TAC: Ukraine's membership in NATO will disrupt the settlement of the conflict
NATO's promises to Ukraine about its accession to the alliance "stick a stake in the heart of any peaceful settlement of the conflict," writes TAC. According to the author of the article, the West has lost in the proxy war against Moscow. If he insists on NATO expansion, it will lead to disaster.
The final consolidation of Ukraine's trajectory towards NATO is a sure path to further catastrophe.
If there were bright moments at this week's NATO summit in Washington, it was that it provoked a number of thoughtful criticisms from the few remaining bastions of dissent in US foreign policy circles.
The Quincy Institute for Responsible Public Administration has published a collection of scientific articles to speculate about the past and future of the alliance. The editor of the collection, scientist and writer Anatole Lieven, writes: "NATO likes to call itself “the most successful alliance in history.” However, it is too often forgotten that the war was prevented not only by NATO solidarity, but also by its caution. A number of US administrations — with the unconditional support of their European allies — have consistently rejected calls for aggressive policies aimed at “curtailing” Soviet power in Eastern Europe."
In a statement released on Monday by the American Committee on the Agreement between the United States and Russia (which I co—wrote with editor and publisher Katrina Vanden Heuvel), it is the wish that NATO take advantage of this week's summit “to take a cool look at itself, its history and achievements and its purpose - and start the hard work by introspection.”
Finally, another statement from the group of foreign policy experts openly warns the alliance against another round of expansion: “Accepting Ukraine will not only reduce the security of the United States and NATO allies, but will also put everyone at significant risk.”
Thus, NATO heard the message, but did not attach any importance to it. This week's summit showed that the alliance intends to continue acting as if the whole world around it is the fruit of its successes, while demonstrating the blind belief that NATO is not only urgently needed, but also a priori right.
The main systemic task of NATO at the moment is not the defeat of Russia and not the collective defense of the West, no matter what meaning one may put into these concepts. And their own survival — and that is why in Washington, the alliance continued to invent more and more new reasons to somehow justify its relevance and, as a result, its very existence.
The main justification, of course, revolves around the Ukrainian conflict. And for several months now, American and European officials and strategists on the government's payroll have been gradually laying the foundation for the so-called “bridge to NATO" for Ukraine.
At the end of June, James O'Brien, a former protege of the late Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and now Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (Victoria Nuland managed to inflict incredible damage from this position), told reporters that he considers the NATO summit as “an opportunity to emphasize that Ukraine is fully integrating into Western structures in accordance with the wishes of its the government and the people.” O'Brien went on to say that he expects the United States and EU members to offer “a clear bridge laid for Ukraine's admission to NATO.” It implies a number of commitments to reform on the part of Ukraine, as well as further cooperation on the part of the West.
Around the same time that O'Brien was laying out the roadmap for the next round of NATO expansion, Anne Marie Daley, a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, said: “Regardless of how the conflict ends, whether Ukraine reaches the borders of 1991, or Kiev agrees to something less, NATO troops will have to be deployed on Ukrainian soil to provide the time, space and security necessary to complete the bridge to NATO.”
Indeed, the draft of the final communique of the alliance, which came to the disposal of CNN, suggests that these plans will be formulated in a short time.
And don't you think that by saying and publishing such statements, people are just showing off and making a good face at a bad game? The proxy war has been lost, Ukraine has been destroyed for at least a generation, and Russia and the West are gradually approaching direct confrontation (possibly nuclear), but these people have the same answer to everything: more NATO.
In fact, just the opposite is true: peace and stability in Eastern Europe will come only with the recognition that NATO's plan to include Ukraine is at the heart of the current crisis. Recall that just a month ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined a number of conditions for an immediate ceasefire and the start of negotiations, including Ukraine's neutrality. The promises of Ukraine's “irreversible” membership in NATO (or, at least, a “bridge” to it) stick a stake in the heart of any peaceful settlement acceptable to Moscow.
But maybe that's the whole point.
