President Zelensky to be at the table to receive and to talk about with allies in Washington, D.C., when he joins us at the summit in Washington.
MR. CAPEHART: You know, Ambassador Smith, Ukrainian President Zelensky has repeatedly asked for full NATO membership. Can you explain to folks watching why Ukraine can’t do what Finland and Sweden have done in the past year, which is to join, officially join NATO?
AMB. SMITH: So there are two issues here. First and foremost, we can’t deny that Ukraine is in the middle of a war, and it would be extraordinarily complicated to face a situation where we were admitting a new member to the alliance or NATO was enlarging to add a new member to the alliance while its borders are actually contested. And so our focus here inside the NATO alliance right now is to aid Ukraine’s efforts to get Russia out of its territory and bring about an end to this war. That’s our overriding priority at the moment.
Secondly, before you join the NATO alliance, any member has to undertake a series of steps or reforms that are needed for NATO membership. Ukraine has done an incredible thing, and that is it is reforming while it is in the middle of a full-scale war. We’ve seen them make some good progress in recent months, particularly on questions of transparency and accountability, but we believe collectively here inside the alliance that Ukraine has some more work to do on this front. So we will keep working with them on the reforms, we will keep the assistance flowing to Ukraine, and we will ensure that they can prevail on the battlefield and work towards peace.
MR. CAPEHART: I want to broaden the aperture here on our conversation, Ambassador. Many agree that if Russia wins this war, its war on Ukraine, it would be catastrophic for American prestige and legitimacy as a global leader and would mark a fundamental global power shift emboldening Russia President Vladimir Putin. Why then has NATO seemingly lacked the will from the start of the war up to now to do what’s necessary to ensure that Russia does not win?
AMB. SMITH: Well, I think I would disagree with your premise here. I mean, look, I remember the morning that my phone rang at 3 a.m., and I was told that Russia had launched this war inside Ukraine. And we came in for an emergency session. We all arrived very early that morning inside the alliance, and without question, every single member of the alliance, all of them, immediately started talking about what they would do individually as countries to support Ukraine with humanitarian, with economic, and with military or security assistance.
NATO jumped into action and immediately took a series of steps, moving tens of thousands of forces into Eastern Europe, to ensure that our members on the Eastern flank would have the defense and the security that they needed to defend their territory against any potential Russian aggression.
So my point here is that NATO allies have banded together. They continue to support Ukraine, two years into this war. President Putin assumed on day one that NATO allies would look away, get distracted, become consumed with another issue or another crisis, and in fact, that isn’t the case.
From where I sit here in NATO headquarters, I see nothing but continued unity. I think you’ll feel that at the summit in about a week and a half when President Zelensky is there. We are determined to help Ukraine defend its territory.
But you are also right to note that NATO is not a party to this conflict. NATO is not directly involved. NATO does not have troops in the ground in Ukraine, but we all believe we have the right to assist Ukraine in defending its territory. And that’s what we’ll continue to do.
MR. CAPEHART: Let’s talk about Vladimir Putin a little bit more. He’s been seeking allies in the Global South to try to undermine U.S. influence. One could argue that the mutual defense pact that he signed with North Korea–I believe that was last week–is also part of that. Why do you think Vladimir Putin is looking outward, trying to seek allies as it continues to wage its war on Ukraine?
AMB. SMITH: It’s interesting. I think we all watched with curiosity this visit by President Putin to North Korea, and I think it tells us quite a bit about the current state of the government in Moscow and where Russia sits on the world stage. The fact that Russia now has to rely on North Korea for both weapons and political support and potentially security assistance, depending on what this security compact actually means in practice, to me says a lot about how isolated Russia is, their desperation to find additional weapons for this war in Ukraine, and how much they are feeling the need to find new partners.
I mean, let’s not forget, Russia once stood with the West to work towards greater peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and now we have a situation where these two leaders from North Korea and Russia are forming some sort of new partnership. I would also note that the deepening relationship between China and Russia tells us a lot about how isolated Russia is. Russia’s relying on the PRC for a whole series of dual-use components that are very useful for the war in Ukraine, things like microelectronics and machine tools that they are using in Ukraine on a regular basis.
MR. CAPEHART: In a story–
AMB. SMITH: –I think, in many ways.
MR. CAPEHART: Sorry about that. Sorry about that, Ambassador.
In a story on the promotion of Derek Chollet to chief of staff at the Defense Department, The Post reported that, quote, “A key focus for national security officials in the coming months would be the attempt to Trump-proof key priorities.” Is NATO undertaking a similar exercise to safeguard itself in the event of a Trump win, especially when he’s been such a vocal critic of the alliance?
AMB. SMITH: Well, I’m lucky in the sense that I have a pretty simple mandate here at NATO. I don’t have to deal with elections on either side of the Atlantic. I’m focused, most importantly, on supporting Ukraine, maintaining that strong unity that I talked about a few minutes ago. That is our priority.
The reason we’re rolling out this new initiative at the summit to support Ukraine by allowing NATO to coordinate the assistance that’s flowing to Ukraine is really not tied to any future situation that may emerge in the United States. This is about doing what’s best for Ukraine. What do they need? They need better coordination and coherence of all of the efforts that have been undertaken to support them, and we believe NATO is best suited to do that.
NATO has already helped many, many countries modernize their militaries, particularly former Warsaw Pact countries, and it’s ready to do that again with our friends in Ukraine. So that is the focus.
I don’t have to think about elections, again, on either side of the Atlantic. I know what my mission is here, and we’re focused on it like a laser.
MR. CAPEHART: Oh, I knew that, but I had to try, Ambassador. I had to try.
MR. CAPEHART: Ambassador Smith, yesterday NATO announced it will have a new leader on October 1st, the former Prime Minister of Holland, Mark Rutte. What do you want to see from his leadership when he becomes NATO’s next secretary general?
AMB. SMITH: Well, first, I’ve got to take a step back and salute Jens Stoltenberg, our current secretary general. He has been at the helm of this alliance for 10 years. We were very pleased that he accepted to be extended not once but a couple of times in light of our need for continuity here at NATO headquarters. So very grateful of his service here, and we will miss him. He’s an amazing communicator. He’s been very effective here. As you can imagine, it’s not always easy to get 32 countries to reach consensus. That’s how we operate around here. Nothing gets done unless all 32 allies agree. So grateful for his leadership.
In terms of Mark Rutte, who will be coming in later this fall, we expect him to provide the same level of superb leadership. This is a proven leader. He’s done quite a bit in the Netherlands to support Ukraine and really make the Netherlands a strong contributor to the NATO alliance. He too is a superb communicator. So we hope this will be a seamless transition. We love that he’s a strong Atlanticist. He believes in the transatlantic relationship like Jens Stoltenberg, and we can’t wait to see him arrive here at NATO headquarters. I think early October is when he will be appearing on the scene here in Brussels.
MR. CAPEHART: Some Eastern European representatives were hoping that someone from their region of the world would ascend to the post for the first time in NATO history. Why haven’t they been represented at NATO’s top job?
AMB. SMITH: Well, it’s a good question, and I think our friends in Europe do regularly raise the question of geographic diversity. I think diversity is something we have to look at in all its forms here at NATO headquarters, whether you’re talking about geographic, gender, or other types of diversity.
We have had the good fortune of having a Romanian deputy secretary general in the chair for many years. He has also done a superb job here. So we do feel like we’ve had some representation at the highest levels.
We do hope going forward, we will continue to see candidates both from Eastern and Western Europe and Canada as well, and I don’t think anyone’s ruling out that possibility.
In this case, we did have two official candidates. We had Mark Rutte from the Netherlands and we had President Iohannis from Romania, but as the alliance worked through reviewing those two candidates, they did settle on Mark Rutte. Again, you have to reach consensus on these matters.
But we will continue to work with our friends in Eastern Europe on these questions of diversity, and I think they’re right to raise those types of points here at NATO.
MR. CAPEHART: Ambassador, last question for you. Looking back at the last 75 years of NATO history, what do you think has been the alliance’s finest accomplishment?
AMB. SMITH: Well, it’s hard to narrow it down to one, but I think, I guess if I had to pick one, I would say enlargement. I mean, the alliance has continued to enlarge, including quite recently with our two newest members of Finland and Sweden, because of the pull it has. It is a defensive alliance. We have not enlarged through force. We have enlarged by the appeal of what NATO provides, what it can provide countries for their security and how it can invest in their security and commit to their security. And so NATO’s door will remain open, and I really think it’s one of the alliance’s greatest legacies.
MR. CAPEHART: And one could argue that thanks to Russian President Vladimir Putin, he has made the expansion of NATO that much more possible.
MR. CAPEHART: Julianne Smith, 23rd United States Ambassador to NATO. Ambassador Smith, thank you very much for coming to Post Live.
AMB. SMITH: Thank you very much. It was my pleasure.
MR. CAPEHART: And thank you for joining us. For more of these important conversations, sign up for a Washington Post subscription. Get a free trial by visiting WwashingtonPost.com/live. You see it right there at the bottom of your screen. That’s again, Washington Post Live–I’m sorry–WashingtonPost.com/live. One of these days, I’ll get it right.
Once again, I’m Jonathan Capehart, associate editor at The Washington Post. Thanks for watching Washington Post Live.
