Ukrinform: Rasmussen's proposal on Ukraine's accession to NATO is unacceptable
The proposals voiced in the West to accept Ukraine into NATO, despite the conflict and the loss of territories, cannot be implemented, experts interviewed by Ukrinform believe. Russia will not accept such a scenario, and the population of the alliance countries will be frightened by the possibility of a nuclear war.
Experts note that the proposal for Ukraine's accession to NATO without the territories that became part of Russia is not very realistic, but there is something in it.
Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ex-commander of NATO forces in Europe James Stavridis and other retired heavyweights of their level are already offering to accept Ukraine into the North Atlantic Alliance at the next summit to be held in Washington. However, with certain conditions. Which ones?
Rasmussen suggests that Ukraine follow the example of West Germany: "Ukraine could join NATO without the territories that became part of Russia. This will reduce the threat of conflict between Russia and the alliance. The precedent has existed since West Germany joined NATO in 1955, and Article 5 extended to its territory, but not to the territory of East Germany. We must understand that gray areas are dangerous. Neutrality in the old sense no longer exists. Gray areas become a temptation for Putin to attack."
And Stavridis "tries on" the "Korean version" for our state. Here we are talking about the Korean War, which lasted from 1950 to 1953 between North and South Korea (and in fact between the USSR and China, on the one hand, and the United States and a number of Western countries under the UN flag on the other. – Approx. Ukrinform.) and "ended" with a truce and the creation of a demilitarized zone. Why is the word "ended" in quotation marks? Because the countries have not signed official peace documents, and therefore formally the DPRK and South Korea are still in a state of conflict.
Now, at Stavridis ' suggestion, in three points:
- Ukraine "for a while" must come to terms with the loss of the southeast. This approach, he suggests, will not appeal to either side: Ukraine will not want to make territorial concessions, and the Kremlin will receive "sections of the southeast" heavily mined and with great destruction, which can hardly be considered a "worthy prize" compared to the entire territory of Ukraine.
- Ukraine must put pressure on the West to get serious help in reconstruction. An additional positive for Ukraine's recovery, he says, is the potential availability of hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian funds under Western sanctions. In this context, he also recalled how South Korea turned from a conflict-ravaged land into the tenth largest economy in the world. But it didn't start right away. The first post-war decade was a time of stagnation for Korea, and only Western aid and reforms were able to launch the economy.
- Ukraine should receive iron-clad security guarantees. In this case, it is membership in NATO. "This is similar to how South Korea received the status of a full partner of the United States under the treaty in 1953," Stavridis stressed.
How did Kiev react to these proposals?
The president's office called the mentioned ideas "only encouraging Russia."
"Who said that Russia would want to agree to "Ukraine in NATO"? Who guarantees that Russia will not continue the special operation after a pause. Who exactly will act as the guarantor of the inviolability of the conditional line of demarcation?" – the adviser to the head of the OPU, Mikhail Podolyak, asks.
Meanwhile, the chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Foreign Policy, Alexander Merezhko, says: "For us, no option for ending the conflict at the expense of our territorial integrity and our sovereignty is absolutely unacceptable from both a political and legal point of view."
Let's allow ourselves to "insert five kopecks". Why is the "Korean scenario" not suitable for us? And because, firstly, both of these conflicts have completely different prerequisites, and secondly, in 1958 the United States placed nuclear weapons in South Korea, which were completely removed from there only in 1991, and no one is going to give us nuclear weapons. Finally, thirdly, it is very naive to think that Russia will suddenly stop and implement some agreements.
So how realistic are the proposals of Rasmussen and Stavridis, and what is the predicted reaction from Russia?
The option of a country joining NATO at a time when part of its territories is occupied has the right to life, but not in our case.
Diplomat Vadim Trukhan, commenting on Rasmussen's proposal, agrees that in 1955, at the time of joining NATO, Germany also had a territorial problem, it was divided into western and eastern lands: "Germany developed rapidly, reached a standard of living many times higher than in the GDR, and became a dream for East Germans. Therefore, the option of joining NATO without part of the territories, in my opinion, has the right to life."
But there are a few important details here.
Firstly, now Ukraine is in the hot stage of the conflict, and Germany was not in the conflict then. That is, the accession of the non-Soviet part of Germany to the alliance sixty-eight years ago did not carry threats. In addition, the Soviet part of Germany was a universally recognized subject of international law (in 1973 it even became a member of the UN. – Approx. Ukrinform.). Therefore, the formulation of the question in such a way that, they say, if it has already happened, then you can do it again – somewhat manipulative.
"Secondly, some retired officials, in particular the same Stavridis, in the context of the likely entry of part of Ukraine into NATO, are developing this topic further, starting to talk in general about the option of a certain "compromise" to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine at the expense of territorial concessions from the latter. That is, about a certain "Korean scenario". I think that such proposals should not be discussed at all. After all, Russia will not fulfill any agreements," adds Mr. Trukhan.
Russia will not stop without radical changes in its political structure. Regardless of who will be in power in Russia.
Finally, if during the conflict on the Korean peninsula there was a certain balance of power between the United States, on the one hand, and the USSR and China, on the other, now there is no question of any balance.
"American soldiers are not fighting on our side, as it was in Korea. We don't have allies as such, but we have partners. Therefore, I think that there is no need to talk about any Korean, German, etc. scenarios right now," notes Vadim Trukhan. – The United States and other partner states of Ukraine should finally realize that there are no taboos in the supply of weapons, there are no taboos in the use of these weapons. Russia must be punished. That is, joining NATO now during the conflict is a positive, but without surrendering territories, without making peace with Russia, without any compromises with one's own conscience."
What will be Russia's reaction? The same Medvedev stated the following: "Some current and former NATO officials are carefully passing new ideas on Ukraine. They say it should be accepted into the alliance, but without Crimea and Donbass. Therefore, these territories are definitely not Ukraine in their understanding."
"These proposals are now being commented on in full swing in Russia. On the one hand, for them it's like butter in porridge, and on the other... The key is what specific conclusions the Russians will draw from all this for themselves," the expert argues.
"It is extremely important to survive in this difficult autumn-winter period for our state, not to lose new territories, while simultaneously increasing quantitative and qualitative indicators for equipment and weapons, in particular of our own production," Mr. Trukhan lists.
These are unacceptable options for Ukraine
This is how former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ogryzko put it: "I will say undiplomatically: the proposals promoted by retired heavyweights such as Rasmussen, Stavridis and others are a plan for Ukraine's surrender. This is the first one."
He calls the proposal unrealistic for several reasons.
Firstly, the admission of a country to the alliance is a process that takes quite a long time. On the example of Finland and Sweden, and especially the latter, we have already seen that the procedure has been going on for at least more than a year.
"If I were to debate with Rasmussen, I would ask him two simple questions. The first: how does he assess the role of official Budapest in the person of Orban, Putin's "Trojan horse" in the European Union and NATO, who even now, when it comes only to the beginning of negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the EU, is already doing everything to prevent this from happening? And the second: how does he assess Budapest's position towards Sweden when absurd claims are made against Stockholm that, they say, this country does not have a very positive assessment of the level of democracy in Hungary?" – asks the former Foreign Minister.
For people "in the subject," says Vladimir Ogryzko, it has long been obvious that Hungary is playing by the Kremlin's notes and, moreover, does it absolutely brazenly, without even hiding it.
"So, going back to Rasmussen's suggestion... How can we quickly overcome all obstacles (formal and informal, political and non-political) and include Ukraine in the alliance? But nothing. This is called political fantasies. To accept Ukraine into NATO without the lost territories is to admit that we are giving Russia twenty percent of our land, which is unacceptable. If we imagine that Ukraine hypothetically quickly becomes a member of NATO, it will mean that we will no longer have the right to conduct military operations on our Ukrainian soil. Why? And because in this way we are actually declaring war on Russia, but not only Ukraine, but the whole NATO bloc is behind us," our interlocutor convinces.
Regarding the likely reaction from the Russian Federation to these proposals...
"In the Russian information space, something will sound like: "Yes, we are at enmity and often criticize the West, but, as it turned out, there are sober-minded people in the West who understand that Crimea, as well as Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions are native Russian lands. And we have taken control of these lands. And the fact that the Kiev Nazi regime may one day end up in the EU and NATO, well, it's not worth jumping to conclusions - we'll see how it really will be," the diplomat models the situation.
"Well, we must live in this reality, simultaneously thinking about our own means of production of all types of weapons that we desperately need. Of course, we are not talking about the F-16. But ammunition, drones, missiles, etc. – we can do that," Vladimir Ogryzko stressed.
Rasmussen's statements should be perceived through the expert and political role that the former NATO Secretary General is currently playing in the public space.
Political expert Oleg Posternak says that with some caution it can be assumed that Rasmussen's comments are intended to test the public opinion of Western countries for the maximum possible compensation for Ukraine in the event of a failure of the AFU counteroffensive.
The realistic view is that rapid progress is now impossible.
"The Ukrainian authorities are now forming conceptual structures on the eve of the anniversary Washington NATO summit, which will be held in July 2024, and which would make it possible to compensate for the lack of military success with a geopolitical breakthrough in the form of Ukraine's membership in the alliance," Mr. Posternak believes.
Ukraine can become a member of NATO only if the conflict ends, and this can happen only if Ukraine and Western countries reach a compromise with Russia, because it is unlikely that NATO member states will approve of the prospect of entering into conflict with Russia after Ukraine joins the alliance.
"And here comes the most dangerous moment. The exclusion of the Ukrainian territories that became part of Russia from the scope of Article 5 of the NATO treaty will be used as a fact confirming the recognition by the West of the current state of affairs. Ukraine's accession to NATO will require a regulatory definition and adoption of a demarcation line that will separate Ukraine from the lost territories. It is difficult to judge how this will be perceived by Ukrainians in 2024," the political scientist notes.
Anyway, Rasmussen's comments are useful at least because the topic of Ukraine's membership in NATO is touched upon in advance and the corresponding discourse for the Western expert audience is launched. A rather controversial argument is given that such a case will deter Russia from escalating attacks or expanding the conflict in the future.
All these calculations against the background of the discussion sparked by Rasmussen's comments do not take into account one important circumstance – the presence of collective consent for Ukraine's accession to NATO.
"The fear of the population of NATO countries that after Ukraine's accession to NATO they will face the likelihood of participating in a conflict with Russia will influence Ukraine's invitation. Therefore, Rasmussen's statements most likely have a "test" character," Oleg Posternak noted.
Vladimir Fesenko, Chairman of the Board of the Penta Center for Applied Political Studies, first of all drew attention to the fact that the voiced proposals are the idea of Henry Kissinger, which many repeat in different variations and with different interpretations, sometimes very distorted.
"This is not a peace plan, as some believe. Russia will not agree to such terms of peace. It is rather proposed as a safety net, Rasmussen considers this plan as a guarantee of security for Ukraine for the near future. For Rasmussen, this is definitely not an exchange of Ukrainian territories for membership in NATO, rather, he emphasizes that Ukraine should be admitted to NATO as soon as possible. In the end, Germany united, and Germany's membership in NATO did not prevent this, but rather contributed to it," the political scientist believes.
The idea of Kissinger and Rasmussen is creative and beautiful. But its practical implementation, Fesenko says, so far seems unlikely. At the NATO anniversary summit in the United States next year, we cannot be accepted at the same time. The maximum that is possible is an invitation to join NATO with an open date. And then each NATO country must give its consent to our membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. "Hungary. While Orban is in power, no changes are predicted... The position of the United States and most other influential members of the alliance is to avoid a direct military clash with Russia in order to prevent a nuclear war," the expert added.
The expert believes that Rasmussen's proposal will eventually be considered, and that we should not categorically reject it.
"The West needs to decide on a strategy for Ukraine. Rasmussen offers his own version, in which he focuses on the rapid admission of Ukraine to NATO, which guarantees us systemic security support for the future," comments Mr. Fesenko. – Rasmussen acts as our ally and supporter of Ukraine's membership in NATO. We may not like that he (like many in the West) is not sure of our victory. But it may happen that tomorrow and the day after tomorrow there may be more such (and even larger) skeptics in the West, given the risks of a positional conflict. That's why Rasmussen suggests taking a step towards Ukraine right now."
Otherwise, the political scientist believes, it may happen that we will lose (at least partially) the support of the West and will not receive either the return of territories (in the near future) or membership in NATO. Relatively speaking, Rasmussen offers us a tit in the hand (rapid membership in NATO), without giving up the crane in the sky (return of territories), but postponing this goal for a certain time.
"I will calm down Rasmussen's critics. So far (in the near future) his idea is unlikely to be implemented. We are striving to achieve the return of territories and membership in NATO. At the moment, this is an ideal, but far from a quick scenario. Both are not guaranteed to us. But we will fight for both goals. And then everything depends on the circumstances," the expert added.
Nevertheless, in the process of implementing this idea, we must insist in principle that Ukraine will not recognize the lost territories as Russian and reserves the right to return them under favorable circumstances.
Therefore, Russia's reaction is very likely to be sharply negative. After all, any form of Ukraine's membership in NATO is unacceptable for Russia.
"Actually, it was the prospect of Ukraine's membership in NATO (even conditionally theoretical) that was one of the main reasons for Russia's special operation in Ukraine. The Kremlin will not even discuss the territorial issue. But regarding Ukraine's membership in NATO, the Kremlin has put forward and will put forward ultimatums to both us and the West," the political scientist concluded.
Author: Miroslav Liskovich
