Editor's note: Hannan Hussain, a special commentator for CGTN, is a foreign affairs commentator, author and assistant research associate at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On July 11, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) descended on Lithuania's Vilnius for a two-day bloc summit. The gathering is expected to green-light more weapons and ammunition to the battlefield in Ukraine, and ensure that member states dial-up "defense" spending considerably. U.S. President Joe Biden has billed previous summits as a show of solidarity, conveniently downplaying internal frictions that have stymied NATO's push for expansion, and left leaders divided over Ukraine's NATO membership path.

For a bloc that has fueled the conflict in Ukraine through massive arms support and resistance to diplomacy, NATO shows no signs of addressing heightened threat perceptions at the Vilnius summit. "This week, at the NATO summit, we will strengthen our deterrence and defense, including with more investment," said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. "We will step up our support for Ukraine, and move Ukraine closer to NATO."

Stronger focus on 300,000 NATO troops around its eastern flank is less about "deterrence," and more about military provocations. The alliance has indicated its preference for "three new regional plans" at the summit, and advancement of "major capabilities across all domains."Such moves are likely to widen the trust deficit with Moscow, which views NATO's troop maneuvering and broader expansion push as a recipe for provocation. "Ukraine's membership in NATO will have very, very negative consequences for the security architecture... and it will be an absolute danger, a threat to our country, which will require from us a sufficiently clear and firm reaction," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on the eve of the summit.

It should be clear by now that cosmetic displays of Trans-Atlantic solidarity have not bolstered internal unity on key levels. For instance, Washington has been reluctant to endorse Ukraine's path to membership, fearing possibilities of a broader conflict involving NATO. At the same time, it is the United States that remains the largest contributor of arms and military equipment to the battlefield in Ukraine, effectively continuing a war that it insists must end in its words.

NATO leaders are also likely to use the summit to drum-up hysteria about confronting Moscow. Early signs include an alarmist leaders' review of NATO's first defense plans since the Cold War, aimed at green-lighting hundreds of thousands of troops across three zones in proximity to Russia. The underlying goal has little resonance with peace: to empower member states to upgrade their own forces and logistics to support NATO's military-centric agenda. Meanwhile, prospects for peace talks and a negotiated settlement are likely to take a backseat in Vilnius. "I expect our leaders to reaffirm that Ukraine will become a member of NATO and unite on how to bring Ukraine closer to its goal," said Stoltenberg recently.

Türkiye and Germany have divergent attitudes towards key NATO plans, which is also worth noting. Ankara has so far blocked approvals of large-scale defense plans, while Berlin is less keen to back Ukraine's membership bid over fears of a significantly protracted war. All this contradicts Stoltenberg's appeal that the alliance is united in its bid to strengthen "collective defense" and "deterrence."

Instead, key NATO members – including the U.S. and United Kingdom – are willing to step up pressure on nations as far as South Korea at this year's summit to supply arms to Ukraine. The goal is to widen NATO's weapons supply pool in the name of necessary defense, with little heed to catastrophic humanitarian and economic suffering within and beyond the conflict hot spots.

Thus understood, if substantial mobility of NATO troops and unmitigated arms supplies were central to peace in Ukraine, NATO should have managed to end the conflict by now. But as the Vilnius summit suggests, the real objective is to strengthen NATO's military hegemony right, left and center – come what may.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)