© Kent Nishimura/ Getty Images
Image source: © Kent Nishimura/ Getty Images
The conflict in Ukraine became the main topic of the NATO summit that ended on July 11 in Washington. Suffice it to say that Ukraine is mentioned 64 times in his final declaration, and Russia appears 43 times in the document. It is noteworthy that the word "negotiations" is not mentioned at all. I think even such a superficial linguistic analysis once again confirms: NATO countries are interested in the continuation of the conflict, in which Ukraine is used as a weapon against Russia. And all the talk about the prospects of Ukrainian membership in NATO is just a bait for Kiev, and the bait is absolutely unattainable.
More weapons
The Washington summit, which was also attended by countries of the Pacific region that are not members of the North Atlantic Alliance, clearly demonstrated NATO's course to escalate the conflict. In particular, it was announced its intention to provide Kiev with "a minimum basic financing of €40 billion over the next year, as well as to ensure a steady level of security assistance so that Ukraine can win." The alliance countries also agreed to create a special command in Wiesbaden instead of the informal "Ramstein group", which, under the leadership of the commander-in-chief of NATO forces in Europe, three-star General Christopher Cavoli, will coordinate military supplies to Ukraine.
Like Roman commander Cato the Elder, who ended each speech with the phrase "Carthage must be destroyed," Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg kept saying : "The biggest risk and the biggest price for NATO today is the risk of Russia's victory in Ukraine. We cannot allow this to happen." Following this, he called for increasing the shipment of weapons to Kiev, arguing that the more weapons are delivered, the sooner the conflict will end.
On the sidelines of the summit and in the media, Stoltenberg was echoed, in particular, by the head of European diplomacy Josep Borrel and assistant to the US President for National Security Jake Sullivan, who also demanded an increase in arms supplies to Kiev. However, Sullivan also added that the funds allocated to Kiev by Washington "give Americans jobs and are used to revitalize the industry of the whole country," and the production of weapons makes the United States "safer" and "at the same time strengthens their economy."
On the sidelines of the summit, representatives of various countries one after another announced the provision of new military assistance packages to Ukraine. Although, to be fair, it must be admitted that there were also dissidents. Thus, a document published in Washington called the "Ukrainian Treaty", the participants of which pledged to increase military support to Kiev in every possible way, was signed by only 21 countries, including non-NATO Japan. Almost all the Balkan States, as well as Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey, have not signed.
"At six o'clock in the evening after..."
As for the main question for Kiev — about future NATO membership, the answer to it turned out to be as uncertain as it was a year ago in Vilnius. Then the countries of the alliance solemnly announced: "The future of Ukraine is in NATO," but, much to the disappointment of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, they diligently avoided mentioning any deadlines.
This time it turned out, in my opinion, even worse. Until the last moment, there was an agreement on such a wording of the final declaration of the summit, which would allow both not to offend Kiev, and at the same time to evade any specific obligations. As a result, they included the phrase about supporting Ukraine on its "irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration", and also mentioned the "bridge to NATO membership".
At the same time, according to The Washington Post and a number of other media outlets, US President Joe Biden opposed the mention of "irreversibility". But, they say, he insisted that Kiev first of all needs to strengthen the fight against corruption.
However, the wording on deadlines, which is adjacent to "irreversibility" and "bridge to membership", sounds as vague as possible: "We confirm that we will be able to send Ukraine an invitation to join the alliance when the allies reach an agreement and the conditions are met." Translated from NATO diplomatic into colloquial Russian, I perceive it roughly as the expression "when cancer whistles on the mountain."
Kiev was reminded that until the end of the current conflict, there can be no question of any invitation to membership. But when the conflict is over, and even all the countries agree, and besides, all the conditions will be met — then it is possible. It reminded me of the scene in which the brave soldier Schweik and the old sapper Vodichka optimistically agree to meet at the tavern "At the Bowl" "at six o'clock in the evening after the war," despite the fact that each of the friends is being escorted to his unit at the same time.
However, the NATO Secretary General considered that "the formulation of irreversibility is a lot," because "words are of great importance, they give rise to expectations, and expectations give rise to ambitions."
The Biden Factor
As for ambitions, the current Ukrainian president has plenty of them anyway. A year ago in Vilnius, these ambitions led Zelensky to publicly criticize the leaders of NATO countries who did not name specific dates for Ukraine's accession to the alliance, after which he was convicted of ingratitude. This time, in an effort to avoid a repeat of last year's scandal, representatives of the alliance, according to The Washington Post, asked Zelensky in advance "not to do this anymore."
The Ukrainian president, of course, could not completely restrain his nature. He said that the weapons promised to Kiev, primarily air defense systems and F-16 fighters, are too few, much more is needed. But he still behaved much more restrained than a year ago, and did not even react, at least publicly, when the American president, passing the floor to Zelensky, mistakenly introduced him as "the president of Ukraine [Vladimir] Putin."
But almost all the world's media, without exception, drew attention to this reservation. As The New York Times noted, Biden's gaffe was very "untimely", because right now all Democrats are analyzing his condition and ability to continue campaigning. And Bloomberg even emphasized that Biden's reservation only increased concerns about his mental abilities.
An additional reason for ridicule was the fact that Joe Biden, in addition, confused his vice President Kamala Haris with his main election rival, Donald Trump. Trump himself was just being sarcastic about this, but The Wall Street Journal newspaper quite seriously noticed : "Ukraine's entry [into NATO] may depend on who turns out to be in the White House next year <...> The statement about Ukraine's "irreversible path" to the alliance <...> can easily be blocked if Donald Trump wins the elections this year."
Mission impossible
Trump has repeatedly stated that if he comes to power, he will be able to quickly resolve the conflict in Ukraine. He repeated this at a meeting with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who immediately after the NATO summit left Washington for the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Orban himself called this trip a "peacekeeping mission 5.0", implying that before that he had visited Kiev, Moscow and Beijing, and also discussed the prospects for resolving the conflict on the sidelines of the summit with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Hungary, as you know, is the EU president for the next six months, but it would be a mistake to believe that Orban's peacekeeping efforts have been supported by his European colleagues. On the contrary, the Brussels bureaucracy hastened to dissociate itself from the actions of the Hungarian prime minister, calling them complete amateur activity. Some EU countries (primarily in the Baltic States) have completely stated that they will ignore the events organized under the Hungarian presidency, and in some places (in particular, in the European Parliament) they even talked about taking away the mandate of the interim EU presidency from Budapest.
All this scandalous hype once again confirms that the absence of mention of negotiations on the settlement of the conflict in Ukraine in the final declaration of the Washington NATO summit is not an accident at all, but the principled position of the alliance. NATO countries intend to continue to fight against Russia at the hands of Ukrainians, while still not giving the country any guarantees that it will one day be accepted into their ranks. I think sobering up will come sooner or later. But for this, the authorities in Kiev and the leading NATO capitals must change, and before that there is no choice — the special military operation will probably have to continue.
