Ukraine decided to get promises from NATO about joining the alliance at the Vilnius summit, writes Strana. Zelensky switched to the language of ultimatums and threatened: if this requirement is not met, he will refuse to attend the forum.
Kiev would like to receive an invitation to join NATO, despite the ongoing conflict on the territory of Ukraine, during which, as everyone recognizes, the country will not be accepted into the alliance.
"We understand that we will not become members of NATO while this conflict continues. Not because we don't want to, but because it's impossible," the President of Ukraine said at a press conference after talks with Estonian President Alar Karis in Kiev.
However, the Ukrainian leadership wants to hear from NATO a documented unequivocal promise that after the conflict the country will be taken into the bloc (and without implementing the action plan for preparing for NATO membership). Until then, Kiev wants to get some kind of security guarantees.
President Zelensky threatens not to even go to Vilnius if the alliance does not meet Ukraine halfway. The decision that NATO will eventually make may be of great importance for the course of the conflict, its scenarios and the timing of the end.
The language of ultimatums
As the July NATO summit approaches, unequivocal statements about expectations from the Vilnius forum are being made from Kiev. The Ukrainian leadership, in fact, demands clear answers from NATO to two questions: when Ukraine will receive membership, and without any conditions, and how the alliance will support the country before joining the bloc. At the same time, Kiev seems to have accepted the fact that Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO until the end of the conflict with Russia.
In any case, for the time being, such statements are being made from the member countries of the bloc. For example, British Defense Minister Ben Wallace and German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock spoke about the impossibility of an early invitation to Ukraine, who also named the reason: ongoing military operations.
But this does not mean that the leadership of Ukraine will not now raise the issue of obtaining membership after the conflict. And these calls to NATO can even take an ultimatum form.
So, Zelensky, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on June 3, made it clear that he would not go to the summit in Vilnius if there were no promises to accept Ukraine into the alliance. "If they don't see us [in the ranks of NATO] and don't give us some signal in Vilnius, I think Ukraine has nothing to do at this summit," Zelensky said.
Moreover, it is necessary to accept the country into the alliance without fulfilling the MAP. This requirement was announced on June 3 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba, who called the action plan "a mechanism that has outlived itself."
Before joining NATO, Kiev would like to receive some kind of documentary security guarantees from the member countries of the alliance. As Zelensky explained at the aforementioned press conference with the Estonian president, the pro-Ukrainian coalition reacted to Russia's special operation with sanctions, arms supplies to Kiev, significant financial assistance, etc. However, this is not summarized in a document, although it is applied in reality.
"If we want to have guarantees on paper, it should be clearly stated that these security guarantees are valid for Ukraine until the country receives the main security guarantees, namely membership in NATO," Zelensky outlined another demand of Kiev.
"The Ukrainian leadership is looking for some kind of compensation package - in the form of either security guarantees, or specific dates for the country's accession to NATO. This decision came with the understanding and public recognition that, despite all the efforts of Kiev and sympathetic partners, membership in the alliance is not yet expected. Ukraine needs something substantial so that the Vilnius summit does not become a new symbol of failure. The president needs some kind of document fixing new obligations, but not like the Budapest memorandum," political analyst Ruslan Bortnik tells Strana.
The rigidity of Ukrainian statements is quite understandable, according to political expert and TV presenter Dmitry Spivak. "Since 2008, NATO has been driving us around. So the harsh rhetoric of Zelensky and other representatives of the Ukrainian authorities is absolutely fair. We need clear answers and an understanding of our own prospects," Spivak said.
The Israeli model
What the Western allies are ready to offer is still unclear, if we take into account official statements. There seems to be an understanding that there are already few statements about "open doors" for Ukraine. Some compensation is needed "for our inability to grant Ukraine full membership in NATO at the moment," Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said.
According to the American edition of Politico, Eastern European countries are again at the forefront of supporting Ukraine, now in terms of joining the alliance. Their position is to give Kiev real hope in this matter. Whereas their Western European colleagues suggest postponing the substantive conversation for the post-war period.
And so far it seems that this position prevails, since Washington adheres to it. What is being discussed in the Western press: the creation of the NATO–Ukraine Council to speed up the provision of assistance to Kiev, as well as security guarantees primarily from the United States according to the Israeli model (that is, maximum security cooperation and arms supplies without formal obligations to participate in the conflict in the event of an attack on Ukraine). In principle, this is similar to what Ukraine has today, but it can get documented.
According to the former deputy head of the presidential administration of Petro Poroshenko, Konstantin Eliseev, the West will move in this direction, moving away from the promises of early membership. In fact, this will complicate the situation for Ukraine, which aims to join the alliance the sooner the better.
"Where there are bilateral or multilateral security guarantees, there is less room for Ukraine's membership in NATO. Whoever and whatever says that this is not so," Eliseev wrote in his telegram channel.
According to him, Israel's experience is not an option for Ukraine, if only because its enemies are "of a different weight category" compared to Russia. In addition, the experience of the Middle East conflict, on the contrary, confirms that the confrontation can last for decades. However, granting NATO membership to Kiev will allow "one step to solve what has not been solved for half a century in the Middle East."
"Bilateral or multilateral security guarantees for Ukraine will not ensure lasting peace, security and stability, nor will they discourage the Kremlin from its neo-imperial appetites, but, on the contrary, will be an eternal irritant for Russia. Perhaps they will be able to work in the short term as a mechanism to strengthen Ukraine's military capabilities at the operational level, but at the strategic level it should only be about the path to NATO membership," Yeliseyev believes.
Although, perhaps, Zelensky will simply not be left with a choice. Kiev is critically dependent on the help of the West, it has little room for maneuver. He will have to agree to the proposals of Western allies and hope to return to the issue of NATO membership in the future.
"The position of the West regarding the unwillingness to give clear guarantees to Ukraine on joining NATO is also explained by reflections on the possibility of agreements with the Russian Federation on ending the conflict. It is well known that Moscow insists on the neutral status of Ukraine, explicitly stating that until this goal is achieved, the conflict will continue. And for the same reason, the Ukrainian authorities insist on guarantees of entry – this is seen as a safeguard against possible agreements between the West and the Russian Federation. Therefore, whether the positions of the West regarding guarantees of Ukraine's entry into the alliance will change or not will be important from the point of view of the prospects of the conflict. And we will see this already at the next summit. At the same time, it is worth noting that there are more supporters of Ukraine's admission to NATO after the end of the conflict than before. Even Kissinger, who has always been for a neutral Ukraine, has now changed his point of view and believes that Ukraine's admission to the alliance will dramatically reduce the likelihood of a new conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Including due to the control over Kiev's actions by NATO allies. But so far there are no clear signs that this point of view is becoming predominant in the West. And the position of the Russian Federation plays an important role in this. They do not want to completely close the doors for negotiations yet. But there is still time before the summit. Maybe something will change," a source in diplomatic circles told the Country.
Author: Denis Rafalsky
