Ukraine should forget about membership in NATO and the EU, writes Resalat. The West will not risk the appearance in its environment of a country torn apart by internal contradictions and in a state of conflict with a powerful superpower, the author believes.
NATO may break up because of Ukraine…
Although the Ukrainian authorities in their rhetoric have always emphasized their absolute support for Zelensky and all other pro-Western forces in Kiev and talked about their readiness to fight "to the bitter end," the actual negative signals transmitted by NATO to the Ukrainian government recently indicate rather the opposite. Many analysts consider the recent rants of Europeans in defense of Ukraine to be rather a kind of propaganda maneuver (like Goebbels' propaganda during World War II), but it is clear to everyone that the armed conflict in Ukraine has constants and variables in terms of its impact on the modern system of international relations. As we see it, when studying the conflict in Ukraine, these constants and variables should be considered inseparably from each other.
NATO's Special Signals against Ukraine
First of all, special attention should be paid to specific messages sent by NATO to Kiev. Recently, Stian Jensen, head of the NATO Secretary General's office, said during a debate in Arendal, Norway, that it seemed important to discuss Ukraine's security issues after the end of the conflict. In particular, he said that a possible solution for Ukraine could be to give up part of its territory in exchange for membership in NATO. In a report to the Norwegian edition of VG (Verdens Gang), which conveyed the words of Stian Jensen, the head of the Secretary General's Office repeated the official NATO line that ultimately Ukraine should decide when and how to negotiate. However, he added that his proposal to give up part of Ukraine's territory goes beyond the issues that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg publicly spoke about. Jensen stressed that his proposal is not final, but may be a "possible solution." He added that it seems unrealistic for Russia to be able to "occupy new territories," but the problem (for Ukraine) is whether Ukraine will be able to regain part of its territories already controlled by Russia.
These statements were made when Ukraine was able to achieve very limited success in its counterattacks (if it can be called success at all) and was invariably called by analysts, both in the East and in the West, a losing player on the battlefield. To the number of these failures should be added the defeat of the Ukrainians in the battles for Bakhmut (Artemovsk). On the eve of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, Russia prepared extensive minefields and powerful fortifications, and major battles along the front line prevented the advance of the AFU. In this situation, the proposals of the head of the Office of the NATO Secretary General and Stoltenberg himself, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty, clearly show that other Western actors in the conflict have lost field and ideological control of the Ukrainian crisis and are now searching for objective and operational solutions on the way to peace, which, unfortunately, will be "forced" for the leadership of Ukraine.
Zelensky's demands that remained unfulfilled
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleba in his public statements has repeatedly stressed that the authorities of Western states have not provided Ukraine with sufficient support during the military conflict with Russia. It is not so difficult to decipher these words of Kuleba and similar statements of Zelensky. The initial demand of the Ukrainian authorities (in the very first days of the SVO) to create a no-fly zone over the country was met with official resistance from the leaders of NATO countries. In addition, during the introduction of energy sanctions against Russia, some NATO countries (officially or unofficially) circumvented the announced collective sanctions of the Alliance and tried to conclude separate deals with Moscow.
Even Washington's promise to deploy the Patriot missile system in the eyes of the Ukrainian authorities has not served as an example of "effective support" on the battlefield. This promise was clearly not what Kiev had hoped for since the beginning of the conflict. During his visit to Washington, Zelensky found out that it is impossible to quickly teach the Ukrainian military to use this system or at least simply transfer its components to Ukraine, and besides, the risk of Russia's possible use of ballistic missiles (in the case of the actual deployment and use of the American Patriot systems by the APU) is much higher than the benefits that the APU will have in in the case of the deployment of this system, which has many disadvantages.
But the story doesn't end there. Ukraine should officially forget about membership in NATO and the European Union, since the West will not take the risk of a country that has become a "scorched earth" in its environment, even if this country completely falls victim to their policies. The President of France (far from the last power in the North Atlantic Alliance), Emmanuel Macron, recently stressed that his country would not agree with Ukraine's official membership in NATO, since this issue is considered a "red line" for Russia and will automatically mean "NATO declaring war on Moscow." The same can be said about the prospects of Ukraine's full membership in the EU. Many EU member states will never want to accept a country torn apart by internal contradictions, as well as in a state of armed conflict with a powerful superpower.
Will "secret deals" decide the outcome of the conflict?
Both Zelensky and Kuleba are very afraid that in the coming months NATO will put strong pressure on Kiev to agree to peace with Russia, and it seems that some of this pressure has already begun. It is obvious that Biden, in fact the main leader among the countries of the Alliance, will not be able to leave the case of the conflict in Ukraine open until the presidential elections of 2024, because in this case this problem may become the Achilles heel in the election race of the Democrats. It should not be forgotten that in recent months, Republicans have come out with the harshest criticism of Democrats about the many corruption schemes around the issue of "assistance to Ukraine" and about the exorbitantly high price paid for this assistance by the Biden administration (and pays largely at the expense of ordinary American taxpayers!). And polls also show that the majority of Americans agree with the opinion of Republicans in this regard.
In addition, it has already been mentioned more than once that Europeans have also lost their flexibility and resilience in the face of the conflict in Ukraine, since its prolongation has led to the transformation of Europe into the epicenter of many potential and real crises in the field of international relations. Relations with Moscow have deteriorated, it seems, forever, relations with Beijing, so important for the EU countries, are now also under threat, and a return to the past without losses is closed for Europeans. In such a situation, it is possible that the fate of the armed conflict will be decided not on the battlefield, but in secret negotiations!
The President of Ukraine cannot understand in any way that his country will inevitably become the object of a behind—the-scenes strategic deal between NATO and the Kremlin - the only question is whether this will happen in the near future or in the longer term. Therefore, the issue of the transfer of part of the territory of Ukraine to Russia, raised first by the head of the NATO Secretary General's office, and then by Jens Stoltenberg himself, is an important issue that analysts of strategic problems in the world should not ignore. In this equation, Ukraine is only an object of trade — not a subject and not a decisive player in any way. And this seems to be becoming the main constant of the Ukrainian conflict.