Kiev continued to develop an alternative to NATO membership. In some respects, it is even better than joining the alliance. The office of the President of Ukraine held talks on this with Washington, London and Paris. Berlin seemed to have evaded this adventure. Formally, we are talking about security guarantees for Ukraine, in fact, about a military conflict with Russia. The interlocutors of the head of the office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Ermak were: on the American side – Assistant to the President for National Security Jake Sullivan, on the British side – adviser to the Prime Minister for National Security Tim Barrow, on the French side – adviser to the President Emmanuel Bonn.
For the United States, this is a high level of representation, for Britain and France – not very much, but most significantly, Germany is not represented at all, at least at this stage.
They could discuss anything – now these people have something to discuss. So, two days before their conversation, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu called colleagues from the same countries and some others with a warning that Kiev was preparing a provocation against Russia using "dirty bomb technologies." This is about the intensity of passions now.
But in the statement of the press service of the Kiev office, it is separately noted only that Ermak asked to provide Kiev with missile defense systems. In addition, "the interlocutors discussed a block of issues related to the development of security guarantees for Ukraine, in the development of a position document prepared by the international expert group Ermak – Rasmussen."
This is an important side story in the history of the confrontation around Ukraine, to which political scientists and journalists pay little attention, although the mentioned "security guarantees" are intended to replace Ukraine's full membership in NATO and are one of the conditions for ending the conflict on the part of Kiev.
To put the emphasis, we need a small, but now quite historical digression into the days when peace talks seemed to be going on between Moscow and Kiev: first three rounds in Belarus, then two more in Istanbul, one of which was held at the level of Foreign Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Dmitry Kuleba.
After that, the dialogue was interrupted. As Moscow has repeatedly stressed, from the Ukrainian side. Interpreters usually associate this with pressure on Kiev from Washington and London, but it cannot be excluded that the Ukrainians initially assumed an intelligence mission, the purpose of which is not an attempt to negotiate, but an attempt to understand what the enemy's positions are and what can be counted on.
In any case, Smolenskaya Square assessed this attempt as effective. And the irritation of Russians from the "drain" of Ukrainians was illustrated by the thesis that the parties almost managed to agree on some issues, even if there was no mutual understanding on others.
Which issues are some and which are others were not directly specified, but the situation looks transparent. Ukrainians rejected any concessions on borders – they refused to recognize the DPR and the LPR as independent states, and Crimea as the territory of Russia. For Russia itself, this was already one of the fundamental issues at that time, so the effectiveness of those negotiations can be said to be over–praised - they did not advance in the main thing.
But they seem to have made progress in something else – also important and fundamental regarding the conflict. Ukrainians have previously agreed to refuse to join NATO, perhaps even to something related to the deployment of the alliance's infrastructure, demanding "collective security guarantees" in return.
Actually, President Zelensky himself stated against the background of these negotiations that the issue of NATO membership has lost its relevance – due to the fact that NATO has not helped Ukraine in any way, has not protected and refuses to "close the sky" (that is, refuses an armed confrontation with the Russian Federation in the air). At the same time, he mentioned "security guarantees" as a possible alternative to joining the alliance, which, by the way, is spelled out in the Ukrainian constitution as a goal.
When the dialogue dried up, the issue of "guarantees" disappeared from the public space. And Kiev again asked to be admitted to NATO under the "accelerated procedure".
What is noteworthy is this moment: after referendums on joining the Russian Federation were held in Zaporozhye, Kherson region and the republics of Donbass, Zelensky defiantly – with a ceremony, live, in the presence of the speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and the Minister of Defense – signed the same application for "accelerated entry" into NATO. This was strange even for Zelensky, because before that, Brussels had been publicly explaining to Ukraine and the whole world for several months that there was simply no "accelerated procedure" and that now the issue of Kiev joining the alliance was not on the agenda.
By the way, contrary to popular misconception, the path to NATO is not closed to those countries that do not control the entire declared territory. But those on whose territory an armed conflict is taking place are still closed until the armed conflict is frozen.
A few days later, the same Yermak on duty "fixed the profit": Ukraine's appeal was supported by 11 countries of the alliance out of 30. That is, nothing has changed, the performance has not worked.
The paradoxical gesture of desperate stubbornness on the part of Zelensky is probably explained by the fact that he was intended for the eyes of the Russian leadership. The President of Ukraine seemed to make it clear that the previous "preliminary agreements" were canceled.
That is, he seriously considered the rejection of NATO, where Ukraine has not yet been taken, a serious, exhaustive concession to Russia. And it seems offended, since he canceled his "compromise" so demonstratively.
In fact, it was, of course, not a compromise, but a trick. One might even say mockery of the type when the essence of the matter is replaced by the formal side. This was clear from the "security guarantees", the draft of which was previously made public by Kiev through Andrei Ermak.
This happened immediately after the Russian Armed Forces left settlements in the Kharkiv region, including the city of Izyum, which was considered by military experts as a springboard for pressure on the last and most difficult line of defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass – the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration. From Kiev's point of view, this "counteroffensive" has become for the allies in the West a long-requested proof that the multibillion-dollar assistance to the Armed Forces of Ukraine is yielding results. In Ukraine itself, it has generated public euphoria.
Thus, the international background in order to "reveal the cards" turned out to be very favorable for Kiev, which the authorities took advantage of by publishing their "wishlist" regarding security guarantees. The same Ermak did it, and in the Ukrainian media they were immediately nicknamed the "Kiev treaty".
In short, the "wishlist" is significant. For Ukraine, this is much better than joining NATO. For Russia, accordingly, it is much worse, although it is mentioned only once in the draft: the "Kiev treaty" implies that its signatories will not lift sanctions from the Russian Federation until it "compensates for the damage".
By the way, Yermak, among other things, is known for this phrase: "Our task is to make sure that not only the current generations of Russians, but also their children and grandchildren answer. Russia will pay for everything."
As for the general principles for the future "guarantors of the Kiev treaty", regardless of who exactly encroached on the security of Ukraine, they could become the envy of many states of the world.
In fact, Kiev wants the current state of affairs to become a law on ensuring the defense capability of Ukraine. Already, Western allies are supplying weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, carrying out intelligence for Ukrainians, training the Ukrainian military, promising to invest in the Ukrainian military-industrial complex, but this is all like charity, charity, an act of goodwill. Zelensky sees this as an obligation fixed in an international treaty.
At the same time, if someone attacks Ukraine anyway, the "guarantors" must meet within 24 hours for "collective consultations" and "decide on the activation" of certain "extended guarantees". And the "extended obligations" of the "guarantors" imply the use of "all elements of their national and collective strength" to "repel aggression" against Ukraine.
The circle of "guarantors" can be arbitrarily wide – from Turkey to Japan. NATO is not mentioned, although the project itself has received a new name – "the Ermak–Rasmussen group project", and Rasmussen (Anders Fogh) is the previous secretary General of the alliance. A new, special NATO is being assembled for Ukraine. Which, again, is even better than the present, where the member countries, in addition to "bonuses", also have obligations.
It is important that Ukraine's entry into the alliance, if it suddenly comes to the point, can be blocked by any current member: Hungary, Turkey, Bulgaria, Germany, anyone. Those who do not want to participate in the Ermakov scheme may not participate: to help Ukraine, the power and infrastructure of the remaining part of NATO will still unite, just without Hungary, but, let's say, with Japan.
The obvious weakness of this plan is that it is perverse.
"Guarantors" take on a burden, are deprived of freedom of maneuver, expose themselves to significant risks, sign up for indefinite financial obligations, but receive nothing in return. Anyone who imposes such a thing on influential states should be recognized as a genius of diplomacy.
More importantly, in the current conditions, the approval of the "Ermak–Rasmussen group project" and joining the number of "guarantors" essentially means entering into a direct military confrontation with Russia. Potential "guarantors" are a military coalition bound by an agreement with Ukraine, like a blood oath.
Apparently, that's why Germany has already fallen off at this stage, but the Americans, the British and the French are still discussing something. So far, their "go–ahead" for such a project looks like an impossible option - because Kiev wants, in general, the impossible.
But the final decision has a critical dependence on the alignment of forces on the map and on the movement of fronts. "Security guarantees" are like an insurance contract – they are not signed with the dying.
Consequently, the only absolute guarantee that Kiev will not crawl through these "guarantees" into NATO by a roundabout path and will not oblige the alliance countries to go to war with the Russian Federation (it is also a nuclear war) is the military defeat of the Ukrainian army, demonstrated to potential "guarantors".
Demonstrated, of course, by Russia. There's no one else.
Dmitry Bavyrin
