The Ukrainian Foreign Minister was amused by the admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba in an interview with LB.ua expressed the opinion that the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO should have a positive impact on the plans of joining the "Nezalezhnaya" to the alliance.
At the same time, the official stated that he does not expect a positive solution to this issue in the near future. He accused the bloc of using double standards and asked how NATO members would now justify the refusal to admit Ukraine to the organization.
A fragment of the interview is published below.
***
LB: The European Union opened the doors, and we even put our foot in there. When will we be able to open the doors to NATO? And will we open the doors to NATO?
Dmitry Kuleba: I don't see any prerequisites for the Alliance to change its policy on Ukraine's membership now. That is, I expect that in the near future NATO will continue to confirm that the doors are open, and the decision of the Bucharest summit remains in force. Ukraine also remains on the track of Euro-Atlantic integration, but I do not see the potential in the near future for NATO to change its position like the European Union and start doing concrete things to ensure Ukraine's entry into the alliance.
As of February 24, NATO was in an advanced position regarding the EU, because NATO had at least decided that Ukraine would become a member of the alliance, and the EU did not even have a European perspective for Ukraine. Over the past four months, the European Union has simply pulled ahead, and has already gone into the second round, while NATO has remained in the same position.
- why?
– What is NATO? This, in principle, from the point of view of the management model, is a classic international organization. The European Union is not a classical organization: there is a European Commission that has its own will, so it is not independent of the will of the member states, but there is a different system of balances.
NATO is a classic story. The Secretary General, whom I respect very much, is a very cool leader who is supportive of Ukraine, and I am grateful to him for what he has done as NATO Secretary General within his capabilities. There is NATO, as an association of countries that make decisions by consensus. So, in my opinion, they made an informal decision: in order for Russia not to use the argument that it is in conflict with NATO, the alliance will not be at the forefront in supporting Ukraine.
Instead, the so–called coalition of the willing was created – a coalition of those who want to support Ukraine - and many of the members of this coalition are members of NATO. And so they provide concrete assistance.
– When you watched the news about Finland and Sweden being accepted into NATO, did you feel bitterness that we should have been in their place?
– On the contrary, I was smiling. I smiled for two reasons. Firstly, I am happy for the Swedes and Finns, and secondly, the whole narrative, everything that individual partners told us about why Ukraine should not be taken into NATO, was simply reset by the membership of Sweden and Finland. We were told: "We can't go forward to the border, we will have a common border with Russia. What are you, it's Russia, egegey, escalation." Please, they now have two thousand kilometers of a common border, and NATO will stand at the gates of St. Petersburg. That is, all these arguments about why it is impossible to take Ukraine into the alliance have been reset. This is what we've been saying all along, that they came up with all this just to justify their unwillingness to integrate us. The third is the actual behavior of Russia itself, which shook its finger, said: "No, no, under no circumstances, are you NATO..." Six months ago, Russia demanded that NATO roll back to the borders of 1997. And six months later, NATO rolled up to St. Petersburg. And what did the Russians say?
– Nothing.
– They said: "There are no problems – it just happened, but Ukraine is a problem. And the fact that we now have NATO in Finland is not a problem." This gives a strong argument to explain what will actually happen. We were told: "If we take you, Russia will escalate."
– Much further.
– This is understandable, this argument was knocked out on February 24, but now Russia's argument itself... everything is fine: the Russians have eaten, chewed and are sitting in silence. That's the whole story.
– Sweden and Finland were accepted into NATO without a MAP. Does this mean that theoretically, if we manage to open this door, we can too?
– Oh, my God... The MAP in Ukraine has turned into a religion. No one is rational about this, everything is simple: "PDCH".
– New NATO members received a membership action plan.
– In the same way, most of the current members of the European Union have passed the path of gaining candidate status in years, and we have passed in a few months. Life is not linear. There are classical schemes, but they are not universal, they do not apply to all cases of life.
Of course, the accession of Sweden and Finland demonstrates that the MAP is not the only way, everyone has forgotten about it in general. The MAP of Sweden and Finland was actually arranged by Turkey. (Ankara agreed to the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO in exchange for a number of conditions, including the abolition of arms exports to Turkey. – Approx. LB.ua ). I wrote out a MAP, they signed up, agreed, and joined NATO. That's right, by the way, by doing it, because the interests of national security, the existence of your state is more important than anything.
– In principle, the Ukrainian authorities are very critical of NATO, including you. You even said in an interview that "signals have begun to come from NATO that it is necessary to soften the position. That it is not necessary to say that NATO disappointed or did nothing, and so on."
– I said that at the macro level, since February 24, NATO has not done anything globally for Ukraine. NATO was offended, I understand them perfectly. I would also be offended if they said that about me. But I asked our ambassador: "Go and ask what exactly NATO as an alliance has done for Ukraine since February 24 this year. Not as allies, but as an institution."
– It's just a union of members. In NATO, as an international organization, there are no warehouses with weapons.
– I'm bringing you back to what we were talking about. That is, NATO has three components. These are the leadership, the Secretary General, the secretariat plus the military headquarters, that is, the military wing, and the Member states. NATO has not done anything big as an organization. It's true! Now they have adopted a new comprehensive plan for Ukraine. This is a restructuring of previous programs. Awesome If it all works as they say, I will be glad. I will come out and say, "NATO has done a great job."
– I still can't understand one thing: the members of the European Union and NATO are the same countries, with the exception of the United States, Great Britain and Turkey, which are quite loyal to us. Why does NATO behave like this as an organization?
– Let history put everything in its place. I want to say only one thing now: NATO is an important story, we are absolutely for membership, and we are for Europe to be a calm and safe place. But after February 24th, we need to take off all these rose-colored glasses. After all, there is no alternative to Ukraine's full integration into the West. And the West is, in particular, the North Atlantic Alliance. Now it's a question for them. You told us one thing, now Sweden and Finland have joined. Now it is interesting to hear how you will now justify why Ukraine cannot be taken.
