Why NATO Protects Israeli Skies but Not Ukrainian Skies
The divergent approaches of NATO in the defense of Israel compared to Ukraine can be attributed to a variety of strategic, legal, and political factors, each tied deeply to the respective geopolitical scenarios and NATO’s relationship with both countries.
1. NATO’s Operational Scope and Membership
NATO’s operational scope has evolved to include Multi-Domain Operations (MDO), which represents a pivotal shift in the alliance’s approach to warfare. This transformative concept empowers NATO to strategically influence events across all operating domains — land, air, maritime, cyber, and space. It synchronizes military activities with non-military efforts to create desired outcomes and present formidable challenges to adversaries.
Israel, while not a NATO member, benefits from a special security relationship with the United States and other NATO members. This includes support in missile defense systems such as the Iron Dome. The U.S., UK, France, and Jordan have historically supported Israel’s efforts to intercept aerial threats, emphasizing the strategic alliances aimed at stabilizing the Middle East and protecting mutual interests.
Ukraine, as a partner country, does not enjoy the same Article 5 protections as NATO members, which limits the extent of NATO’s direct intervention. However, NATO has provided extensive support to Ukraine through arms supplies, training, and logistical support, reflecting the alliance’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and defense capabilities.
2. The “Israel-Style” Security Agreement Proposal for Ukraine
The concept of an “Israel-style” security agreement for Ukraine has been proposed as a means to provide Ukraine with long-term military aid and defensive alliances without full NATO membership. Such an agreement would mirror the U.S. commitments to Israel, involving significant military aid and possibly defensive alliances. The discussions around this proposal have intensified as Western leaders explore options to support Ukraine’s sovereignty and security without escalating tensions with Russia.
This proposal could potentially include long-term pipelines for the delivery of military aid, technology, and training, along with commitments to bilateral intervention. It aims to address Ukraine’s security concerns while recognizing that full NATO membership is not imminent. The discussions are part of the agenda for the upcoming NATO Summit and involve the establishment of the Ukraine NATO Council, which would serve as a gateway to future membership. The agreement would prioritize arms transfers and advanced technology to Ukraine and allow it to seek assistance through the council.
3. Geopolitical Risks and Concerns
The geopolitical risks of actively defending Ukrainian skies are indeed immense. Western leaders, including the UK’s former Prime Minister, have expressed concerns that direct military involvement in Ukraine’s airspace could lead to a significant escalation, potentially drawing NATO into a direct conflict with Russia, a scenario widely regarded as risky. The war in Ukraine is not only dominating the headlines but also causing indirect reverberations that ripple far beyond the borders of the combatants and their allies, potentially giving rise to new and varied geopolitical risks throughout the world. The conflict’s potential effect on the global grain supply and food inflation is especially alarming, as Ukraine and Russia are major suppliers of wheat to many countries. Moreover, the logistics and rules of engagement in such a conflict would be vastly more complex and potentially provoke wider regional instability.
4. Capability and Will
Despite the proven capabilities of NATO countries in defending air spaces, as demonstrated in Israel, the decision not to deploy these systems to Ukraine highlights a lack of consensus or will among NATO members to engage at this level. While NATO has condemned Russia’s actions and provided support to Ukraine, the alliance has stopped short of any action that might be construed as direct combat involvement against Russia. This stance is partly due to the delicate balance NATO tries to maintain in deterring Russian aggression while avoiding actions that could lead to an outright war. NATO has stepped up support for Ukraine, strengthening the Alliance’s defense and deterrence, and working to increase the protection of critical infrastructure. However, the West must prepare to continue supporting Ukraine in a war that could last for years, as the costs of war are high, but the price of letting Moscow achieve its military goals is even greater.
Conclusion
In summary, the protection afforded to Israeli skies by NATO members, compared to the cautious approach in Ukraine, reflects a complex interplay of military alliances, legal boundaries, geopolitical strategies, and risk assessments. While Ukraine receives significant support, the nature of this support is carefully calibrated to avoid escalating the conflict to a level that NATO is not prepared to manage directly. As the situation evolves, NATO continues to adapt its strategies to support Ukraine, while maintaining a careful diplomatic and military balance in the region. The ongoing conflict has highlighted the importance of NATO’s role in global security and the need for the Alliance to navigate the challenges of supporting Ukraine without triggering a broader conflict.
