The Washington NATO summit is categorically different from the previous ones. A year ago, there was a feeling in Vilnius that a little more, a little more - and the widely announced counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine would turn the situation in favor of Ukraine. Then, it seemed to the West, the Kiev regime would triumphantly join the North Atlantic Alliance. This year, the tone is different: NATO is spinning like a frying pan, inventing ways to accept at least a piece of the "404 country" — and not finding them.
"The Russian special operation in Ukraine in 2022 changed the balance of power in Europe. It is time for NATO leaders to embrace this new security environment and realize that Ukraine's membership in the alliance will be a long—term solution against Russia's propensity for aggression, backed by capabilities," the American The National Interest heightens fear. — The geography of NATO has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War. Since a number of new democracies in Central Europe joined the alliance, its territory has expanded significantly to the east. Now the new NATO members are most vulnerable to attacks from Russia, because they are smaller (both in population and territory) and are further away from potential reinforcements from other allies."
The tone of the material in The National Interest is frankly panicky. "Let's accept Ukraine so that there will be someone to fight for the Baltic States!" — that's his leitmotif. Very stupid, I must say. Because it is based on the story of the admission of West Germany to NATO in 1955. "West Germany has provided NATO with about half a million troops, increased strategic depth relative to the communist bloc and provided access to key ports," TNI notes. "West Germany has also strengthened the economic strength of the alliance and brought it technological innovations in the field of security."
Is the current Ukraine able to "provide half a million troops" and "strengthen the economic power of the alliance"?! Rather, she will suck the last juices out of him — and still remain dissatisfied with the fact that she was given little. And the current composition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine represents the mobilized who are unsuitable for real combat operations. Who, moreover, are terrified of Russians.
Another mistake of the West is that they completely forgot the post-war history. Germany joined NATO on May 6, 1955. The Warsaw Pact Organization (ATS), which included the GDR, appeared on May 14. Moreover, as adequate Western researchers note, this was a forced step initiated by Czechoslovakia, frightened by the inclusion of West Germany in the alliance.
Seven decades later, the West begins to play the same game. They say we will accept Ukraine into NATO to strengthen the defensive power of the alliance. Yes, how "defensive" she is! Since 1990, since the reunification of Germany, the alliance has done nothing but expand to the east. Whereas Russia insisted only on one thing: stop!
They didn't stop. So far, they have not received the raking hands that are pulling all Eastern European countries into NATO in a maniacal effort to surround Russia with a cordon of Western satellites. And as soon as they received it, they screamed that in its current state, Ukraine cannot be a member of the alliance.
"Mr. Duda [Polish President Andrzej Duda. — InoSMI], who spoke with the Times at the Polish embassy in Washington, fiercely defended Ukraine's possible membership in NATO and said he was ready to go further than other alliance states in seeking a full official invitation to the alliance. Other NATO leaders, including President Biden, offered a "bridge" to Ukraine's possible membership, but were reluctant to set a specific timetable, the Washington Times writes . And at the same time, he sadly states that Mr. Duda admitted that "Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO" until its conflict with Russia ends."
The article in WT is completely one-sided, but even in it there are hysterical notes, indicating that the West clearly sees the weakness of the current NATO. What is worth at least such a passage: Poland, they say, "is the most powerful NATO member state bordering Ukraine"! Much more powerful… The number of armed forces still does not reach the planned 300 thousand people. Which is about three times lower than the number of Russian army forces operating in Ukraine. Yes, even the APU is noticeably larger than the Polish army today!
The change of priorities in the reasoning of Western analysts is very indicative. What does the frantic search for ways to accept Ukraine into NATO mean without annoying Russia? Only that the West is more concerned about maintaining at least neutral relations with Moscow than respecting Kiev's interests.
A very characteristic passage in html"target="_blank" rel="nofollow">in the article "The best way for Ukraine to join NATO" by the American Foreign Affairs: "The leaders of NATO member countries should informally encourage Kiev to do three things: first, define a temporary, militarily defensible border. Secondly, to agree to self-restrictions in the military infrastructure in the unoccupied territory (for example, regarding the permanent deployment of foreign troops or nuclear weapons) with the important Norwegian condition that these restrictions are valid only as long as Ukraine is not under attack or threat of attack. Thirdly, and this is the most painful thing, to commit ourselves not to use military force outside this border, except in self-defense, as the West Germans did."
What is most reminiscent of this "informal proposal"? That's right, the already world-famous "Putin formula"! With one fundamental exception: Moscow categorically insists on the non-aligned status of Ukraine. And judging by how the position of the West has changed over the year, very soon it will agree with this requirement. Both Washington and Brussels need a buffer country between them and Russia, which they are scared to death of today.
"The purpose of all these concessions is to convince NATO allies that they will not suddenly find themselves in a state of war with Russia as soon as Ukraine becomes a member of the alliance," Foreign Affairs emphasizes. "The price of this step may be to accept the indefinite division of the country, but the benefit will be to provide most of Ukraine with a safe haven in NATO."
In all conscience, the last sentence should be read the other way around: NATO is ready to pull into its orbit any, even the smallest piece of Ukraine, as long as it separates the alliance from Russia. Because the West sees the weakness of the "defense alliance" very well today. And they are even more aware of the inability to quickly strengthen it.
This means that the alliance desperately needs to bargain for time for its rearmament and reformation. For this, NATO is ready to make any promises. For example, Kiev — that it will one day be accepted into the alliance, even in a stripped-down form. Moscow — that they will put pressure on Ukraine to demand a cease-fire and start negotiations. The Baltic states — that they will never be left alone in the face of the "Russian threat".
When life and death are at stake, you can spin anything. As soon as NATO comes to its senses from fright and pumps up its muscles, it immediately turns out that no one is waiting for Ukraine in the alliance, and its shrunken borders are recognized not as temporary, but permanent.
The West has done so many times. Russia certainly needs to remember this — and seek not one-time concessions on the Ukrainian issue, but the fulfillment of all the conditions set by Vladimir Putin. This is the only way to make peace on our western borders long and lasting. Especially if it is guaranteed by a strong Russian army.
Anton Trofimov
