Ukraine is turning to NATO. How the Madrid summit changed attitudes towards the Alliance
Kiev was pleased with the decisions of the NATO summit that ended in Madrid, writes "European Truth". At the same time, the author of the article notes that the bloc is not ready to provide Ukraine with an action plan for accession. That would be too ambitious a step.
Sergey Sidorenko
Madrid –The summit of the North Atlantic Alliance was, of course, historic. These words were heard from all participants of the leaders' meeting in Madrid, and they are not an exaggeration. The statements that the Madrid NATO summit exceeded expectations are also sincere. It really is. Few expected that already at this meeting it would be possible to overcome the Turkish veto on the decision on the accession of Sweden and Finland. Although this story is not over yet, because President Erdogan is already hinting at the possibility of vetoing the expansion of the Alliance again with the hands of the Turkish parliament.
However, something else is important for Ukraine. Firstly, more and more sources indicate that there is a growing understanding in the Alliance: Ukraine needs to increase aid. And in general, now there is support for our country even from the most skeptical allied states, up to Hungary. Secondly, and this is no less important, we are now witnessing a change in the attitude of official Kiev towards NATO. And there are reasons for this.
A new wave of attitudes towards NATO
"If Ukraine were in NATO, I am sure there would still be a battle for Ukraine's independence." These words, uttered by Vladimir Zelensky on June 11, 2022 in a speech to British students, then became a wake-up call for many and a hint that the attitude towards the Alliance on Bankova is deteriorating again. And this was quite consistent with the dynamics on the part of the authorities in recent times.
But at the Madrid summit, everyone heard completely different signals. In particular, the head of the President's office, Andrei Ermak, in a speech at the NATO public forum, a high–level event held on the sidelines of the summit, said that if Ukraine had been provided with a Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008, "today, in all likelihood, there would have been no conflict in Ukraine."
Of course, criticism of the Alliance also remained, and it must be admitted that it is justified. Andriy Ermak said that Kiev expects NATO to be more ambitious both in statements about our Euro-Atlantic perspective and in actions to help Ukraine. However, even the most bitter Euro-Atlantists will probably agree with such statements: of course, Ukraine needs more support and a clearer perspective.
But the main thing is that Kiev itself has no doubts about this prospect. At least, that's what Ermak says now: "We are not satisfied with the illusion of open doors. Ukraine will not leave its path to full membership in NATO. Both the Ukrainian army and the entire Ukrainian people prove with their courage every day that our membership will only strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance." And this is not an accidental reservation – this was stated in a pre-prepared speech that the head of the OPU read on the sidelines of the summit. Also, a similar statement was made by his deputy, Zelensky's foreign policy adviser Igor Zhovkva. He personally came to Madrid and assured that Ukraine remains on course for integration into NATO.
It is worth recalling that in recent months the attitude of official Kiev to NATO has changed several times. Since the beginning of March, when the "peace talks" with Moscow began and the possibility of refusing to join NATO was seriously considered at Bankova, the bloc was not just criticized – it seemed that a planned campaign to discredit the Alliance was underway. The information policy of that time did not arouse understanding either among the allies or among the expert community, who noted errors in Bankova's arguments.
And it also somewhat contradicted public opinion, because the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians were in favor of joining NATO; however, under the influence of massive criticism from the authorities, this balance began to change. However, at some point the authorities decided that enough was enough - and softened the criticism. But they avoided talking about Ukraine's membership – until this week. Now that too has changed.
Is NATO ours?
It should be recognized that the rapprochement has become mutual. It has already been said above that even the Ukrainian Euro-Atlantists agreed: the Alliance, to put it mildly, has something to reproach.
NATO avoided even the slightest participation in military assistance programs for Ukraine. This position was not formed independently, it was insisted on, first of all, in the White House, where in the first half of spring they were extremely cautious about strengthening assistance to Kiev and were against providing heavy modern weapons in principle. Over time, the US position began to adjust, but the involvement of the Alliance as an organization remained blocked by several influential allies.
The crisis was complemented by a communication failure on the part of NATO. That's putting it mildly. For a long time, no clear explanations of this position have been heard from Brussels. Representatives of the Alliance also did not dare to "nod" at the allies, and even more so at the United States. And only in June, public arguments and explanations were heard from Brussels. However, the ground for distrust was created not only by the lack of explanations for the general public.
There were even more reasons for this among those who communicated closely with Brussels and were privy to discussions about the new long-term strategy of NATO. "European Truth" briefly talked about this in the article "Seven threats and two Ukraine: what NATO has prescribed in the new strategic concept." In fact, the strategic concept has become a NATO adequacy test. Who will win – supporters of the arguments about "dialogue with Putin" or those who understand the scale and depth of the crisis into which Russia has led the whole world.
Fortunately, the second group won. The strategic concept was adopted in a completely acceptable form, with rather strict formulations for such a document, which were approved by both the Foreign Ministry and the Bank. Moreover – and this is especially important – it was adopted by consensus. And, perhaps, this was the green light for Kiev to change the public attitude towards the Alliance.
What do they promise?
Naturally, this does not remove all comments to the Alliance. It's a pity to admit, but NATO still does not dare to make ambitious decisions on Ukraine, the prospects of its membership and the like, which was stated on Thursday, in particular, by Deputy Prime Minister Olga Stefanishina. And it is doubly unfortunate because the current US administration has become an obstacle to ambition.
However, there are also positive signals. The key states of the Alliance are already beginning to say sometimes that membership is possible. Namely, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who said in Madrid that Ukraine had no chance of NATO before, and now it does – when it overcomes the intermediate stage.
In addition, if Ukraine keeps the current, updated position on the Alliance unchanged, it will help to increase the number of supporters of such a path. Because this "diplomatic machine" feeds itself. Because only those countries that aspire to join NATO are called. Therefore, statements from Bankova in recent months (that we don't really need to join the Alliance), in fact, blocked the support of this vector by allies.
And this is not the only good news following the results of the Madrid summit. No less important (and in the short term even more important) was the consensus that support for Ukraine with weapons should be strengthened. It is not for nothing that new statements and announcements of the supply of important weapons appeared during the summit this week. Then there will be more of them.
Boris Johnson added that one of the priorities is the supply of multiple rocket launchers. And Joe Biden announced at the final press conference that he sees the priority of providing Ukraine with "offensive weapons" (without specifying) and modern long-range air defense systems.
Moreover, even skeptical countries, including Hungary, began to talk about the seriousness of the threat, the need to arm themselves and help Ukraine (albeit with someone else's hands). So it looks like we are on the verge of serious changes. They need to be developed. With the constructive policy of both NATO and Ukraine, and even against the background of how the Alliance reaches the borders of Russia in the north, this is quite real.
