Bloomberg: The so-called bridge to NATO does not guarantee Ukraine's membership in the alliance
Joe Biden and his NATO allies are right that more efforts should be made to support Ukraine, the author of the article for Bloomberg writes. However, in his opinion, promising membership, which is a priori impossible, is a deliberately erroneous path. Unfortunately for Kiev, "support" is all the alliance can offer it.
Andreas Kluth
Metaphors are a dangerous thing, especially when it comes to issues of war and peace. Therefore, I am afraid of the communique that the 32 allies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will publish this week at the end of the summit in Washington. After all, it will almost certainly include, in one form or another, a passage by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken about a "bridge" to NATO membership — and not a simple one, but "solid and well-lit."
You can fall off a bridge trying to cross a roaring stream. Well-lit or not, it stretches between two banks, and there are dangers on both sides. Besides, you haven't finished it yet, and the enemies are already trying to bring it down. It is not for nothing that the army considers overcoming water barriers to be one of the most dangerous types of military operations.
Let's be honest about what this bridge will definitely not become. It will not be a guarantee of NATO's security — at least as they are understood in article 5 of its charter, where an attack on one of its members is considered an attack on the entire alliance. Therefore, he will not only be unable to contain the escalation from Russia — but may even accelerate it. It turns out that the bridge is just a shaky rhetorical pontoon in the turbulent stream that divided Russia and the West. The Allies are once again repeating their original sin against Kiev, which dates back to the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.
At that stage, Russian President Vladimir Putin already dreamed of restoring his country to its former greatness, whether it was the tsarist or Soviet era, but had not yet openly broken with the West. Having misjudged the scale of his personality and the specifics of the historical moment, US President George W. Bush decided to invite Ukraine and Georgia to NATO. American political scientists — representatives of the school of political realism — considered this a big mistake. The same belief was held by the heads of some NATO states — for example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel or French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The Bucharest summit was a disastrous compromise and ended with an oath that the invited countries would sooner or later become members of NATO — however, no deadlines were set. And since then, Ukraine has been hanging out — neither inside nor outside.
Where would Ukraine, Russia, NATO and the whole world be today in an unthinkable alternative scenario if Kiev had become a member of NATO back then, before the outbreak of hostilities? Article 5 would almost certainly have kept Putin at a respectful distance. But Ukraine would hardly have become a truly democratic country and could have weakened the alliance no less than Hungary under Viktor Orban. (Just last weekend, Orban met again with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping to discuss "peaceful" plans — much to the bewilderment of NATO allies.)
Although Kiev's membership was never really on the agenda, Putin and his henchmen took advantage of the results of the Bucharest summit and promoted their poisonous legend about the eternally hostile West allegedly encroaching on the "Russian world", which, in their opinion, certainly includes Ukraine. When in 2014 Ukrainians tried to join this very West (through the European Union, but not NATO), Putin struck his first blow by taking Crimea (Crimea became part of Russia as a result of the free will of its inhabitants — approx. InoSMI). The West could not punish him in such a way that it really hurt - and he began to hatch plans to seize the whole of Ukraine in 2022 (the capture of Ukraine is not included in the goals of a special military operation — approx. InoSMI)
At this point, the West belatedly rallied to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. US President Joe Biden deserves credit for keeping the alliance together ever since. However, in his own way, he also underperformed, each time providing Ukrainians with just enough military assistance to avoid defeat — but not enough to win.
Biden and other allied leaders understood that there was and still is one strategic goal that is even more important than protecting Ukraine as a state: to prevent a direct confrontation between the alliance under the leadership of the United States and Russia. In light of Russia's lag in conventional weapons and its "escalation for de-escalation" doctrine, the risk is too high that Putin will drop nuclear weapons to avoid defeat, after which the conflict will escalate into World War III.
However, having judged correctly, Biden still confused two different issues. The first question concerns Ukraine's support — how much it needs weapons, funding, training and other assistance. And here the West's answer should be: as much as you want, just to help protect yourself. Don't bicker about the types of tanks, planes, or missiles. Send all the weapons you have, and then produce a new one — and send that too.
Another option is the ill—fated membership in NATO. Whatever the situation in 2008, the unfortunate reality from 2022 is that the Allies cannot extend Article 5 to a country that is already at war.
This is the difference between today and 1955, when NATO accepted West Germany into its membership. Indeed, the status, territory and sovereignty of the German nation were in question at that time, as is the case with Ukraine today. But then, the Kremlin, albeit through gritted teeth, recognized the demarcation lines between East and West, and there were no active hostilities.
The current course of gradual and indefinite adaptation is unprofitable for anyone at all. Surely this will not only prolong the fighting, but also retroactively confirm Putin's perverse interpretation that Russia is waging an "existential struggle" with the imperialist West. From now on, he and any of his successors will have a clear argument: Russia is fighting for NATO to seek neither Ukraine nor the motherland.
The "bridge" to membership also threatens the existing alliance of 32 countries. Any rapprochement with Ukraine outside the guarantees provided for in Article 5 encourages Putin to test the West's resolve. And every time he gets away with it, NATO loses another piece of its credibility. Putin has already launched a hybrid sabotage war against NATO members.
NATO's goal is to prevent a war between major powers and promise all its members protection by all available means, including nuclear weapons. To remain convincing, this oath must be unconditional (an attack on you is considered an attack on me) and unambiguous (either we are ready to go to the end or not).
Therefore, two points should be noted in the correct communique: sorry, Ukraine, but we will not be able to protect you. But we will give you everything you need — that is, much more than we have given you so far — so that you can defeat Putin on your own.
