Washington’s NATO top does not have the right information for Ukraine

On the eve of NATO’s Washington summit, which runs from Tuesday to Thursday and marks the alliance’s 75th anniversary, American international coverage experts known with the realist principle signed a clear letter ultimatum for steps that would Will take Ukraine closer to NATO club. Published first in Politico and then in the UK seminary, the letter makes the case for such steps on two boxes.

First, it may increase the risk of war with Russia. Article V of the Alliance’s inaugural treaty of April 4, 1949 provides – albeit with some relaxation – for the collective defense of member states under attack. If Russia were to attack NATO-aligned Ukraine, the US-led military pact would also be at war with Russia. The second argument of the letter authors in favor of bringing Ukraine into NATO is that considering this possibility warrants significant US nationwide security.

The signatories of the letter may have distanced themselves from the writing conflict. Although the NATO club is something that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government is motivated to do and, according to contemporary polling, 77% of Ukrainians want, it is unlikely that NATO will take concrete steps that would support the club. Let’s strengthen Ukraine’s prospects. To understand why NATO did not oblige Ukraine, we have to look back and forward.

At the 2008 NATO summit in Budapest, Hungary, President George W. Bush persuaded a divided NATO to agree to occupy Ukraine. Such is America’s influence throughout the alliance: without the United States military, Article V may be meaningless. However, even if Bush won, in a way, international venues were slow to accept Ukraine. The part of the last note in that heading that dealt with Ukraine was non-committal. It said NATO was eager to include Ukraine into its ranks, but refused to make promises and gave no timeline.

Due to divisions in NATO, Kiev was relegated to the alliance’s waiting room for 14 years, before being invaded by Russia. It also did not receive the Club Action Plan promised in the Budapest note. Ukraine’s chance for a club’s life As tensions between Kiev and Moscow escalated, Ukraine was laid bare once Putin ordered his troops to march on Kiev in 2022.

The divisions within NATO regarding the Ukrainian club have deepened. Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are staunch supporters, although the mood elsewhere ranges from reluctance to outright opposition in Hungary and Slovakia.

What is worse, the fortunes of far-right parties in the untouched elections for the ECU Parliament (23 of the 32 NATO international locations also belong to the ECU Union) and their chances in countries such as France, the Netherlands, Germany or even Sweden Have a strong presence. Bad sign for Ukraine’s prospects.

Now, one might point out that additional NATO international positions support Ukraine’s entry rather than deter it. This could be exactly the right level if the decision to expand NATO was made through a majority vote.

However it doesn’t work that way anymore. In accordance with Article 10 of the Initiation Treaty, “The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State to join this Treaty in order to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area. ” This system provides veto rights to any member of the family.

Ukraine’s issues do not end here. The US has been resisting putting its pressure on Ukraine’s back. In a May 28 interview with While, President Joe Biden highlighted Russia’s ultimatum to Ukraine and Europe more generally. However, when asked about the “end game” for Ukraine he said this: “Peace is like making sure that Russia will never, ever, ever, ever take over Ukraine. Peace is like And that doesn’t mean…they are part of NATO, it means we have the same relationship with them as we have with other countries, where we supply arms so that they can defend themselves in the future. …I am not ready to support NATOization of Ukraine.”

In Kiev’s energy corridors, the realities that entail the cancellation of Ukraine’s accession to NATO are cleverly understood, while they cause despair and sadness.

Much of what is going to happen at the summit, which begins on Tuesday, is entirely predictable: NATO on the successes of its momentum, the democratic values ​​that gather it, the doubling of its membership from 16 at the height of the Cold War to 32. reach, its contributors’ greater security spending and its help in Ukraine’s resistance to Russia.

Similarly, what can be predicted is that NATO will not rule out any option that would certainly bring Ukraine closer to the club. NATO’s remarks could reportedly come with strong fresh language that matches or clearly echoes NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s remarks in April in which he described Ukraine’s path to the club as “irreversible.” Has gone. This cruel Ukraine may become a member at some, unknown, occasion. If that happens, Kiev will be happy about the language. It would be cruel if Russia could not rely on a political settlement in its fight with Ukraine that protects Ukraine from NATO.

However, even a comment indicating that Ukraine’s passage into the club is irreversible would not circumvent the need for consensus inside NATO to admit new contributors. It is no longer available, and it is uncertain when it will become available.