US, NATO, and Geopolitical Strategies - Q&A with Ann Marie Daley, an expert on some of the most pressing issues facing the United States and its global allies now: How do we help Ukraine? What should we expect from Russia? How to position NATO in the next 75 years?
She is a policy researcher at RAND and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. For more than two decades, she has studied the political, military, and economic drivers that underpin global security. She was a senior advisor to the US Assistant Secretary of Defense on International Security Affairs, Russia and Ukraine, and NATO's relations with Ukraine and Georgia. She also joined the US Army in 2015 and now serves as an engineer in the reserve.
You have advised military leaders for both Russia and Ukraine. What is your assessment of the war in Ukraine at the moment and what do you expect in the coming months?
If you look at the battlefield, there is an artificial inflection point that has been brought about by the long delay in approving more US aid to Ukraine. The Russians go on the offensive. But if the Ukrainians manage to repel them by the end of 2024, then I think the systemic factors will turn in favor of Ukraine. Russia will face increasing difficulties in its defense production, especially in the production of armored vehicles. You will see increasing production in the US and Europe. You will see the introduction of the F-16, which will at least give Ukraine additional flexibility. Ukraine's strategy until 2024 will be to play defensively and hopefully this puts them in position for a possible offensive in 2025.
Speaking of US aid, you warned that if we failed to support Ukraine, it could start an "American losing streak". How so?
There are people in Washington who say we cannot continue to support Ukraine because it undermines our ability to prepare for China. But if we are looking at a potential future conflict with China, there are two worlds in which we can fight.
One is a world in which Ukraine loses. In this world, all of our European allies will be focused on defending themselves against the next attack from Russia. The United States will be further isolated diplomatically because these 31 NATO allies will be far more concerned with their own security than helping the United States in its fight against China.
The other world is the one in which Ukraine wins. Then you have Ukraine, which will be the largest and most capable army in Europe, acting as a bulwark against Russian aggression. This gives you a strong European flank east of the United States. You have countries that are confident not only in their own security, but also in NATO's collective ability to deter and defeat aggression. They will be more willing to contribute if the US finds itself at war in the Indo-Pacific. This idea that somehow helping Ukraine leaves us less prepared for war with China is just seeing the world as flat when it clearly isn't.
There has been much talk about whether NATO should begin the process of bringing Ukraine into the alliance at this summer's Washington summit. What do you think?
He should either bring her in or make it clear that he won't be a member. Leaving them in a diplomatic deadlock only makes things worse for Ukraine and undermines NATO. Personally, I think Ukraine should become a member, but the bigger question right now is what does NATO need to do to ensure that Ukraine wins this war?
A victorious, united Ukraine would be the most capable army in Europe, and at this point it would simply be foolish not to include them.
What must NATO do to ensure that Ukraine wins the war?
Increase your defense industrial base. As long as Russia sees itself outpacing the combined capabilities of the United States and its European NATO allies, it will see that it can continue to fight this war. As soon as the United States and Europe match these numbers, the calculation changes.
I would also like to see NATO air defenses provide a shield over western Ukraine. You've seen Russia launch missiles and attack with drones that actually fly over NATO territory. And instead of air defenses from those nations shooting at them and taking them down, they rely on Ukraine to use their air defenses to do that. The idea that you're not going to protect NATO skies by using these missiles and drones - not only does that not help Ukraine, it undermines NATO's Article 5 deterrence. I would also support France's proposal to start bringing troops into western Ukraine , away from the front lines to provide on-the-ground training to Ukrainians.
How do you think Russia will respond?
The same way they have responded so far, with many nuclear threats. They know that the mention of tactical nuclear weapons will chill the decision makers in some capitals.
Longer term, as NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary this year and looks ahead to the next 75 years, what do you think are the most important challenges it faces?
We see an increase in threats below the level of military action - massive amounts of disinformation, illicit finance used to undermine political processes. NATO has been so successful over the past 75 years that its enemies are trying to use other ways to attack or undermine the alliance. It will struggle to define what constitutes an attack and then make sure it has the abilities it needs to respond. You've seen China and Russia engage in these threats below the level of what you would consider conventional military action. NATO must become a harder target by developing more capabilities that are below the threshold of direct military confrontation and demonstrate a willingness to use them. But it must do so while upholding democratic ideas of freedom and openness.
You joined the military a little later in life, after you had already established yourself in your career. What made you decide to sign up?
I have considered joining at several points in my life. Then, in 2015, I was a senior strategy advisor to Russia and I was going to participate in these war games where Russia was attacking NATO. I have always advocated for more NATO forces going forward and more US forces in particular. We also consistently found that the US military lacked large-scale engineering capabilities. My mother always said, "If you want something done right, do it yourself." I decided to join as an army engineer not only because I thought it was important to me personally. I was advocating for the US military to move forward, essentially, and I wasn't comfortable doing that if I wasn't willing to put myself in that position.
How did your experience in the military shape your research at RAND?
One thing the military has taught me is how the military approaches risk. He doesn't decide which missions to pursue. He just needs to think about how to assess and mitigate risk, understanding that he will always have to accept a certain level of risk to complete the mission. This is something that military leaders understand very well, but it is not necessarily deeply ingrained in civilian culture. It also helped me think more broadly about defense and security issues - not just looking at things and platforms, but also people and leadership.