Luke Coffey: NATO Must Learn Modern Warfare From Ukraine

• 21.08.2025, 14:45

The West should prepare for a new Russian offensive.

The main topic of discussion following the meeting between Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, and European leaders is the security guarantees that may be provided to Ukraine. What might they look like in practice? The Charter97.org website spoke about this with Luke Coffey, a security expert at the authoritative Hudson Institute think tank and former adviser to the UK Ministry of Defence.

— What did stand out to you during the meeting between Trump, Zelensky and the European leaders?

— A number of things stood out from the very beginning. The fact that such a high level meeting was able to happen in such a short amount of time really shows how committed not only President Trump, but also his European counterparts are to helping bring a just and fair peace to Ukraine. From an observer's point of view, it was clear that the engagement, the communication, the mannerisms between President Trump and President Zelensky was far better than they were in February. JD Vance didn't say a word. Even the journalist who previously gave President Zelensky a hard time over his suit — they were able to laugh about that. This time the mood was a lot different. I think everyone has moved on from that moment in February. Also I think President Trump realizes that he has staked his name, his legacy on being able to find some sort of peace agreement, so he's taking this a bit more seriously now as he is playing more of a direct role. That explains the positive environments, the change in attitudes that we saw on television.

I have spoken to people who were in the Oval Office during that meeting and they told me that the atmosphere in the room was even better than we saw on television, but that there's still a lot of work to do to get all sides on the same sheet of music.

— What were the main takeaways from the meeting according to the people who were present there?

— The observation I was given was that the engagement — we saw it on television and it looked great, but it felt even better, warmer, more welcoming in the Oval Office if you were there in person. But on the practical side of things, while there was a lot of progress on security guarantees and the need for a trilateral meeting, there were still, from what I could gather, some discrepancies over territorial control. But President Trump later in the day, made it clear that this is a matter that is ultimately left to the Ukrainian people.

— When we think about security guarantees for Ukraine in the current circumstances, what could that practically mean?

You have a lot of people in Washington describing so-called Article 5 type security guarantees. I honestly think these people really don't know how Article 5 works. I don't think we're going to get an Article 5 type security guarantee from the United States. Maybe — from other European countries, but for the United States to offer a firm security guarantee like NATO's Article 5, it would have to be in the form of a treaty, and every treaty according to the US Constitution has to be ratified by a two thirds majority in the Senate. So, I just don't see how President Trump could submit a treaty to the US Senate and have a big enough majority for it to pass.

Also, I don't think it would be the right course of action for the United States to give a unilateral security guarantee to Ukraine. I say this as one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine in Washington, D.C. but in this era of burden sharing inside NATO, why wouldn't we just get Ukraine inside NATO and then we all can share the burden of security? I think this is the most direct way to ensure Ukraine's security, that it should be a member of NATO. But this also is unlikely to happen because President Trump has said multiple times in recent days and weeks that Ukraine will not join NATO, at least in the short term. So, what I've been proposing is a layered approach to security.

The first layer would be a civilian, unarmed monitoring mission that would leverage technology and unmanned systems to patrol on both sides the line of occupation. Who would form this mission? I am not sure. I have a few ideas I've written about maybe Organization of Turkic states or maybe the Gulf Cooperation Council — countries where both sides feel like they can work with and neither side has too much of a stake.

Then, the second layer would be the European boots on the ground. This would be the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Turks putting troops on the ground in Ukraine. They wouldn't necessarily have to be close to the line of occupation, but they would be positioned in places of the likely avenues of approach, the routes that Russia may use if they were to invade again. This would also include air policing and Black Sea patrols.

The third layer would be America's what I call "over the horizon role". President Trump has made it clear that no US Boots will be on the ground, but we could play a supporting role by providing air to air refueling, logistical support on moving troops in and out of Ukraine, providing intelligence. We could also, I think contribute to air policing, Black Sea patrols. And perhaps more importantly, we need to enhance a US-Ukraine defense industrial relationship and continue ensuring that Ukraine has the weapons and training it needs for the armed forces it requires. At the end of the day it's going to be the Ukrainian military that provides the ultimate security guarantee for Ukraine.

Then, the fourth layer is the Euro-Atlantic component. While NATO membership is not a possibility and EU accession talks will be slow, the Euro-Atlantic community needs to take steps to keep the Ukrainian flag flying alongside the NATO flag and EU flag. This could be the creation of a NATO certified center of excellence on modern warfare. They could be based in Ukraine where NATO can learn the lessons from Ukraine over the recent years of fighting. It could be inviting Ukraine to participate and send troops as part of NATO's response force. This has happened in the past. There's no reason why it can't happen again. Maybe the EU can conduct a CSDP (Common Security Defense Policy) training mission in Western Ukraine to keep the Euro-Atlantic integration path going.

Then the fifth layer to the layered security approach would be NATO's eastern flank. This doesn't directly impact Ukraine, but it is part of the bigger picture of keeping Russia deterred from future aggression against the Baltic states or the Black Sea countries. This means keeping NATO forward troops (US troops included) at their current levels even if there is a peace deal, because history tells us that Russia will be back. It may be in three years, it may be in five years, it could be in 10 years, but Russia will be back and we have to be ready.

— We hear contradicting signals about the possibility of a bilateral meeting between Putin and President Zelensky. What is your take? What is the likelihood of such a meeting in the near future?

— I would say it's likely. It's more likely than not. It's not guaranteed. But, clearly President Putin is looking for a way out of this war, in my opinion. He is the one that invaded and now he is willing to consider talks. But I still think we have a long way to go. Putin is going to make impossible territorial claims. He's still focusing on so-called "root causes" of the conflict. While I still think that a meeting will happen, but I'm less confident now, after Putin suggested Moscow — this is not a serious proposal.

But then President Trump suggests Budapest, which is filled with historical irony. Why would you go back to the city where you could argue all of this started to begin with? So who knows where it's going to be. But I do think it will probably happen in the near term.

— Indeed the irony is that Russia was one of the signatories on the Budapest memorandum. Coming back to Ukraine-NATO collaboration, how much, do you think, the Ukrainian military would be able to give to NATO in terms of sharing experience in this war?

— A lot. There are doctrinal issues, like how soldiers behave in small unit tactics when it comes to FPVs, when it comes to trench warfare in the 21st century. There are technical lessons that can be learned about UAVs, FPVs: their production, their training on FPVs. There is a lot that can be learned and I think that NATO should take advantage of it. Also, you have lessons that are being learned about American and European equipment. A lot of the stuff that the United States has provided to Ukraine was originally designed to take on Soviet or Russian weapons, armor, vehicles and planes — let's get some feedback on how this is working, what needs to be made better, what needs to change, what can be kept the same. We are learning some of this as we go along. But I think we should institutionalize these lessons learned.

— If the peace deal was reached, what would be the biggest risks for Ukraine in the long term?

— That Europe and America will lose interest. That it will become one of these so-called frozen conflicts that nobody keeps an eye on. Meanwhile, Russia will be rearming, re-equipping, reconstituting its force and just waiting for the right moment to try to finish the job. There is no reason to assume that Russia won't do this. Everything in Russia's history tells us it will try again.

— What are the strategies and practical approaches from the Ukrainian side to prevent this from happening?

— Keep investing in their military technology and defense industrial base. We shouldn't forget that before 2014, Ukraine was already in the top 10 of global defense exporters. It has a very young, talented, driven, intelligent, imaginative population. It should leverage and it needs to maintain a very large military. Part of any peace process is that there should be no restrictions on the size of Ukraine's armed forces. Then, it needs to make sure it constructs adequate fortifications, defensive lines. Then, perhaps, one point that doesn't get as much attention as it should, it should aggressively pursue its Euro-Atlantic integration. It should be a beacon for all those Ukrainian citizens who are living under Russian occupation to think: "Wow, there's a better alternative. Do I want to be part of Russian occupied Luhansk or do I want to be part of a thriving, economically prosperous European integrated Ukraine?" Then, over time that appeal, I think, will be effective in Ukraine, restoring its full territorial integrity.

— Do you see possibilities for American defensive industrial companies to be present in Ukraine?

— Yes, absolutely — and German, British, French, Italian, Turkish (Turks are already there). It makes sense from a NATO point of view and it makes sense from a Ukrainian point of view. I think, the more industrial cooperation we have, the safer everyone will be.